and for your second statement: “Al-huseini visited Hitler and ask him to burn the Jews”
Bibi definitely based his words on a poorly written book by Barry Rubin and Wolfgang Schwanitz- they received good reviews mostly from Daniel Pipes fun club: the Middle East Forum and friends ;D
Late Barry Rubin and Wolfgang Schwanitz, claim that mufti was actually responsible for the mass killing of the Jews of the Holocaust.
They formulate the theory that Haj Amin was the architect of the Holocaust and that he had so much power over Hitler and his cronies that he was, in effect, the perpetrator of the mass murder of the Jews of Europe. Much of the material to support this comes from Fritz Grobba (former German envoy to Kabul, Baghdad and Riyadh, and Muslim-Arab affairs officer in the Nazi foreign ministry). But they don’t show any independent documentary confirmation of it!!
The earliest accusations seem to stem from the circle of Rudolf Kastner, whose Zionist “rescue” operation dickered with Adolf Eichmann for Jewish emigration in return for trucks and other supplies in Budapest in 1944. Shortly after the war Kastner submitted an affidavit to British authorities in which he claimed that Eichmann’s subordinate Dieter Wisliceny had told Kastner he was convinced that the mufti had “played a central role in the decision to exterminate the Jews.” Rather than indict Husseini at Nuremberg, the British dismissed this and other charges as Zionist propaganda. (Philip Mattar, The Mufti of Jerusalem [NY: Columbia University Press, 1988], pp. 105-107).
But in Rubin and Schwanitz book the notion that al-Husaini played a key role in Hitler’s settling on the Final Solution is based on one piece of thin hearsay evidence: comments that the controversial Hungarian Jewish leader Rudolf Kastner attributed to Eichmann’s subordinate Dieter Wisliceny. (Rubin and Schwanitz oddly credit the comments to Eichmann himself.)
Jeff Blankfort read the piece carefully and passed along this comment: Dershowitz’s statement that the Mufti “personally stopped 4,000 children, accompanied by 500 adults, from leaving Europe and had them sent to Auschwitz and gassed,” is almost word for word from the FIRST part of a sentence by Raul Hilberg, on p. 504 of the “Destruction of the European Jews.” According to Hilberg, “4,000 children, accompanied by 500 adults reached Palestine and for that reason he [Mufti] asked the German Foreign Minister to do his utmost to prevent further immigration from Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary.” That’s it in 790 pages. There is no any other mention of the Mufti until the end of the book when the American Jewish Conference wanted him prosecuted as a war criminal- the evidence that he was involved in any way with the Nazi extermination operation does not appear to be in Hilbergs book.
Robert Fisk rightly writes [reviewing the book]:
When a proposal that Jews were to be released from Nazi captivity – 10,000 children via Romania to Palestine in 1942 – in return for the Allied release of German civilians, Adolf Eichmann noted that Haj Amin had heard of the plan and protested to Himmler, who, according to the book [by Barry Rubin and Wolfgang Schwanitz], “had then reversed his decision and sent them (the children) back to almost certain death”. The authors repeat the story that Haj Amin had visited Auschwitz extermination camp, drawing upon a sinister document recording the Palestinian Grand Mufti’s 1943 visit to Himmler at the Ukrainian village of Zhitomir (near Kiev), which is geographically close to the Polish town of Oswiencim (Auschwitz). Rubin and Schwanitz say that it is “POSSIBLE” Haj Amin visited the death camp on his way to Zhitomir, and that Treblinka and Majdanek camps were “also conveniently located for a possible visit along the route”.
McKeekin quoted Hitler as telling Haj Amin that he would annihilate “the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands”, a sentiment which the Palestinian heard “with an air of gratification”. The source, again, is Grobba. And the problem is obvious. If we trust this account, do we therefore trust the Nazi version of history? […] how come the Nazis were scrupulously honest in recording Haj Amin’s actions and words?
Idith Zertal: “Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood” and what she describes as: nazification of the Arabs… As she writes: mufti plays a “starring role” in the four-volume Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (edited under the auspices of Yad Vashem by Yisrael Gutman): The article on the Mufti is more than twice as long as the articles on Goebbels and Göring, longer than the articles on Himmler and Heydrich combined, longer than the article on Eichmann — of all the biographical articles, it is exceeded in length, but only slightly, by the entry on Hitler.
The need to displace the charge of collaboration from Zionists to Palestinians grew.
Shortly after Israeli agents kidnapped Adolf Eichmann and spirited him to his show trial in Israel, the once prominent journalist Quentin Reynolds was hired by the Israelis to do a hatchet job on Eichmann. Based on material supplied by the Zionists, Reynolds’s Minister of Death claimed that the mufti had been a close confidante of Eichmann, and had displayed an avid interest in the extermination machinery. Reynolds quoted the mufti as telling friends “the Palestine problem will not be solved in a diplomatic conference but by other means — simple and radical like the gas chambers,” and reported that “[h]is green turban was seen many times in Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Majdanek.” Yet the author offered no sources for any of these claims, which were published by Harold Guinzburg’s respected Viking Press in 1960.-IHR 2001 vol.20 no. 4.
In poor written book: “Icon of Evil: Hitler’s Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam”, the authors claim that the relationship between Eichmann and Husseini “is well documented and indisputable.” (p51).
The fact is, Husseini claimed that he did not know Eichmann. Eichmann claimed that they met once at a dinner. The degree of al Husseini’s involvement and the depth of his knowledge is largely a matter of speculation. The only source sited for a relationship between Eichmann and Husseini is the testimony of of a single German Nazi, Dieter Wisliceny. The entire premise of the book seems to pivot on the legitimacy of that one source.
Hannah Arendt, who attended the complete Eichmann trial, concluded in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil that, ‘The trial revealed only that all rumours about Eichmann’s connection with Haj Amin el Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded.
EVEN Bernard Lewis called Wisliceny’s testimony into doubt: ‘There is no independent documentary confirmation of Wisliceny’s statements, and it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from the outside.
OTHER VOICES AGAINST BIBI AND BARRY RUBIN + W. SCHWANITZ
“I spent my life studying these things,’ said Saul Friedländer, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945. ”I don’t believe the prime minister’s disgusting statement deserves a serious answer… it simply shows who he is: somebody ready to falsify our most tragic history, for political propaganda purposes.”
Deborah Lipstadt, the Dorot professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust studies at Emory University, said Netanyahu’s account is “just not a factually accurate statement.”
“If the prime minister wants to learn more about this, there’s no dearth of books he could read.” She suggested he check out Friedländer’s book – which lays out how the Nazis planned and developed the final solution beginning in 1941. The mufti does not appear anywhere in the text.
It’s true that between 1941 and 1946 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem — a religious figure appointed by the British in Mandatory Palestine — lived in Berlin. He met Hitler in 1941, and the minutes of that meeting have been examined by historians.
“It’s pretty simple, we have a transcript,’ said Philip Mattar, the author of the first published biography of al-Husayni, The Mufti of Jerusalem. “There’s no mention of exterminating the Jews.”
The mufti was known for making anti-Jewish statements, and lobbying the Nazis to prevent Jewish migration to mandatory Palestine, even as the Nazis began to funnel millions of European Jews into death camps. In his speech, Netanyahu claimed that the mufti was “sought for war crimes in the Nuremberg trials.” While al-Husayni’s name did come up during the trials, he was never “sought” or prosecuted. “The mufti was indeed quite callous,” Mattar said. “But it’s not like the Nazis needed encouragement to carry out the extermination of Jews. In fact, they regarded Arabs like the Mufti as very close to Jews and Gypsies in their status.” Lipstadt agreed. “Look, was the mufti upset that Jews were being killed? Probably not,” she said. “But did he suggest doing it? There’s no evidence of that.” But the mufti faded as a national figure after the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, said Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said professor of Arab studies at Columbia University. “He was a totally forgotten figure, a completely new leadership emerged throughout the 1950s,” he said. The renewed emphasis on the mufti’s links to the Nazis, Khalidi said, is the result of right-wing Israeli historians who are eager link the Palestinian movement with anti-Jewish sentiment. “He did align himself with the Nazis,” Khalidi said. “He thought the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Joshua Zimmerman, the chair of Interdisciplinary Holocaust studies at the Yeshiva University in New York, said that Nazi’s calculations leading up to the “Final Solution” are well documented by historians, and do not include the Palestinian leader at all. Zimmerman looked through the major academic histories of the Holocaust to find a reference to the mufti. He came up short. “In a few Israeli texts he appears in the footnotes, at the peripheries,’ he said. “That’s it.”
An interesting article:
David Motadel How Nazi Germany’s leaders tried to recruit Muslims to their war against Jews, Britain, and Bolshevism. Fragments:
ON JULY 25, 1940, JUST AFTER THE FALL OF FRANCE and at the outset of the Battle of Britain, retired German diplomat Max von Oppenheim sent Berlin’s Foreign Office a seven-page memorandum. It was time, he argued, for a comprehensive strategy to mobilize the Islamic world against the British Empire.
German officials showed little interest in the Middle East, and even less in the wider Muslim world. Hitler’s plans were focused on eastern Europe. In the non-European world, Berlin acknowledged the imperial interests of Italy and Spain, which Hitler sought as allies. A policy of Muslim mobilization was deemed unnecessary.
As Germany’s war expanded into Muslim-populated lands, that outlook changed.
In 1941, with German troops fighting in North Africa and advancing toward the Middle East, policymakers in Berlin began considering the strategic role of Islam more systematically. In November, German diplomat Eberhard von Stohrer wrote a memo asserting that the Muslim world would soon become important to the overall war. After the defeat of France, he wrote, Germany had gained an “outstanding position” and won sympathy “in the eyes of the Muslims” by fighting Britain…
Nazi Germany made significant attempts to promote an alliance with the ‘Muslim world’ against their alleged common enemies: the British Empire, the Soviet Union, America, and the Jews.
THE ATTEMPTS TO COURT MUSLIMS AROUND THE WORLD were first and foremost motivated by material interests and strategic concerns, not ideology.
While race theory could justify excluding Persians and Turks from racial discrimination, the case of the Arabs was more complicated: they were seen by most racial ideologues as “Semites.” Regime officials were well aware that the term “anti-Semite” was problematic, as it targeted groups they did not wish to offend. As early as 1935, Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry therefore instructed the press to avoid the terms “anti-Semitic” or “anti-Semitism,” and to instead use words like “anti-Jewish.”
TO THE NAZI ELITE, any undesirable racial classification of Muslim populations was a wholly different question from the desirability of Islam as a faith. In fact, many of them, including Hitler, distinguished between race and religion when speaking about Islam.
Heinrich Himmler Recounting a meeting between Himmler and Hitler in Berlin in February 1943, Edmund Glaise von Horstenau, a Wehrmacht general, noted that Himmler had expressed his disdain for Christianity, while finding Islam “very admirable”. A few months later, Himmler would again “speak about the heroic character of the Mohammedan religion, while expressing his disdain for Christianity, and especially Catholicism,” wrote Horstenau.
Himmler, who had left the Catholic Church in 1936, bemoaned that Christianity made no promises to soldiers who died in battle, no reward for bravery. Islam, by contrast, was “a religion of people’s soldiers,” a practical faith that provided believers with guidance for everyday life.
The most intimate insights into Himmler’s attitude toward Islam are given by his doctor, Felix Kersten […] To be sure, the Kersten memoirs are a problematic historical source. While some of the parts, especially those about his role in the rescue of Jews and other victims of the regime, were manipulated and fabricated by the author, others have proven to be accurate; the passages about Islam match other accounts of Himmler’s views about Muslims, and can be considered credible.
According to Kersten, Himmler saw Islam as a masculine, soldierly religion…
Hitler: After the war, Eva Braun’s sister, Ilse, remembered his frequent discussions on the topic, repeatedly comparing Islam with Christianity in order to devalue the latter. In contrast to Islam, which he saw as a strong and practical faith, he described Christianity as a soft, artificial, weak religion of suffering. Islam was a religion of the here and now, Hitler told his entourage, while Christianity was a religion of a kingdom yet to come — one that was deeply unattractive, compared to the paradise promised by Islam. For Hitler, religion was a means of supporting human life on earth practically and not an end in itself.
This recruitment campaign was not the result of long-term strategy, but a consequence of the shift toward short-term planning after the failure of the Barbarossa plan. Most of the recruits were driven by material interests. For many of the Muslim volunteers from the Soviet Union who were recruited in prisoner of war camps, a significant incentive was the prospect of pay and better provisions — fighting for the Germans was an attractive prospect compared to the appalling conditions of the camps. Others, most notably Muslim recruits from the civilian population in the Balkans and the Crimea, hoped to protect their families and villages from partisans. Some were driven into the German ranks by ideology, nationalism, religious hatred, and anti-Bolshevism. Under the banner of the swastika, the volunteers believed that they would be supporting the fight against Bolshevism or British imperialism and for the liberation of their countries from foreign rule.
…in the words of one internal SS report, the “entire Mohammedan world” that the Third Reich was ready to confront the “common enemies of National Socialism and Islam.” This misconception — this notion that Islam was a monolith that need only be activated — dominated the views of the Nazi leadership.
Hitler lamented that the Third Reich’s efforts to mobilize the Muslim world had not been strong enough […]Instead, Germany had too long respected Italian interests in the Muslim world, which had hindered, as Hitler put it, a “splendid policy with regard to Islam.” “For the Italians in these parts of the world are more bitterly hated, of course, than either the British or the French.” The German-Italian alliance had “created a feeling of malaise among our Islamic friends, who inevitably saw us as accomplices, willing or unwilling, of their oppressors,” he bemoaned.
his book: David Motadel, Islam and Nazi Germany’s War