What was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem relationship with Hitler the final solution ?
From the very inception of the Zionist project, the colonists needed to justify their claims to Palestine. Some of their talking points have shifted over time to adapt to new sensibilities. For example, in the beginning they didn’t try and frame themselves as part of some decolonial movement for indigenous rights, on the contrary, they began by justifying their claim on Palestine precisely because they were colonists who would bring civilization to a “backwards” land.
However, some talking points have remained quite consistent, such as those specifically designed to dehumanize Palestinians and portray them as irrational and bloodthirsty. This becomes exceedingly clear when you encounter the Israeli narrative of the Nakba or the “peace process”.
One of the cornerstones of this is the exaggeration of the role of the British appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, al-Haj Amin al-Husseini, who sought different audiences with both Mussolini and Hitler. His infamous picture with Hitler is often shared as indisputable proof that Palestinians are animated by an irrational hatred for everything Jewish, and that their rejection of establishing an ethnocracy on most of their homeland must stem from this same hatred.
This exaggeration reached ludicrous degrees, with even Netanyahu claiming that the Mufti actually inspired the Holocaust. We are asked to believe that Hitler, with a history of rampant genocidal and antisemitic thought, was inspired by some Middle Eastern Mufti he deemed inferior. Not to mention that the construction of the death camps had already began before their meeting ever happened. There is no need to go into detail to debunk these ridiculous remarks, as they were rightfully lambasted by Holocaust scholars who set the record straight on the matter. But I do believe there are some crucial missing details to this whole discussion. Let us take a few steps back, away from the sensationalism of the picture and the exaggerations, and try and situate all of this in its proper historical context.
The views about Husseini were controversial among historians including mainly Zionist historians , scholarly opinion is divided on the issue, with some Zionist scholars viewing him as an antisemite while some deny the appropriateness of the term, or argue that he became antisemitic due to a constellation of many factors including the actions of Zionists in Palestine and their call for an establishment of a Jewish state on Its soil. Al-Husseini’s first biographer, Moshe Pearlman, described him as antisemitic, as did, Joseph Schechtman. Both have been accused by Philip Mattar of relying on press reports and lacking sufficient background understanding. Peter Wien judges that his behavior in World War II deserved the image among Zionists of him as an ‘arch villain’, but adds that Israeli and Zionist leaders have long since used this to denigrate the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation. Robert Kiely sees Husseini as moving incrementally toward anti-Semitism as he opposed Jewish ambitions in his homeland.
Philip Mattar states the overriding cause behind the dispossession of Palestinians lay in the Balfour Declaration, British policies and the combined military superiority of Yishuv forces and the Mandatory army. Husseini’s initial moderation and then failure to compromise was a contributory factor, but not decisive. Zvi Elpeleg on the other hand compares him to Chaim Weizmann, David Ben-Gurion, and even to Theodor Herzl.
The Germans denied al-Husseini’s request for legitimization.They were reluctant to initiate unnecessary disputes with Italy or Vichy France, harbored doubts about the extent of al-Husseini’s actual authority in the Arab world, had reservations about making long-term statements regarding areas of the world beyond the reach of German arms, and viewed Arabs as inferior. As the Israeli historian Tom Segev writes, Husseini wanted a “Kind of German Balfour declaration for the Arabs,” referring to the 1917 British decree that sanctioned the creation of “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. “Hitler refused to sign such a document. Foolishly, Husseini agreed to have his picture taken with Hitler, which has haunted the Palestinian cause ever since,” Segev concludes.
Additionally, the conversation that went between the Mufti and Himmler was as follows:
Himmler asked me on the occasion: “How do you propose to settle the Jewish question in your country?”
Husseini : “All we want from them is that they return to their countries of origin.“
He (Himmler) replied: “We shall never authorize their return to Germany”.
(Diaries of Haj Mohammad Amin Husseini, pp.126–127.).
The mufti didn’t want the establishment of a Jewish state on his homeland. He didn’t want Zionist colonialism to expand ,and was aware of the Zionist meetings that called for the ethnic cleansing of his people.
It’s also important to note that Husseini was just one of many political figures from parts of the colonial world who saw political gain in allying with the Axis powers. In hindsight, World War II lends itself to a simple, stark binary as a conflict between genocidal fascists and their opponents. But for myriad communities that experienced the invasions of the Germans and Japanese, the war offered something else — the prospect of liberation from other occupying empires.This led to all sorts of brief alliances with the axis (the Palestinian nation didn’t participate in): Bosnian Muslim regiments in the Waffen SS; Romanians, Hungarians, Ukrainians and other Eastern European nationalists collaborating with the Nazis; Indian freedom fighters taking up arms against the British with Japanese aid.
Opponents of Palestinian nationalism and calls for liberty have pointed to Husseini’s wartime residence and propaganda activities in Nazi Germany to wrongfully associate the just Palestinian national movement with European-style antisemitism. Regardless, the Mufti of Jerusalem was never truly a leader of the Palestinian people and after the war and subsequent Palestinian exodus, his claims to leadership were wholly discredited and he was eventually sidelined by the Palestine Liberation Organization, losing most of his residual political influence. He died outside of Palestine, in Lebanon. Peter Novick has argued that the post-war historiographical depiction of al-Husseini reflected complex geopolitical interests that distorted the record:
“The claims of Palestinian complicity in the murder of the European Jews were to some extent a defensive strategy, a preemptive response to the Palestinian complaint that if Israel was recompensed for the Holocaust, it was unjust that Palestinian Muslims should pick up the bill for the crimes of European Christians. The assertion that Palestinians were complicit in the Holocaust was mostly based on the case of the Mufti of Jerusalem, a pre-World War II Palestinian nationalist leader who, to escape imprisonment by the British, sought refuge during the war in Germany. The Mufti was in many ways a disreputable character, but post-war claims that he played any significant part in the Holocaust have never been sustained. This did not prevent the editors of the four-volume Encyclopedia of the Holocaust from giving him a starring role. 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 for Hitler.”
This manipulation by Zionist leaders was used so the world can turn an eye from the continuation of the Zionist colonial regime and was evident In October 2015 , when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that Hitler at the time was not thinking of exterminating the Jews, but only of expelling them, and that it was al-Husseini who inspired Hitler to embark on a programme of genocide to prevent them from coming to Palestine. Netanyahu’s remarks were broadly criticized, and dismissed by Holocaust scholars from Israel and Germany. Christopher Browning called the claim a “blatantly mendacious attempt to exploit the Holocaust politically”, “shameful and indecent” as well as fraudulent, aimed at stigmatizing and delegitimizing “any sympathy or concern for Palestinian rights and statehood”. The official German transcript of the meeting with Hitler contains no support for Netanyahu’s assertion.
The Palestinian people are proud of the fact that they were among the few who did not collaborate with Nazis. In the matter of fact Palestinian brigades were enlisted into the British Army to fight against the Nazis, and the Palestinian resistance to the brutal British occupation almost completely ceased during and after WWII.
On the other hand, the peoples and governments of France, Italy, Japan, Romania, Croatia, Chechnya, Bulgaria, Switzerland, … etc. , all collaborated with the Nazis. Tragically, many of these peoples and governments happily pointed out their Jewish citizens to the Gestapo. Israel ignored many choices made by most European people and governments who openly collaborated with the Nazis. The Palestinian people did not harbor nor cover up for Nazi war criminals as the US have did for decades.
In that regard, it’s worth noting that Josef Stalin, the Soviet premier and dictator, forcibly transferred the people of the Caucasus to Siberia as a collective punishment for their collaboration with the Nazis during WWII. However, the same people were allowed to return to their homes in 1958 when the scale of the war crime became known to Khruschev, Stalin’s successor in the 1950s. If the people of the Caucasus were allowed to return to their homes under Communist rule, why can’t the Palestinian refugees who had nothing to do with the Holocaust or Nazi Germany whatsoever are prevented from returning to their homes or lands?
IRONICALLY, the shocking truth is that it has been proven that the Zionist Jewish Stern gang received funding and arms from the Italian Fascists. In fact, the Stern gang’s collaboration with the Fascists and Nazis was going on while their Jewish brothers were being persecuted in Nazi concentration camps. It should also be noted that when the Americans, British, and their Arab allies were busy blocking the Desert Fox’s (Erwin Römmel) advances in north Africa, the Stern gang’s leader Yitzhak Shamir(later on 7th prime minister of Israel) and the terrorist Zionist Jewish Irgun gang’s leader Menachem Begin(later on 6th prime minister of Israel) were busy ambushing British soldiers, blowing up the vital Haifa-Cairo railroad supply line, and terrorizing Palestinian civilians (Righteous Victims, p.174).
On more than one occasion Avraham Stern, founder and leader of the infamous Stern gang (Lehi), sought to forge an alliance with Hitler, even offering to take part in the war on Germany’s side. All of this would be in return for German support to establish a “totalitarian Hebrew republic” in Palestine. This isn’t some small fringe group, members of Lehi would go on to occupy the highest echelons of Israeli government, and even the position of Prime Minister. Stern is still revered today in Israel, and has a settlement named in his honour, as well as a postage stamp.
When Yitzhak Shamir, Israel’s future Prime Minister in the 1980s, was asked to explain their collaboration with the Fascists, he replied:
”The enemy of my enemy is my friend.“ (Tom Segev, One Palestine Complete , p.464).
Since these findings have only have just started to surface lately (and are kept smothered in many Jewish communities), I feel it’s necessary to directly quote one of the most pro-Israel historians, Martin Gilbert, who wrote:
“Avraham Stern who had formed a breakaway ‘Irgun in Israel’ movement(also known as the Stern Gang), tried to make contact with Fascist Italy in the hope that, if Mussolini were to conquer the Middle East, he would allow a Jewish State to be set up in Palestine. When Mussolini’s troops were defeated in North Africa, Stern tried to make contacts with Nazi Germany, hoping to sign a pact with Hitler which would lead to a Jewish State once Hitler had defeated Britain. After two members of the Stern’s Gang had killed the Tel Aviv [British] police chief and two of his officers, Stern himself was caught and killed. His followers [chief among them Yitzhak Shamir who led the Stern Gang after Stern’s death] continued on their path of terror.” (Israel:A History, p.111-112).
As a matter of fact, there was an entire Naval Academy in fascist Italy to train Zionist militias. This was the Betar Naval Academy, and it was built and operated with fascist blessings. Many future commanders of the Israeli navy would train here under fascist supervision. The cadets at this academy were supportive of Mussolini’s regime, and supported Italy’s expansionist colonial wars in Africa, most notably the second Italo-Ethiopian war.
Stern Gang asking Nazi Germany for alliance between both groups.
Source: “The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics, and Terror 1940-1949” by Joseph Heller who is a professor in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
However, when cases such as these are brought up, it is often claimed that these were alliances of necessity; that the Zionist militias merely followed the adage of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Suddenly, it becomes a nuanced discussion on political expedience with no allusion to any ideological kinship, with real attempts to situate their actions in their historical context.
On the other hand, when it comes to Palestinians, all of this is stripped away, and the only explanation is that the Mufti was an enthusiastic Nazi, and all of his actions were animated purely by irrational hatred. We can argue all day about the intentions of all these people, and speculate about their actions and motivations, and it is not the aim of this answer to absolve anyone, however, it calls for intellectual and moral consistency. If by seeking an alliance with Hitler and Mussolini to combat the British you brand the Mufti a Nazi and a fascist, then at least consistently apply this same logic to the various Zionist leaders and militias who did the exact same thing.
Ultimately, none of this justifies the exaggerated importance relegated to the role of the Mufti, who when all things considered, was a rather powerless politician in exile who could not even muster his own people to fight at the outset of the 1948 war. Suggesting that he was the mastermind behind the genocide of European Jewry is Holocaust-denial for the sake of demonizing Palestinians.
In conclusion , Zionism would begin to rewrite the Palestinian struggle against Jewish colonisation not as an anti-colonial struggle but as an anti-Semitic project. The story of the Palestinian Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini would become exhibit A in the Zionist version of Palestinian history. Despairing from convincing Britain to stop its support of the Zionist colonial project and horrified by the Zionist-Nazi collaboration that strengthened the Zionist theft of his Palestinian homeland further, the Palestinian elitist and conservative leader Haj Amin al Husseini (who opposed the Palestinian peasant revolt of 1936 against Zionist colonization) sought relations with the Nazis to convince them to halt their support for Jewish immigration to Palestine, which they had promoted through their selective transfer Agreement/ Haavara agreement with the Zionists in 1933. It was the very same Zionist collaborators with the Nazis who would later vilify al Husseini, beginning in the 1950s to the present, as a Hitlerite of genocidal proportions.
After all, It was Theodor Herzl who wrote in his diary:
“The antisemites will become our most loyal friends, the antisemite nations will become our allies.” (Tom Segev, One Palestine Complete, p.47).