CarolC - of the three "tribal" representatives put forward, which "tribe" traditionally held the post of "Mufti of Jerusalem"? Which "tribe" viewed the post as being historically "their" right?

I've seen differing viewpoints on this. Some of them say that the post was not hereditary, some say that members of the Husseini family had held the position for a few generations, and one of them even said (this was a pro-Zionist source, by the way) that even the Husseini family didn't think Haj Amin should become the Mufti. I think I'll hold off on forming an opinion about this until I see more information about it. Nevertheless, by law, al-Husseini had no rights to the position, and I fail to see what point you are trying to make with this question.


Another minor point - those riots in 1920 you referred to

Please show me where I referred to riots in 1920 in this thread.


But of course in another thread on this subject, you said that those riots never occured, you said that Arabs never attacked the Jews in 1920. Was that something else you found in the "webfairy" site.

Please show me where I said the riots never occurred.


Another minor point - those riots in 1920 you referred to occured before Samuel became Governor, the British Army under Allanby were still in control. Those riots (unprovoked attacks on Jews by Arabs) were instigated by al-Husseini in order to secure his appointment. The Al-Husseini "clan" was the most numerous/powerful in Palestine, note CarolC in Palestine, not in Jerusalem where the votes were cast. In the aftermath of the riots in 1920, al-Husseini put himself forward as the only candidate capable of controlling the Arab population and keeping the peace. That piece of "bullshit" the newly arrived Governor, Herbert Samuel, bought into, and that is what secured Al-Husseini the position.

I've seen a lot of explanations for Samuel's decision (nobody seems to really know, since all of the sources I've seen, including quite a few pro-Zionist ones, have entirely different explanations for his decision). Yours is very creative, I must admit, but it carries no more weight than any other explanation. But even if it was merely a stupid decision on Samuel's part, he is still the one who is responsible for Haj Amin's reign of terror. My own opinion is that his decision fits the pattern of behavior of the Zionist leadership - fomenting violence for the purpose of promoting their agenda.


I note in this thread up until now, the Palestinian advocates only refer to incidents since 1948, while they conveniently forget completely the events of the period 1920 to 1948. Without repeated acts of unprovoked violence visited upon their communities by the Arab population of Palestine during that period, Jewish organisations such as Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang would never have existed, there would have been no need for them.

One of the things that happened prior to 1948 was Zionist murders of anti-Zionist Jews. That's something that people like you conveniently overlook as well. I guess it's ok to kill Jews if they don't support the Zionist party line.

Yes, there were riots. Non-Jewish Palestinians were being displaced, both physically and economically by the European settlers, and they were not at all happy about it. You may not consider displacing a people a provocation, but most of the rest of the people in the world do consider it a provocation.


On the "Right of Return" take a good look at who qualifies as a refugee, and then tell me why that definition is totally unacceptable.

First you tell me who qualifies for Jewish "Right of Return".