I absolutely agree, in fact, on cif I’ve been lambasted by certain loons for writing about Arafat’s birth (in Cairo) detailing that his father was half Egyptian who had been a textile merchant and a policeman during the Ottoman administration.
Arafat and his younger brother, Fathi, were born in Cairo – their mother was Zahwa Abdul Saoud, who was as you agree from a known Jerusalem family, died in Cairo in 1933.
But anyway, as I rightly stated, Arafat was not the mufti’s nephew nor was he related – I gave the break down of Arafat’s real name, trying to explain that the (Gaza) Al Husseini part refers to the clan which the Al Qudua family, belonged. The Gaza Al Husseini’s were not related to the Jerusalem Al Husseini’s (the mufti’s line) nor the same namesakes of Safed, Lydda or Nablus. That said – the Al Qudua family have the notability of having a street named after them in Gaza – I walked down it before Sharon had his brainwave !
I also made posts on cif (which didn’t go down very well) explaining Arafat’s close relationship to the mufti with whom he had access from age seventeen onwards, this was facilitated via Sheikh Hasssan Abdul Saoud who was the head of the Abdul Saoud family of Jerusalem, he was a distant maternal relation of Arafats’ and of whom Arafat also called “uncle.”

So despite being factual, I was lead off topic, hence we better leave it there.

He was born in Cairo, but his mother was from Jerusalem and father from Gaza. Arafat’s father’s mother was an Egyptian, and his father worked and lived in Cairo, but Palestinian “historians” have insisted on calling his father a “Palestinian” even though there were no “Palestinians” till Arafat created the Palestinian myth in about 1967. Similarly, because his mother was born in Jerusalem, she has been made into a “Palestinian” evene though thee was only the British Palestinian Mandate at that time, nand of course there never has been a country called Palestine.

Since obviously there will be those that dispute the idea that Arafat and his parents were not “Palestinians”, I might point out that Arik Sharon and Ehud Barak, for example, born in “Palestine”, could be called Palestinians with greater reason than Arafat, who was not born in Palestine. Many Israelis have Palestine stamped on their birth certificates if they were born before Israel’s independence, but don;t call themselves Palestinians.

The “born in jeruslaem” part of the story has two antecedents. One is the obvious attmpt to give Arafat credibility as a palestinian, though in fact every Palestinain knows he was an Egyptian, and his Egytpian accent was frequently mocked by those who disliked him.

Second, I suspect this is confusing his story with that of Edward Said, another of the great Arab myth-makers, whose mother traveled to Jerusalem to give birth to him sine the medical facilities there were better than in Egypt.

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/122645

From the forthcoming study, Icon of Evil, by David G. Dalin and John F. Rothmann: “Arafat’s mother was the daughter of the mufti’s first cousin.”

Blue is accumulating quite a record of being both off-topic and factually misinformed.

“Arafat also said he was born in Jerusalem – another lie. Arafat was born in Cairo on 24/08/1929 – obviously not 1029 – I shouldn’t type and laugh at the same time!!

Well..I gotta..err, run… Catch you later, frog

He also had his hand in the Iraqi pro-Nazi coup and subsequent farhud.

Finally, he made sure to use violence and intimidation to suppress those Palestinian clans, such as the Nusseihbehs, more disposed to peaceful co-existence with the Jews.

Arafat was his nephew.

Zamalek reminded him of the reality of the Mufti’s Holocaust collaboration. Yes, the Mufti Husseini collaborated in the Holocaust, urging the Germans and their eastern European satellite states not to let any Jews, not even children, to escape the Holocaust.
He wrote that Jewish children ought to be sent to Poland where “they are under active supervision.” He knew very well what happened Jews, adults and children both, in Poland.

The Mufti is still significant because the Palestinian Arab political movements still look up to him as a former leader.

Well, if you see my 09/09/ @ 11:31 post I answered queries re: Persia and mentioned then, that we were going too far off topic, and I returned to it. However, I seemed to have been paired of with Adina to whom I apologised to for my earlier small “curiosity.”
I don’t feel I have at all inverted Glick or Bolton, since the next step would have been to discuss, option two, and under what circumstances, but as you say, this is wondering off topic. Just a small reminder, it wasn’t I who took the diversion.
As for Doves and Hawks, some people, in my humble opinion, can’t tell the difference but, that too, as you say, for another day.

@Tasty / Sababa — another time, it would seem. However, in the meantime, kindly don’t ever conflate or confuse my position with anyone elses, again.

Gentlemen, adieu.

We’re not as far apart as you seem to believe.

“United Nations General Assembly resolutions such as 194 and 3236 are recommendations only and non-binding.”

Agreed.

“Resolution 242 (binding) does not mention a right of return or any other arrangement as a mandatory solution for the refugee problem.”

No 242 calls for “a just settlement of the refugee problem”.

“The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees makes no mention of descendants.”

It doesn’t, but it does say that those who were made refugees for whatever reason have a right of return. Do you accept that the original refugees have that right?

“Moreover, the convention ceases to apply to a person who has acquired a new nationality.”

That’s true – refugees who have taken citizenship elsewhere lose that right.

“As none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world were ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence, a precedent has been set: the nation which accepts the refugees is responsible for assimilating them.”

Not true. Israel chose to offer citizenship to the Jewish refugees, and many refugees chose to accept that citizenship. There is no precedent – countries have offered citizenship to refugees for time immemorial (the US was built on this), while others have not. Any move to place this responsibility on states that accept refugees would be furiously opposed, not least by refugee organisations and agencies, as it would result in countries refusing all refugees.

As a side issue, I don’t believe that Israel offers citizenship to all refugees either – the stream of African refugees arriving in Israel mainly remain with refugee status.

Regarding the issue of compensation – that is a different issue. I would support the right of any victim of ethnic cleansing to claim compensation, even if they had taken citizenship elsewhere.

“You dismiss the association of the Palestinians and the Mufti with the Nazis as so much hyperbole, but it is genuine historical fact, amply documented, that the Mufti was Hitler’s ally, that he instigated a pro-Nazi coup leading to the murder of 180 Jews in Iraq in 1941 and generally played an active part in furthering Nazi objectives.”

I don’t dismiss the Mufti’s links with Nazi Germany – they are well documented. I dismiss the concerted attempts to rake up the story of this appalling man as a stick to beat modern-day Palestinians with. Every people have their ogres (Israel included), and just as the actions of a few Jewish terrorists cannot be used to smear an entire people, the actions of the Mufti cannot be used in the same way.

The principle of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” has a long and painful history, and it is by no means unusual for people to make pretty ugly alliances in the interests of their cause – Britain joined forces with “Uncle Joe Stalin” in the war, the US has supported some of the most brutal despots on the planet, and even Israel had some rather unfortunately cordial relations with Apartheid South Africa.

Some Palestinians undoubtedly believed that the best way to rid themselves of both British colonialism, and a growing Zionist population that made no secret of its desire to create a Jewish state, was to support a Nazi victory (they weren’t alone in this – many colonial independence groups did the same). I have no problem with you damning those involved for their actions, but I do have a problem with the current campaign to make it a factor in the current situation.

I’ll try to bribe them by sticking to Cif here: Simon Tisdall’s latest column on Iran made for rather amusing reading –
1) he seemed to endorse the Bolton analysis on sanctions (who’d have thunk that is allowed at the Graun to agree with Bolton???);
2) he quoted Roger Cohen as somebody whose advice on Iran might be worthwhile listening to (ehm, see my previous post); and
3), and most incredibly, if not outright miraculously, there was this conclusion:
“Discard these policy options [which, according to Tisdall, are all rather unpromising] and two choices remain. One is to admit the Israelis may be right in arguing that military action is the only sure way to hinder or stop Iran’s nuclear advances. The other is to do nothing – and hope that Iran’s repeated assurances that it does not seek the atom bomb are true. Trouble is, both choices risk catastrophe.”

I mean, can you imagine, they published this: “the Israelis may be right”???

Cif-Watch, perhaps you guys should be blamed for such subversive thinking at Cif???

About the Palestinian ‘right of return’:

United Nations General Assembly resolutions such as 194 and 3236 are recommendations only and non-binding.

Resolution 242 (binding) does not mention a right of return or any other arrangement as a mandatory solution for the refugee problem.

The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees makes no mention of descendants. Moreover, the convention ceases to apply to a person who has acquired a new nationality.

As none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world were ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence, a precedent has been set: the nation which accepts the refugees is responsible for assimilating them.

You dismiss the association of the Palestinians and the Mufti with the Nazis as so much hyperbole, but it is genuine historical fact, amply documented, that the Mufti was Hitler’s ally, that he instigated a pro-Nazi coup leading to the murder of 180 Jews in Iraq in 1941 and generally played an active part in furthering Nazi objectives.

“Now, I note that Adina and exiledlondoner claim that Abe Foxman “ignores” people who don’t agree with him. Well, I don’t know about Foxman, but exiledlondoner is doing exactly that in regard to me and my arguments.”

I think the phrase I agreed with was that Abe Foxman “ignores or smears” people who don’t agree with him. I don’t have a lot of problems with the “ignores” bit….

“He has totally ignored, as far as I can tell, my assertion that the Jews in Arab/Muslim lands were oppressed, exploited economically and humiliated legally as dhimmis for more than a thousand years.”

Was that a point to me? Yes, Jews have been abused throughout history, and if anything, the situation in Europe was worse than that in the Arab lands.

“Further, exiledlondoner makes false claims about the prevalence of massacres and evictions of Arabs during Israel’s War of Independence by Jewish forces. Exiledlondoner much exaggerates such events done by the Jewish side and overlooks what the Arabs did.”

Please point to these false claims and exaggerations….. If it helps, look at the Lyn Julius thread – there you have a proposal that I opposed, but I don’t think that any of your idiotic accusations will stand up to scrutiny.

“The first ones to perpetrate ethnic cleansing in that war were the Arab forces led by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine, which was led in turn by the British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini, who spent most of the war in the Nazi-fascist domain, met Hitler and Himmler, and urged the Germans not to let any Jews escape the Holocaust.”

Palestinians – Mufti – Nazi – Haj Amin – Fascist – Palestinians – mufti – Holocaust – Hitler – Nazi…… Did you mention Nazis and Palestinians…. I think you did… and Haj Amin, Nazis and the Holocaust? Don’t forget to get Palestinians, fascists and Hitler in!… Oh you did? Have you missed anything?

“Exiled overlooks my account of the Jews driven out of South Tel Aviv and the Shimon haTsadiq quarter of Jerusalem in December 1947. I am personally annoyed that exiledlondoner accuses Foxman of doing what he does himself.”

Then you’re going to stay annoyed – if you ewant me to respond in detail to every point you make, you’re going to have to make them a bit more interesting, and a bit less demented….

“It seems that exiled continues to make the same arguments no matter that they have been refuted. He just ignores views contrary to his own that vitiate his arguments.”

Does “refute” mean something different in Zionist circles?

“On the issue of Return, the Palestinian Arabs rejected the Jewish right of return, which had been recognized by the League of Nations in the mandate.”

Just like Israel rejects the Palestinian right of return which has been recognised by the United Nations. If that was so terrible, can I assume that you would support the Palestinian right of return?

“The UK govt went along with Arab demands and effectively brought Jewish immigration to the Jewish National Home down to a very small number during the Holocaust when the Jews most needed a home.”

They did, and the result of this was terrible.

“Further, exiled seems dishonest in failing to understand that for Jews from Arab countries, not being ruled by Arabs is a liberation.”

I don’t ignore that at all – I believe that the refugees from Arab lands form the single most compelling moral and humanitarian case for Israel’s existance.

“Now, if the Arab refugees from Israel are allowed back here in their third and fourth generations, then they and the Arabs already here might combine to restore the Jews to an oppressed status or drive the Jews out of the country, which they have also openly looked forward to.”

Another one who assumes that, becease I oppose Zionist extremism, my views are somewhere between Hamas’s and Islamic Jihad? Let me spell it out…

I believe that Israel has the right to exist, with secure borders and recognition from its neighbours, as a Jewish state if that’s what its citizens want, alongside a Palestinian state.

On the right of return – Israel is not going to accept a large scale right of return, for obvious reasons. My view is that with the exception of those Palestinians who were personally expelled (who’s rights are held individually, and who I believe cannot legally be deprived of them), the inherited right of return will be negotiated away (and confirmed by the UN) as part of a final status agreement, but not before then.

The end result will be that maybe less than 100,000 Palestinians would be able to exercise their inalienable rights, though many would choose not to do so, having families elsewhere.

By the same token, any Israeli settlers who were born in what would become Palestine, or who were living in Palestine at the point of its creation, would have that same inalienable right to remain, or to return at a later point.

So Eliyahu, if you want to attack my views, I would suggest that you first find out what they are…

And haven’t you inverted the intent of Glick and Bolton? As well-known hawks, their position is that sanctions are ineffective – so proceed immediately to bomb Iran.

Is that what you want?

The ‘peaceful’ Ayatollahs see Israel as a block to their domination of the Middle east.

Thus the obsessive antagonism.