Saturday, March 24th | 8 Nisan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

October 27, 2015 8:26 am

Report: Jerusalem’s Grand Mufti Planned Construction of ‘Auschwitz-Like’ Crematorium in Israel

avatar by Shiryn Solny

Email a copy of "Report: Jerusalem’s Grand Mufti Planned Construction of ‘Auschwitz-Like’ Crematorium in Israel" to a friend
The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, meets with Adolf Hitler in 1941. Photo: German Federal Archives via Wikimedia Commons.

The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, meets with Adolf Hitler in 1941. Photo: German Federal Archives via Wikimedia Commons.

A veteran Israeli journalist recalled on Friday that research he conducted in 1968 revealed a plan by Jerusalem’s World War II -era grand mufti to build a crematorium in Samaria, Israeli daily Israel Hayom reported.

As part of his research on Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini’s actions in 1942, when the Jewish community in then-British Mandate Palestine was preparing for the possibility of a Nazi invasion, Haviv Kanaan met with Faiz Bay Idrisi, a senior Arab officer in the Mandate Police.

According to Israel Hayom, Idrisi told Kanaan — whose findings were the basis for an article that appeared in Haaretz in 1970 — that the mufti “was gearing to enter Jerusalem at the head of the Muslim Arab Legion squadron he’d created for the Third Reich. The mufti’s plan was to build a huge Auschwitz-like crematorium in the Dotan Valley, near Nablus, to which Jews from Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and North Africa would be imprisoned and exterminated, just like the Jews in the death camps in Europe.”

Al-Husseini was appointed grand mufti in 1921. A speech he gave in August 1929 resulted in mass anti-Jewish violence and the killing of dozens of Jews by Arab mobs. After Hitler rose to power, the mufti sent a message to the German envoy in Jerusalem expressing support for the new Nazi regime and in return he received funding from the Nazis, Israel Hayom added.

The report follows a controversy sparked last week by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during an address to the 37th World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, where he said the grand mufti had “instigated” the Nazi genocide of Europe’s Jews. The prime minister claimed that Hitler had originally intended to expel, not exterminate, the Jews, but that the Nazi leader changed his mind following pressure from al-Husseini.

Author Wolfgang Schwanitz, who penned the book Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East, also argued that the Islamist leader was a central figure in inspiring the Holocaust.

“It’s a historical fact that the grand mufti was an accomplice in this,” said Schwanitz, as cited by Israel Hayom. “He was the top non-European adviser to Hitler on the process of eliminating Europe’s Jews. It would be absurd to discount the mufti’s role in encouraging Hitler and other Nazi officials to carry out the final solution.”

White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz on Thursday addressed Netanyahu’s remarks about the mufti’s role in the Holocaust. He said there is “no doubt as to who was responsible for the Holocaust,” and added that “inflammatory actions and accusations” from both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could fuel the current violence.

“This needs to stop,” he said.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Thom McCann

    Barack Hussein Obama a Shiite Muslim. Iran is a Shiite Muslim nation.

    Take note of this please from CNS news (April 17, 2015):

    “Commentators on two different Arabic television programs claimed that President Barack Obama is pushing a nuclear deal with Iran because his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Shiite Muslim, and President Obama apparently wants the Shia-run government of Iran to be victorious in the region.

    “The commentators made their remarks on the UK channel Al-Hiwar TV on March 25 and on 4Shbab TV in Saudi Arabia on April 10; the segments were recorded and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute TV Monitor Project (MEMRI).

    “There is one thing we must not forget,” said Syrian writer Muhydin Lazikani on Hiwar TV. “I am not peddling some theory, and I am not being racist. But Barack Hussein Obama is the son of a Kenyan father.”

    “He spent much of his childhood in Mombasa, South Kenya,” said Lazikani.

    “I visited this very area, and I can tell you that it is mostly Shiite. All the childhood memories of the man who rules the White House are Shiite memories.”

    “This is why the Iranian issue is so important to him and why he is so anxious for Iran to emerge victorious, and for Syria and all the countries of the Arab Gulf to be shattered,” said Lazikani.

    On 4ShbabTV, April 10, Abu Muntasir Al-Baloushi, a London-based Iranian Opposition activist, said, “Barack Hussein Obama is the son of a Shiite father.”

    He then said, “There is no doubt that he is Iran’s lifesaver. Some people call him the Iranian lobby in America. He suffers from a peculiar complex. He believes that ‘wherever we go, the Sunnis are fighting us.’”

    “So what is the historical solution?” said Al-Baloushi. “Shiite expansion is ready. So he imposed this Shiite expansion on Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan. Any wise enemy of Islam realizes that Shiite expansion is the best method to destroy Islam from within. Even America did not do what the Shiites have done in Iraq. Even the Zionist Jews did not do such things to the Palestinians.”

    Al-Baloushi continued, “The Americans believe that they can fight the Sunnis – they call it terrorism. But this is not what they care about. They want to destroy the entire ideology. Shiite expansion is the best method to achieve this, and the Shiites are ready, because they have an ideology to that effect, they have the scholars, they have got it all.”

    “So America has used them,” he said. “If I were in America’s place, I would use them too.”

  • Thom McCann

    Obama has always treated Israel as a pariah state.

    The same treatment he has always given Netanyahu.

    Why does he never malign Muslims—even radicals?

    Perhaps he has an affinity to them.

    Perhaps that is why he never went to France to protest the Charlie Hebdo murders by radical Muslims.

    Obama made the curious statement that ISIS “is not ‘Islamic.”

    They say they are.

    John Kerry now calls ISIS “Daesh” —an Arabic acronym—s so as to avoid referring to the English words “Islamic” or “State.”

    Obama told NASA one of its missions was to make Muslims feel good about themselves.

    Obama blamed the Benghazi murders on an anti-Muslim video instead of a planned attack on the American compound. He said to Americans, “The future must not belong to those who slander the [illiterate] prophet of Islam.”

    The White House and Pentagon said that the U.S. is “at war” with the Islamic State militant group to correct what Secretary of State John Kerry when he had called it a large-scale “counterterrorism” operation.

    He called the murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim-American Army Major Nidal Hasan who screamed “Aliah Akbar!” “workplace violence”—not a terrorist attack.

    In a 2011 Senate report, the Pentagon labeled the shootings a “domestic criminal act.”

    ”Purple Heart medals are typically given to troops wounded in battle, but official criteria also allow the medals to be given to troops wounded on domestic soil in an “international terrorism attack.”

    The Obama government did not call the beheading of a co-worker by Jah’Keem Yisrael (who converted to Islam in 2011) an “act of terror.”

    Obama described the murder of Jews in a Paris kosher grocery by an Islamic terrorist with ties to Islamic State as an instance where “zealots . . randomly shoot a bunch of folks.”

    One wonders what he would have said or done if the “bunch of folks” were Muslims or blacks instead of Jews.

    After the Benghazi terrorist attack Obama said in a UN speech it was “time the West stopped insulting Mohammed and respect Islam as a religion of peace.”

    Israel does not trust him anymore.

    Neither do most Americans.

    He fooled us.


  • Independent Observer


    1. Despite atrocities occurring thoughout 1940-1941, the Germans made no definitive decisions until the Mufti met Hitler:
    1939 January – Evacuation (Madagascar) Plan
    1940 July – Germans abandon plans (to increase evacuations to Poland, and to expand Warsaw Ghetto) in view of Madgascar Plan
    1940 December – Plans changed to evacuation to Poland/USSR
    1941 November 28 – Meeting Mufti-Hitler
    1941 December – Hitler decides elimination definitively
    1942 January – Wannsee Conference – detailed elimination plans

    2. In Balkans, Mufti organised 3 SS divisions (Handschar, Skandebeg are two) to commit genocide. After the war, Mufti indicted by Yugoslavia for genocide.

    3. Mufti went to Athens to plan Einsatzgruppe Aegypt, which was to eliminate the Jews of the Mideast. The only reason his plans were not carried out, was Rommel’s defeat at el Alamein.

    4. Massive Arab collaboration in Holocaust documented by Satloff on the USHMM site.

    5. Netanyahu is spot on – Arab plans for Jews have been genocidal for a century and continue so, expecially for Jews who do not submit to dhimmitude.


    Leading historian [Wolfgang Schwanitz] backs Netanyahu over Mufti’s Holocaust role

    Historian [Edy Cohen]: The Mufti planned to burn Jews
    Dr. Edy Cohen of Bar-Ilan University says that Netanyahu’s comments on the Mufti and the Holocaust have a basis in history.

    Publication of the US Holocaust Memoral Museum: Plans for Extermination of Jews of Palestine

    Website of the US Holocaust Memoral Museum: Arab Collaboration in the Holocaust

  • DockyWocky

    Reminder: Jews aren’t the only ones who can be fed into industrial crematoriums.

  • Franklin Delano Paskutnik

    The Grand Mufti in the Oval Office in Washington can try to downplay what Netanyahu said about the other Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini’s evil plans to murder all the Jews in the Muslim world but he will not succeed.What Netanyahu said is not news – those who knew something about modern history have known about al-Husseini and his collaboration with Hitler for many years now.What is news to me is al-Husseini’s plans to build a giant crematorium near Nablus – but this doesn’t really surprise anyone as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a thoroughly sinister,villainous and malevolent man.

  • INTERNATIONAL LAW AND JERUSALEM – Part 2 of 2 Citing: Canadian lawyer Jacques Paul Gauthier

    On July 1, 1920 the British military administration, which had controlled Palestine since December 1917, was replaced by a British civil administration covering all of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan River, with its headquarters in Jerusalem. The Mandate instructed Great Britain as trustee that she would oversee Palestine with the goal of increased Jewish immigration and the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. At the time of the issuance of the Mandate for Palestine, (Although under international law and treaties, Israel was reconstituted in 1920 and would get sovereign control when they achieved majority) it was believed that there were not enough Jews in the land to establish a sovereign nation. Thus, as trustee Great Britain was to oversee the immigration of Jews to the land and when there were enough then Palestine would become the sovereign national homeland for the Jewish people. However, normally, Britain violated the treaties and obstructed the goal of developing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. (The British wanted to appease the Arabs in order to get control of the oil).
    As the League of Nations was dissolved in 1946, the United Nations, which was founded in 1945, began to deal with the Palestine issue. The UN General Assembly passed a Partition Resolution (Resolution 181 which is only a recommendation) on November 29, 147. This UN resolution, which ascertained that the Jewish majority has been reached and therefore, adopted the necessary legal status from the League of Nations needed for Israel to declare her sovereignty and independence on May 14, 1948. Under resolution 181, the land of Palestine was partitioned again, violating international law and treaties and part of Palestine was given a second time to the Arabs and the rest was given to Israel, except Jerusalem was to become an international city, the UN did this without authority and in violation of international law and treaties of post WWI. Gauthier tells us, “The special international regime for the corpus separatum which was to be established on or prior to October 1, 1948; was to remain in force for a period of ten years. At the end of that ten year period, ‘the residents of the City of Jerusalem shall be . . . free to express by means of a referendum their wishes as to possible modifications of the regime of the city.’”4 The Arabs rejected resolution 181 and attacked the Jews, which annulled the UN resolution; resulting in a larger land area (but still short of what was allocated under international law and treaties, which included all of Palestine) for Israel when the fighting stopped in 1949. Israel’s war for independence also prevented Jerusalem from becoming an international city. The promised election by October 1959
    to determine to whom Jerusalem belonged never took place. There is no doubt that the city would have voted for Israel if an election had taken place. Thus, all of the legal rights to the Old City of Jerusalem belong to Israel and the Jews.

    Gauthier’s work, which I have only provided a glimpse into, demonstrates that both the land of Israel and the Old City of Jerusalem belong to Israel and the Jews based upon the standards of international law. When commentators appear on the media today and start talking about how Israel is violating international law with their occupation, they are absolutely without any basis in the truth. These advocates for the Arab occupation of Jewish liberated land have no legal basis to stand. However, that does not seem to bother them since they are lawless and many hope through jihad to take over Israel and get rid of the Jews, like they did to the million Jews in the Arab lands. Most of these spokesmen really do not care about the law, international or otherwise; and the Media is biased against Israel.
    The facts are that both the Bible and even international law5 says that all the land of ancestral Israel and Jerusalem belong to the Jewish people and has to be under Jewish sovereignty. The fact that many within the international community know this information and choose to ignore it, means nothing. Today the Gentile nations are in an uproar, while increasingly clamoring for the extermination of the nation and people of Israel. Yet, the hand of God’s providence has restored His people to their land while still primarily in unbelief.
    We increasingly see the lawless attitudes of the world nations constantly on display as they certainly do not care about God’s Word, nor do they heed the clear mandates of man-made international law. So it will be in the end, as at the beginning and throughout her history, that Israel will have to be saved by the actual hand of God as He interrupts history in order to save His people. Today’s hatred toward Israel is just a warm-up for the real heat of the furnace of the tribulation, from which God will redeem the nation of Israel through the coming of Messiah. Since mankind does not recognize God and His law, nevertheless, God will impose it upon humanity one day. Maranatha!


    1 Jacques Paul Gauthier, “Sovereignty Over The Old City of Jerusalem: A Study of the Historical,
    Religious, Political and Legal Aspects of the Question of the Old City,” PhD Thesis, University of Geneva International Law School, 2007).
    2 Gauthier, “Sovereignty Over Jerusalem,” p. 848.
    3 Cited by Gauthier, “Sovereignty Over Jerusalem,” p. 356 from Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939, vol. IV, No. 242, p. 345.
    4 Gauthier, “Sovereignty Over Jerusalem,” pp. 599-600. Citation by Gauthier is from Article D, Part III of the Partition Resolution.
    5 Sovereignty over the old city of Jerusalem: a study of the historical, religious, political and legal aspects of the question of the old city
    Gauthier, Jacques Paul
    Genève: Institut universitaire de hautes études internationales, 2007. – 1142 p.

    Directeur de thèse: Professeur Marcelo Kohen
    Abstract: At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, the Zionist Organization presented its claim for recognition of the historical and national rights of the Jewish people to Palestine including Jerusalem and its Old City. In San Remo, in 1920, the Allied Powers, holding the power of disposition over Palestine, decided to recognize the Jewish historical claim converting it into a binding international law claim. It was incorporated into the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations in 1922. This “Sacred Trust of Civilization” provided for the reestablishment of the Jewish National Home in Palestine based on historical connections and recognition of the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country, subject to safeguarding the civil and religious rights of its inhabitants. The thesis studies various aspects of the competing claims to sovereignty over the Old City in light of rights previously granted to the Jewish people under international law.
    HEITH 725
    Posted and edited by YJ Draiman

  • INTERNATIONAL LAW AND JERUSALEM – Part 1 of 2 Citing: Canadian lawyer Jacques Paul Gauthier


    The Bible teaches us that God gave to the Jewish people the land of Israel. This is repeated many times throughout the Bible. God’s viewpoint on this matter is what ultimately matters since He will at some point in the future implement His will. If God says something then that settles it, that decree will surely come to pass. However, it is interesting to note that international law is and has always been on the side of the reestablishment of the modern state of Israel. Furthermore, the law also supports the claim that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews and that the Arabs have no legitimate legal claim upon Judaism’s most holy location. Historical accounts verify that the building of the Mosque on Temple Mount is strictly a show of power and control, It has no religious Muslim superficial or imagined deity.

    Canadian lawyer Jacques Paul Gauthier recently finished a twenty-year project in which this Gentile Christian researched at the University of Geneva political science department and international law school, the legal issues relating to the ownership of Israel and Jerusalem. Gauthier’s PhD thesis was completed in 2007 and is entitled:
    “Sovereignty Over The Old City of Jerusalem.”1 Dr. Gauthier has demonstrated in painstaking detail in his thesis of over 1,200 pages the following conclusion:
    After our examination of the principles of international law pertaining to belligerent occupation, we have concluded that Israel has the right to occupy the territories under its control since 1967, including East Jerusalem and its Old City, until a peace treaty is concluded.2
    Since Gauthier’s publication was a PhD thesis, he had to painstakingly document every opinion or conclusion with legal and historical facts. Had the readers of his thesis not agreed with the information in his work they would not have accepted Gauthier’s thesis. This means that Gauthier’s work is the most authoritative opinion covering the international status of the old city of Jerusalem and the land of Israel. So what is Dr. Gauthier’s argument?

    Gauthier notes that the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 did not have the status of international law, at least not when issued. However, it did become the official policy of the British government that bound Great Britain to pursue the founding and reconstituting of the future state of Israel and granting them self-determination. The United Kingdom took the next step toward reestablishing and founding the Jewish state when General Allenby captured Jerusalem on December 11, 1917 and then the rest of Palestine (Israel).

    On January 3, 1919 Chaim Weitzman, who was the leader and representative of the Zionist Organization on behalf of the Jewish people, met with Emir Feisal, who represented the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz. Included in an agreement that both parties agreed upon and executed, was that the Jewish people should get the land in Palestine east and west of the Jordan River and that the old city of Jerusalem would be under Jewish control.
    The Paris Peace Conference began on January 18, 1919 and lasted about six months in which new borders were decided upon for parts of Europe and the Middle East and were given the force of international law. The conference was made up of the victorious Allied powers from World War I. The “Big Four” were made up of the United States, Great Britain, France, and Italy. Lord Balfour represented Britain. It was during the summer of 1919 that Arab opposition began to be voiced against the Feisal-Weitzman agreement. As a result that aspect of the conference stalled but eventually was agreed upon. Nevertheless, Balfour issued the following statement on August 11, 1919:
    “The four great powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age long traditions, in present needs in future hopes of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 600,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient Jewish ancestral land.”3 The Paris Peace Conference ended without a final solution reached concerning the status of Palestine, even though there was much discussion about the matter. (It was continued in 1920 at San Remo).

    A meeting to deal specifically with the unfinished business of Palestine, which was to be seen as an extension of the Paris Peace Conference was commenced on April 19, 1920 in San Remo, Italy. It was attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the prime ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by Japan’s Ambassador K. Matsui. The San Remo Resolution adopted on April 25, 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917 issued by the British government. (Which Stated that a Jewish National Home will be established in Palestine. There was no mention of establishment of any other people or nation in Palestine). The San Remo resolution which was incorporated into the Mandate of Palestine and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which was adopted at the Paris Peace Conference on April 28, 1919, were the basic documents upon which the British Mandate for the stewardship of Palestine was constructed. It was at San Remo that the Balfour Declaration went from being just a statement of British foreign policy to international law.
    The British Mandate was fully implemented upon adoption and approval by the Council of the League of Nations on September 22, 1922. However, when the parties left San Remo in April 1919 the future state of Israel was to be made up of what now constitutes the Kingdom of Jordan, as well as all the land West of the Jordan River, in short all of Palestine. After September 22, 1922 what is now the Kingdom of Jordan was taken away from Palestine and became another Arab nation. This was the beginning of the trend still operative today that Israel needs to give up more land in order to be promised peace. The reality is that every time Israel gives up land, she experiences even less peace.

    Continue to Part 2

  • Vivienne Havalant (Leijonhufvud)

    I never doubted the PM once, he is one modern day leader who has a grip on contemporary history. Nothing about Islam surprises me. Unless serious action is taken and let us hope Putin is as good as his word war is the only solution. The final solution to the Islamic problem worldwide.

  • Jim42

    The Problem is not the Medias and other F……s but the Jews of high IQ and social level who take party for Palestinians and basic enemies of the Jews…THIS time, the final solution will include first these traitors who have to prove that they are ONLY just Sincere Absolute Idiots…like some of our fellow(sic?) Jews, cooperating more or less actively and passively, before during and after the WWII, with Hitler and Stalin…

  • Eptha Benjamin

    Stand with ISRAEL. You and your family will be blessed.


  • Marius Saines

    Hitler had the plan made and organized at Wansee conference.But he was very sensitive about the public opinion, so he was speaking about expulsion,not extermination.
    He did the same with the german handicaps,before the church finally took a position.
    The Mufti proposal was a reinforcement for his public image.
    It is a pity that no allied power action was not mounted to take the Mufti out,like was de for Heidrich

  • Typical muslim

  • Fred

    The apologists of the Mufti amaze me. There would be apologists for Abbas & other Arab squatters inciters for the murders & destruction of Israel. These are followers of Hitler to a T ” Mein Kampf & the Koran “have the same theme of persecution & viciousness against Jews. As for the White House defending the Mufti should come as no surprise,
    Obama / Kerry showed very little sympathy for Israel at the Iran deal. One should also remember Roosevelt closing off the US to Jewish refugees. The Mufti’s track record is easy to follow if your read German News 1941 & the Sturmer 1941.

  • Jonah

    Most Christians believe the person responsible for inciting Hitler to eradicate the Jews was a not so distant relative of Yasser Arrafat. The same thing is now occurring, new hitler same Palestinians. Could fuel the violence!! Hey Shultzy…when a civilization is on the brink of being wiped out (Israel) they will reach the point inevitably that they will stop drinking the American koolaide and come out from under the ether and realize they have been circled by ravenous wolves financed and armed directly and indirectly by the U.S. At that time their will be an incitement of violence…it’s called self preservation.

    • Julian Clovelley

      I am afraid that the claim that most Christians believe the suggestion that Jonah makes is even more ludicrous than the claim itself

      I suggest we get back to reality and treat the Holocaust with the respect, compassion, and horror it deserves and not as some political football

      There is good reason for further research and this is a very interesting article whose subject is worthy of further research to examine sources, before it is too late

      I do not however feel it should be used to trigger exposure of present day political disagreements any more than the murder of so many millions should be used to fuel such arguments

      No peripheral information can ever excuse or explain a set of events which under no circumstances should have happened whatever the motivations

      Murder is murder – just that – Genocide is genocide and never acceptable, excusable or truly explicable. We must always hold firmly onto that

      • jeremy

        Except the 99.999999% of times it happens to Jews and goes unreported. Or reversed on us, like the 21 Arab countries.

  • Atilla

    Further proof that Netanyahu was 100% correct .

    • Scott

      And further proof that the Obama administration is in the tank for genocidal Jihadi “Palestinian’s”.
      Denial is not a river in Egypt.

    • allan Schauder

      First of all Bibi is extremely intelligent and very knowledgeable. Second his late father was an historian expert. So enough criticism of a great him fight our enemies