The US Consulate in Jerusalem and the Mufti

How good are diplomatic communications from the field, in this case, the American Consulate in Jerusalem, and the State Department in Washington?

Are they reliable? Reflective of the genuine situation? Incisive?

Let's make a judgment based on some excerpts from reports in the 1930s regarding the machinations and doings of the Mufti Haj Amin Al-Husseini.

Here, from Leland B. Morris from the Consulate:

A.

July 9, 1937

The intention attributed to the Nationalist Party of preparing and arming such bands, allegedly at the request of the Grand Mufti17of Jerusalem who recently visited Damascus, has been categorically denied by Nationalist leaders. They state that while they sympathize with the Arabs in Palestine there can be no question of armed intervention.

B.

July 12, 1937

In both camps divergent views are held on the recommendation [the Peel Partition Proposal]. Among Arabs Mufti refuses in principle and declines in practice to consider it; Emir Abdullah19urges acceptance on ground realities must be faced but wants modification of proposed boundary and Arab administrations in neutral enclave; Nashashibi20side-steps principle willing negotiate for favorable modifications. Among joint ownership [sic] general Zionists refuse in principle but imply would accept in practice if modifications made to include in Jewish State new Jerusalem and Jordan colonies, afford opportunity to develop Negev and avoid subvention to Arab State; important group of Labor Zionists while urging similar modification reported willing to accept what they can get.

Iraq Government’s statement categorically opposing partition believed based on combination sympathy and curiosity, [sic] strengthen internal position greatly fortifies Mufti’s stand.

C.

August 16, 1937

The Mufti of Jerusalem during a call which I made him yesterday [!] handed me a note on behalf of the Arab Higher Committee based on its understanding of the reports concerning communications exchanged in London between Ambassador Bingham and Mr. Eden with respect to America’s right to be consulted concerning changes in the mandate that might American interests. [the reference is to the 1924 Covenant] The gist of the note is contained in its penultimate paragraph.

[“] If the United States is upholding the Jews out of sympathy for them it should be remarked that the Arabs are more deserving of that sympathy as they are in the right and are the owners of the country and the victims of aggression. If on the other hand the United. States is upholding the Jews on account of their financial influence it should be remarked that the United States enjoys in Arab countries great respect and affection and a moral standing of great value which are a result of the accomplishments of groups of Americans over a great number of years. These are worthy of being safeguarded and developed. The United States has also cultural relations and widely extensive business connections with the Near East and the Moslem world which are also worthy of being safeguarded and developed. It is our belief that these possess no less present and future value than what the United States is likely to reap from supporting the fallacious Jewish cause. In fact it exceeds it by far inasmuch as it embraces far-flung eastern countries”.

Before the Mufti disclosed his intention of making any communication to me or had raised the question of the American attitude in the premises...I said that our concern in these matters was limited to the American interests involved which in the case of Palestine were as he would readily understand in large measure Jewish.

He was well pleased to discover that the American action was not unique and designed against the Arabs, a point of view which he said was heavily stressed by Jewish propaganda. He said that if the policy of the United States was the same with respect to all mandates, he could see that in this case we were not departing from that impartiality which has for many years characterized the various good works of the United States in the Near East for which the Arabs had every cause to be gratified.

D.

October 2, 1937

Attorney General explains non arrest of Mufti still in Haram area as prompted by apprehension reaction in Moslem world. It is also hoped that having clipped his wings by cutting off most important source propaganda funds he will be forced to retreat from present uncompromising attitude.

E.

From George Wadsworth

October 12, 1936

Most observers believe that next fortnight will see end of sabotage and violence and gradual dispersing of provincial terrorist bands, that Royal Commission will arrive end of this month for minimum 3 months’ inquiry, that local situation can best be described as armed truce pending action upon Commission’s findings and that as it was this situation which furnished pretext for establishing extra division of British troops in southeastern Mediterranean majority of forces now here will be retained pending clarification European situation.

And earlier:

F.

From Paul Knabenshue

August 26, 1929

Inasmuch as Moslem attacks against the Jews, although now widespread in Palestine, have not the support of their religious and other important leaders and partake of the character of mob violence, troops expected to arrive by tomorrow night should materially assist in a few days suppressing the disorders.

No comment required.

^