If “1920, 1921 and 1936” took place during the 19th century – ALERT THE HISTORIANS!
What a feeble gotcha attempt.
You cited two 19th century pogroms in Palestine referred to in the linked article, omitting mention of three occurring in the early 20th century.
I thought it would be clear that I was excluding the entire 20th century. Even if it wasn’t, I double qualified my statement by saying “in most ways.” Why do people online think that if they can find a single counterexample that negates the word “most”? Why bother with qualifiers if nobody will pay attention to them?
Yet your objection doesn’t even rise to that feeble form of gotcha. Anyone who reads the entire article, even merely the first 5000 words, will understand that every one of the three 20th century examples were in no way ordered by the government. They were riots and rioters pure and simple, words that the author uses in all three cases.
And this:
Although fiercely anti-Zionist, the Palestinian Communist Party, appalled by the violence, ordered its members to join the ranks of the Jewish defense. The atrocity of the crimes prompted several Muslim notables to issue a joint proclamation dissociating themselves from the “actions of the mob."
Mobs, rioters, and terrorists, as were those in the 19th century, are not “political control.” They are the very opposite.
All posters have the responsibility to read their cites carefully and to the end to see whether they make the desired point. The clear words of your cite refute you better than any effort of mine.
The Palestinian Communist Party? Now there’s power in action. 
The pogroms in the '20s and 30’s were made possible and encouraged by the real power structure in Palestine at the time - the Mufti and his cohorts, under a hands-off policy by the British, who only stepped in (ineffectually) when violence really got out of hand.
Ready to walk back the claim that “tolerance” by Muslims (excluding the occasional pogrom, of course) continued “until the creation of Israel”?
Just for those keeping score, @Jackmannii has given up arguing against my claim that “For most of its first several hundred years Islam was very tolerant of Christians and Jews.” [Note that qualifier “most” again.] He has also given up contesting my claim “In most ways that continued until the 20th century,” since the two 19th century incidents mentioned in his cite lay totally outside this thread’s boundaries.
That leaves three incidents described by his cite as riots lead by mobs, albeit encouraged by influential voices - who nevertheless were not part of official government. Who was officially in political control? The British, as part of Mandatory Palestine. Does his cite - or anyone - believe that those in political control instituted these hateful attacks? Obviously not.
The circle has diminished into a dot, a one-dimensional point of no meaning. Why are we talking about it?
Reminder: the linked article Exapno keeps trying to cherry-pick to support an indefensible claim is titled “Pogroms in Palestine before the creation of the state of Israel (1830-1948)”, not “Muslims Were Nice To Jews in Palestine in Most Ways Before They Ruined Things By Creating Israel, Really”
“Keeping score”? 
All I could think of was the Christian Democratic parties in various European countries in the post-WWII period. Although that was hardly an example of sectarianism; I have a strong hunch that the word “Christian” was only used to keep Communists out.
Vatican City is an absolutist theocratic state. Is there even a single non-Catholic within its walls?
I guess i wonder why a sect that wants to “live and let live” would “gain enough political power to assert control” to begin with.