“I came to give evidence, not to make complaints against the Government, but if you insist I do complain,” said Isaiah Braude, first witness for the Jews in the Palestine Inquiry Commission hearing. The retort was made during a two-hour cross-examination, during which Government Counsel Preedy insisted that the witness either support or withdraw the Zionists’ complaints against the Government which were contained in cables sent to London during the riots.
Commissioner Shaw, in his opening speech to the Commission, had referred to “charges against the Government.” At that time Preedy had asked him to substitute “complaints” for “charges.” Today Preedy seemed to resent even the word “complaint.” The Commissioners, including Shaw, seemed anxious to make the first witness for the Zionists minimize their grievances against the Government.
Braude, however, held his ground. He repeated that the Government had not heeded warnings, that armored ears were not brought until late Friday afternoon and did not open fire until late Saturday morning, that the police were not armed with rifles, and that-insufficient troops and insufficient police were used to quell the riots. He also charged that troops were sent several days later than should have been the case.
Cross-examining, Preedy asked him when, precisely, the troops should have been sent. Commissioner Snell interrupted to say that the position of the witness was that a “Government charged with the security of the public and with maintaining peace and order should have taken ample precautions.” Preedy, somewhat nonplussed, asked the witness whether he knew that the troops had failed to prevent the riots of 1921. Three times he asked Braude, “In your opinion, were there not enough police in the country?” Braude replied that he had not thought about numbers but was concerned only with Jerusalem and was convinced that the riots wouldn’t have spread if Jerusalem had been properly controlled.
PREEDY AND MERRIMAN ARGUE
General irritation, between the Government counsel and, Merriman came to a head when both flared up over a trivial point. Preedy started to apologize, but the Chairman said exhaustedly, “Leave it at that.”
Referring to the Zionist cables sent to London during the riots, which characterized the Government action as “weak and dilatory,” and charged that officials had juggled with figures of the casualties. Preedy somewhat dramatically asked the witness whether he was sure of his facts before he released them to a civilized world. Braude thereupon stated that a force admittedly was insufficient which was unable to supply police protection for the Infants’ Home in the Montefiore quarter, compelling the nurses to evacuate with the infants while bullets fell all around them. Simultaneously, the witness showed, the Girls’ Orphanage in the Musrarh quarter clamored for protection while evacuating to the Lemel school.
GOVERNMENT’S TACTICS DILATORY
As an example of the dilatory tactics of the Government, the witness said that the police at Talpioth refrained from attacking the rioters, who commenced plundering as soon as the visiting patrol withdrew. The same thing happened, he asserted, at Gedudavodah, where the Arabs milled about for several hours. They hesitated for several hours, he asserted, until convinced the police would not interfere. As an example of Acting High Commissioner Luke’s dilatory tactics he instanced the fact that Luke, during the most terrible hours, prolonged response to the proposal that Jews be enrolled as constables. Further instance of his procrastination was shown in his retaining the armored cars for many hours without using them. Braude asserted that there was no reason for lumping the casualty figures of Hebron and Jerusalem except to conceal the enormity of the Hebron tragedy, as shown in his cable to London.
Preedy asked the witness whether he knew that Hebron was under control of the Jerusalem Health Department. Braude said this made no difference. Preedy then questioned words in various cables likely to throw discredit upon the Government. Braude replied, “I accept full responsibility for the serious tone of the cables. The events were much more serious.”
A point in favor of the Government was extracted by Preedy when he obtained from the witness the statement that when the meeting at H. C. Luke’s house took place on the evening of the first riots, all present believed the situation to be somewhat relieved. Another point for the Government was scored when the witness stated that Zionists had not complained about the Commandant of the Police, who did his best to cope with the situation with the forces available.
POLICE INADEQUATE, BRAUDE CHARGES
Braude refused to retract his cabled statement that the British as well as the Arabs used the fact that Jews
Hoofien, the next witness, gave evidence that the Jewish demonstrations, occurring on Tisha B’Ab, were indirectly attributed to Haganah, though he could not state definitely that this was so. He pointed out that girls formed part of the procession to the Wall. He ridiculed the elaborate precautions taken to guard the Government offices. A cordon of police guarded the iron-barred gates, he said.
Commissioner Shaw earlier in the proceedings had called attention to the curious fact that police guarded the Government offices, where no harm could possibly occur, but allowed the procession to wend its way to the Wall. The procession was described by Hoofien as “harmless in intention, but by unfortunate chance it might have had unfortunate consequences,” as unfortunately it had, as far as the Inquiry was concerned.
“Jews, referring to the Jewish state use indiscriminate language; they really mean the Palestine Jewish National Home in Palestine,” Hoofien declared, disputing Silley’s remark in cross-examination that the Jews really mean “state,” but consider it a “tactical” error to say so. The explanation came as the result of a question concerning the resolution adopted at the Tel Aviv meeting on the eve of Tisha B’Ab. “At this meeting,” Silley continued, “reference was made to ‘our Holy Place’.” “That is so,” said the witness. The Arabs’ contention is that the Jewish claims regarding the Wailing Wall are provocative.
Hoofien revealed that he asked the B’rith Trumpeldor organization not to organize a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and he doubted, therefore, that many in the procession belonged to that organization, as they had promised him they would comply with his request. He disclaimed knowledge of the Jewish Self Defense (Haganah) and said that the mass-meeting in the all-Jewish city of Tel Aviv did not worry him. A pilgrimage to Jerusalem, he felt, would have been dangerous.
NO MONEY USED FOR PROPAGANDA
“Not a penny of Jewish money entering Palestine is used for propaganda,” asserted Hoofien, denying that Zionists subsidize the B’rith Trumpeldor. He produced figures tending to show the Jewish share in revenue to the Government is four times as large as that of the Arabs, per capita, annually. Their imports total 55% of the country’s imports. He also showed that their contribution to revenue of the municipalities is also very large.
Merriman brought out the benefits of the British administration, incidentally showing how Jewish immigration and revenue make such benefit possible. “The whole country,” said the counsel for the Jews, “benefits from the revenue, the payment of the Palestine share of the Ottoman debt, the fact that there is no military service or tax, the improved state highways, the good administration of justice and the vastly improved health service, the agricultural service, the enlarged railway system, the greater postal and telephone systems, improved education, and the properly controlled treasury.” Before the war, he said, the Turks forcibly collected fifty pounds from anyone seeking release from military service or exemption from the reserve forces. The fellaheen paid, he said, or served. “Palestine taxation is greater than some of the neighboring backward countries,” he stated, “but benefits per capita in health and education are greater.” These advantages, he declared, were due, partly, to the Jewish contributions to the administration, which would be unable to do these things if it were not for Jewish revenue.
Merriman pointed out that the Mandate aims to provide that a Jewish National Home be established by the British administration. Commissioner Shaw asked, “Is this the only reason why the British are here-to establish a Jewish National Home?” “I did not say, nor did I mean, such a thing,” asserted Merriman hotly.
JEWISH IMPORTS EXCEED ARAB
Hoofien, replying to Silley’s question, showed that figures on Jewish imports are twenty-five pounds per capita, or six times what the Arabs import, because the Jewish colonizing population imports machinery and building materials. Questioning the benefits of the Zionist policy to the Arabs, Silley insisted that the Jewish cultivator supplants the Arab. “Not necessarily,” replied Hoofien. “On the contrary, in many instances the Arab is enabled, with the price paid by the Jewish buyer, to improve and intensify his cultivation of his remaining land.”
Stoker, chief attorney for the Arabs, is ill and absent from the Commission’s sessions.
Chief Rabbi Kook, it is learned, has definitely decided to waive his privilege of giving evidence in the privacy of his own home, and will appear at the public court on Friday.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
