Sacher Charges England with Failure in Its Duty Toward Jewish Agency

Charging that the Mandatory Power had not performed its duty toward the Jewish Agency, that it had not provided a single inch of state lands for Jews, that the Government had even refused the Agency a list of the state lands. Harry Sacher, Chairman of the Palestine Zionist Executive, reiterated his stand, taken in the Manchester “Guardian” of August 30, in which he said that Jewish officials were resigning from their posts in the Palestine administration because they could not obtain promotion. Sacher specifically named two, Col. Solomon and Dennis Cohen, both of whom, he said, were told by former High Commissioner Herbert Samuel that they would not be able to advance because they were Jews.

Every word of the article in the “Guardian” was subjected to scrutiny by government counsel Preedy in a gruelling cross-examination of Sacher. A calmer atmosphere prevailed today after the ill-controlled hostility manifested yesterday following Preedy’s suggestion that the Zionist policy may (Continued on Page 7)

That the police would have been adequate to check the riots quickly if the proper amount of resolution had been used from the beginning was the witness’s reply to the question whether he felt that the police were inadequate, put by Chairman Sir Walter Shaw. Sacher charged that Luke lacked judgment in his exercise of police power. The influence of the head of the Government, should, he said, have been felt throughout.

Confronted with a letter written by Col. Frederick Kisch on Oct. 22, congratulating Major Allan Saunders, acting police commandant at Nablus, on behalf of the Zionist Executive, for his zeal in preservation of order and the protection of life, for which he received the police medal. Sacher said that if the letter of gratitude applied to the days following the initial hours of disaster, he was in agreement; otherwise not. The witness dismissed all of Preedy’s references to the Mufti’s pacifying proclamation, saying that public utterance made little impression on him-he was interested in knowing what the Mufti said and did privately.

That he maintained his stand upon his appreciation of the attitude and conduct of the Palestine administration was Sacher’s response when Preedy read from the “Guardian” article the witness’s statement that the prestige of Britain was not upheld during the riots. Considerable discussion was evoked when Preedy displayed a despatch sent out by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, in which it was reported that Keith-Roach had gone to a Moslem meeting at the Omar Mosque with an escort of twenty-five police and had promised the Arabs that the Jews and British would be disarmed. The despatch appeared in the “Morning Post,” having been distributed by Reuters. Sacher explained this to the Commission and said the Jewish Telegraphic Agency was entirely independent of the Zionist Organization. Counsel for the Arabs introduced a copy of the “Palestine Bulletin,” in answer to Commissioner Shaw’s question, showing that Schwartz, Jewish Telegraphic Agency manager, was in charge.

JEWS NOT GIVEN STATE LANDS

Sacher maintained that he was correct when, in his article, he stated that the Mandatory Power had not performed its duty toward the Jewish Agency, that the Government had not given the Agency any state lands. Preedy countered with a reference to the Kabara lands given Pica, and the sand dunes in Rishon, but Sacher reminded him that these were really Turkish grants which the present Government had confirmed.

Sacher complained that the Jewish Agency had been refused a copy of the list of state lands, and elaborated on his accusation that Jews were resigning from official posts because they were given no opportunity for advancement. He withdrew the accusations made by former witnesses against Aref El Aref, saying it was most regrettable that the Jews had charged him with inciting to riot at Hebron. Preedy said ironically that it was unfortunate the charge had been allowed to remain so long. Merriman stated it would not be repeated, following Sacher’s testimony.

After the completion of Harry Sacher’s examination, Rabbi Jacob Slonim, connected with the Yeshivah at Hebron where the massacres occurred, took the stand. Not understanding the long discussion between the Commissioners and counsel as to the admissibility of the Arab counsel, Silley’s, question to the rabbi concerning the conduct of the Jews of Hebron before the massacre, the rabbi broke down, and sobbing, insisted that the Commission hear him. He thought that the discussion meant that they were trying to “prevent letting the world know through me the whole truth about Hebron.” His outburst made the proceedings so difficult that the morning session was adjourned early.

TELLS OF SON’S DEATH

Rabbi Slonim’s evidence was merely a brief repetition of the well-known facts about his son and relatives being killed before his eyes. He told about an Arab youth warning him of an attack that was planned on the Yeshivah and how the Mufti had called on the Arabs of Hebron to aid in the attack on Jerusalem. Despite the fact that he warned the district officer, Rabbi Slonim declared, the official belittled his and Rabbi Franck’s apprehensions.

Five witnesses were heard during the afternoon session. The first was Mrs. Solomon, wife of the acting chairman of the Vaad Leumi, who corroborated her husband’s account of how Arab women had told her on Thursday that the killing of the Jews would start on Friday. The gallant defense of Bertuvia, a small isolated Jewish colony of 28 families, was told by Abraham Wolinsky, who described the unusual movements of the Arab agitators in the neighboring villages that Friday and Saturday. Nevertheless, he said, everything was quiet until Sunday, when his Arab laborers told him of the report from Jerusalem that the Jews had atacked the Mosque with resulting casualties on both sides.

Giving monosyllabic replies, Wolinsky said that the colony was defended with five rifles after the opening of a sealed armory, but that two people, including a doctor, had been killed. When government counsel Preedy began cross-examining him, Wolinsky declared that of the three Arab policemen sent to protect the colony, one went to fetch help when the brigands surrounded the colony preparatory to the attack, and the other two hid themselves in a storeroom. The witness did not know how many Arabs had been killed, or whether the policemen were still in service. He declared that a police inspector arrived when everything had been burned, looted and destroyed, and that the colonists had other things to think about than complaining against the safety-first policemen.

Emanuel Barchaim, of Bedud Avodah, gave a straightforward story concerning two Arab policemen who, while patrolling the district, told him that the Jews must make peace with the Mufti, who had ordered 400 villagers to prepare for an attack if an understanding was not reached, and that 10,000 Arabs would come to Jerusalem on Friday, and that there would be bloodshed.

The next witness was Pesach Baradon, who had been living as a nomad with the Bedouin tribes in the Jordan Valley since May. He had not heard of any trouble, and on August 25 wanted to go to Beisan, but his hosts told him to stay in camp because the whole country was disturbed because the Jews had killed Arabs and a Jewess had thrown a bomb in Jerusalem at the Mosque, killing 95 Moslems. People on the road, he said, told him that the looting and robbing of the Jews at Beisan had started, and another told him that the Jews in Emek had either been killed or scattered like sheep.