There was little divergence of opinion among leaders of New York Jewry yesterday on the verdict in the Arisoroff case. “Shocking,” “Surprising,” “calamity” were some of the Reactions. the statements follow:
“BIAS AND BITTERNESS”
Dr. Stephen S Wise, honroary President of the American Jewish Congress: I learned with deepest sorrow of the conviction of Stavsky and of his sentence to death. My sorrow arises, first, out of the circumstances that a Jew and Zionist should be charged with and convicted of the murder of Arlosoroff, brilliant and most promising leader of Jewish Palestine. Second, my Sorrow arises almost equally out of my conviction that from the very beginning the trial of Stavsky was taken out of the hands of Justice and placed under the aegis of bias and bitterness. At Prague, I deplored the decision of the Actions Committee which in substance prejudiced the case of Stavsky. I don not say, because I have no right to say, that Stavsky is innocent, but I believe and therefore have the right to say that political feeling and partisan maneuvers denied Stavsky that kind of trial to which he or any man accused of crime is entitled.
Oh, the pity of having the tragedy of Arlosoroff taken off and what has happened since added to the sorrow of Jewish life the world over. left there now at least be a truce between parties and factions in Palestine until the last court of appeals shall have reached the ultimate decision.
POLICE WORK INADEQUATE
Rabbi Louis I. Newman, Temple Rodeph shalom: The verdict is by no means the last word in the defense of Stavsky, and it is certain that an appeal will be made to a higher court. The acquittal of Rosenblatt, following the freeing of Achimieir, releases two of those held by the police after the inquiry.
It is important to note front he text of the verdict received in this country that the vote of he judges was a majority, not a unanimous vote: in other worlds, that there is reasonable doubt with reference to Stavsky’s guilt. Moreover, there is no charge against Stavsky that he fired the shot that killed Dr. Arlosoroff, but that he held the electric light while the assassin fired the gun.
What have the police to say, then, regarding the actual murderer? Did he escape? Can he be apprehended? Why is he not caught and brought to trial? Do the police expect Stavsky to confess and give the name of the slayer of whom, according to the verdict, he was an accomplice?
In short, the work of the Palestine police is inadequate, even if judged by the assumptions of the verdict, and this inadequacy casts substantial doubt on the decision against Stavsky himself. No one could read the masterful speech of defense by Horace Samuel printed in the city edition of Thursday’s Jewish Daily Bulletin, without recognizing the force of his argument on behalf of the accused men.
As a member of the non-partisan committee cooperating with Rabbi Kook and other Jewish leaders in Palestine, I urge Jews throughout the country to make generous contributions to the defense fund so that the necessary legal expenses may be met for the appeal to a higher tribunal which undoubtedly will be made. Moreover, Achimeler is still in prison, having been arrested for alleged membership in the Brith Ha Biryonim immediately after his release from the charge of complicity in the murder.
David Pinski, author: My first reaction to the verdict was that it will not give us back Arlosoroff. It was the Propaganda and agitation of Revisionists that made the murder possible. It is a pity a Jew did it. The split which has been created in Jewry is dangerous for the future of Palestine. We must accept the decision of the court. it is fair one. The court had sufficient evidence. Abraham Goldberg, Zionist leader: I feel very badly about the verdict,. I expected both to be set free. I have followed the case closely, and in my judgment no one could say definitely that either Stavesky or Rosenblatt was guilty, I was as sure as any human being could be of a verdict favorable to them.
It Stavsky was found guilty on the testimony of Mrsa. Arlosoroff, the only substantial witness for the prosecution, the Rosenblatt should have been found guilty too. and if Roseblatt’s guilty was doubted, so should have been Stavsky’s. This decision is most unfortunate, and will keep the people in uproar, turmoil and dissatisfaction, public opinion won’t quiet. I have always believed in the fairness of British jurisprudence, but this verdict easts a cloud on the English justice. People will not understand its logic.
SURPRISED AND SHOCKED
Robert szold, prominent Zionist; I am greatly surprised and shocked.
VERDICT POLITICAL
Eljast Ginsburg, president, Central Committee, Zionist Revisionist Organization of America: The verdict of the Palestine court condemning Stavsky to death is purely political and has not a shred of evidence to sustain it. an innocent man was sentenced to die so that the face of the Palestine police, that failed to held the rea### assassin of Dr. Arlosoroff, is saved and so that the guilty of this dastardly deed is fixed upon the Revisionist Party which for years has been opposing the anti-mandate and anti-Jewish policies of the Palestine administration.
The verdict is furthermore the result of political machinations of a Jewish organization in Palestine which during the course of the investigation and trial played into the hands of the Palestine administration.
The Jewish People not only in Palestine but of the whole world are not contented with a Judicial murder, with a new Dreyfussiade, We are certain that conscience of Jewry will not rest until Stavsky is acquitted and the real murderers of Dr. arlosoroff apprehended. the Jews of America must raise their voice in protest.
Morris Rothenberg, president, Zionist Organization of America: I can only view the verdict of guilty of Stavsky with a feeling of sadness. For the honor of the Jewish name I had hoped that the trial would result in the acquittal of all of the accused. The thought that any Jew could be guilty of he foul murder of Dr. Arlosoroff, one who so brilliantly and loyally served the Zionist cause. was utterly repugnant to me.
I hope that the appeal which will be taken will result in exonerating Stavsky as the trial has already resulted in the acquittal of the other two defendants.
It is a matter for deep regret that an extreme partisanship should have developed in the movement which could serve as the hasis even of a suspicion of the implication of a Jew in the crime which was committed.
Let us hope that this said incident, however it may finally turn out, will have a salutary effect in extinguishing the flames of bitter partisanship which have brought such tragic consequences.
Dr. S. Margoshes, editor, The Day: We feel that the verdict is to be considered in the nature of calamity for the Jews all over the world. We hoped the court would find no Jew guilty of murder, and were looking for a decision the opposite of the one rendered.
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.
