Assistant Secretary, Christian Syrian, Admits Authorship of the Criticized Government Bulletins on R

The mystery of the authorship of the Palestine Government’s Bulletins during the riots, which have been the subject of much criticism on the ground that they failed to accurately disclose the extent and the nature of the outbreaks, was solved yesterday when George Antonious, a Christian Syrian, Assistant Secretary of the Palestine Government, in charge of Arab affairs, yesterday acknowledged before the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry that he had written the Bulletins.

Called by the Arab Executive as one of its first witnesses, Antonious, resuming the witness stand yesterday morning, disclosed what H. C. Luke, Chief Secretary of the Palestine Government and Acting High Commissioner during the riots, had failed to divulge in his testimony, although the bulletins were a subject of much debate.

Antonious was one of seven witnesses summoned by the Arab Executive, to testify regarding alleged government policy of favoritism to the Jews, and their charges that the Jews provoked the August riots. The other Arab witnesses were Edward Cosgrave. Assistant Superintendent of the Criminal Investigation Department, the British Constable Dove, the British postal official Gwatkin, the Arab policeman Saleh, Sheik Tufik Kemal of Zichron Moshe, and an Arab eye-witness, Abd Elkader Raschied.

In the midst of Antonious’s crossexamination, William Henry Stoker and Silley, leading Arab counsel, yielded their places to Aouni Bey Abbi Sadi, Secretary of the Arab Executive, confessing that they were unable to examine their own witness on details of government policy.

Explaining one of his own bulletins, which reported that 25 rifles had been seized from the Jews in Haifa, whereas in actuality only two had been seized, Antonious said that MacLaren, Acting District Commissioner of Haifa, had reported the arrest of 25 Jews. Not wishing to mention Jews, he substituted rifles, he declared.

The Arab charges that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had misappropriated one hundred thousand pounds collected for the relief of the refugees after the Syrian uprising were aired before the Commission during Sir Boyd Merriman’s cross-examination of Antonious. Antonious admitted that previous to the Palestine riots of August, there had been violent Moslem opposition to the Grand Mufti, but that this opposition had disappeared because the Grand Mufti had contrived to transform a religious issue into a political weapon by which he was able to perpetuate himself in office.

Merriman put the general proposition to Antonious: “Is it not a fact that early this year several Arab papers contended that the Grand Mufti was using the Wailing Wall dispute as a pretext to consolidate his position with regard to the Presidency of the Moslem Supreme Council, some papers accusing him of misappropriating the Wakf funds, which were used, inter alia, to subsidize papers?” Antonious agreed that many Arab papers complained that the money never reached the Syrian refugees.

Merriman introduced into the records a large file of translations from articles in the Arab press, showing hostility to the Mufti, a hostility which suddenly ceased after the outbreak.

Silley, cross-examining Antonious, made him say that the alleged Jewish desecration of tombs in a small mosque near Zichron Moshe was very offensive to orthodox Moslems.

The expertness of Antonious as an (Continued on Page 3)

This statement was astonishing to the members of the Commission, Snell asking whether this represents total earnings after the fellaheen had paid for food and other living expenses. Antonious reluctantly agreed that this represented cash earnings after living expenses were paid for.

Silley asked Antonious whether it was true, as the Commission inquiring into the Jaffa riots of 1921 stated, that “it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the whole non-Jewish population is united in hostility towards the Jews.” Antonious replied that this was applicable to the present situation, adding, however, that the hostility was not to the Jews but to certain aspects of Zionism.

Sir Walter Shaw, Chairman of the Commission, refused to allow Silley’s next question, on the ground that such a question was embarrassing to a government official, when the Arab counsel sought to know whether now, as in the Haycroft report of 1921, “the Arabs are saying that Britain is led by the Zionists to establish a Jewish National Home to the detriment of all Palestine.”

At this point the cross-examination of Antonious was turned over to the Arab lawyer. Aouni asked Antonious to describe his visit to Damascus with Lord Balfour in 1925, in an effort to show the hostility of a neighboring country to the Balfour Declaration. The question was dropped when the Commissioners objected, R. Hopkins Morris demanding. “What connection has Balfour’s visit with the riots of August?” while Sir Walter Shaw asked: “What has it to do with us?” and Snell queried: “How will it help us?”

Antonious denied that he had influenced against Zionism, Vincent Sheean, correspondent of the North American Newspaper Alliance and the New York “World.”

Turning to the arrest of the Grand Mufti in connection with instigating the Jaffa riots of 1921, Merriman reminded the Commission that the Mufti had broken bail and escaped from the country. The general amnesty proclaimed by Sir Herbert Samuel, then Palestine High Commissioner, had not included the Mufti or Aarel E. Aaref, because both had absconded. It was only later that the Mufti received amnesty, following a special petition in his behalf, Defending the Mufti, Silley cited the case of Mohammed Mahmoud, Premier of Egypt, who had also been deported.

Gwatkin, a post office official, was the next witness called. Gwatkin testified that on August 23, the beginning of the riots, he saw Jews hurling missiles, from the roof of a building on Jaffa Road, upon the villagers from Lifta as they came into Jerusalem. The villagers of Lifta, he said, looked solemn, while the Jews were armed with sticks and stones which they threw at the Arabs.

Merriman at this point reminded the witness and Commissioners that the Jews had already sufficient cause for apprehension, inasmuch as two Jews had been killed at Jaffa Gate and on Jaffa Road, and that the atmosphere was distinctly unhealthy. Raitan had just been killed, Wolfgang von Weisl, newspaper correspondent, had been gravely wounded, and Ittamar Ben Avi, Hebrew publicist, had been attacked.

Gwatkin then expressed the opinion that it was improvident to throw things since it was impossible to know whether the missiles would hit friend or foe.

R. Hopkin Morris stated he failed to (Continued on Page 4)

The British Constable Dove, who was the next witness, described the scene in the Jerusalem quarter Mea Shearim on August 23. At twelve-thirty that Friday, he in company with eight others, drove in a motorcar to the Street of the Prophets, which is about two hundred yards from Mea Shearim. A crowd of twenty or thirty Arabs, armed with sticks, was there. They carried no firearms. When he began to drive the crowd toward Mea Shearim the Arabs retreated to the wasteland facing Mea Shearim Street. A crowd of Jews was at the end of Mea Shearim Street. The Arab crowd tried to break through to the Jews. Hearing a shout, he turned and saw an Arab policeman bent over an Arab covered with dust and blood. He picked up the Arab and took him in his motorcar to the government hospital, where Dr. Sternberg pronounced him dead, Dove asserted. When Merriman suggested to Dove that it was one-thirty when he heard the shout, Dove insisted it was between twelve-thirty and on o’clock. “I did not look at my watch, but I am sure,” the British constable maintained.

Continuing, Dove related that after handing over the body of the Arab, he returned to Mea Shearim. The Arabs were advancing on the Jewish quarter when they heard shots fired by Jews and two bombs thrown by Jews land and explode, wormding one Arab. No Arabs fired. After the Arab retreat, several Jews ran out into the street and began beating the wounded Moslem, the witness asserted.

Saleh, an Arab policeman, corroborated the Brith Constable Dove testifying that he had picked up the wounded Arab in Mea Shearim before one o’clock. Saleh denied making a statement to any one at the Hospital or in the Health Department to the effect that he had picked up a man at one-thirty.

Edward Cosgrave, Assistant Superintendent of the Criminal Investigation Department, read into the record a list of complaints and assaults which had occurred on August 17, 18,19. Asked by Silley whether the Hadassah Hospital records show the time of the entry of the wounded. Cosgrave asserted he had asked for such information but the Hadassah Hospital informed him that they did not make time entries as a rule because they considered them as unnecessary.

Sheik Tufik Kemal, in charge of the Mosque at Zichron Moshe was the next witness called. He testified that on August 24, at ten-thirty in the morning, from his home near the Mosque, he saw a crowd of Jews outside the Mosque, among them four Zionists whom he recognized because they wore white shorts and carried iron hars. After about ten minutes, the Jewish group left. Disguising in Zionist clothes his sixteen-year-old son who speaks Hebrew because for seven years he attended a Hebrew school, the sheik sent him to the police to ask for protection. After forry minutes, he returned with constables in two automobiles. Fearing to leave the house, the sheik disguised himself and his family, unveiling his wife, and departed in an automobile. He remained away until August 27, when he was informed by the Moslem Supreme Council that a Jewish attack on the Mosque was feared. The Moslem Supreme Council obtained a police guard with whom the Sheik returned to the Mosque, he testified. He found that his house had been broken into and the Holy Tombs damaged. Neighbors told him, he asserted, that the Jews had broken into the Mosque on August 26.

To Merriman’s query; “Do you know that the Jews guarded the Mosque for three days by order of the Jewish National Council?” the witness replied in the negative.

The last witness at today’s session was Elkader Raschied, who testified concerning the Jewish demonstration on August 15. The witness asserted he was sitting in a cafe on August 15. when he saw the Jewish procession advancing, carrying sticks, iron rods, and flags, shouting: “Down with our opponents.” He followed the procession to the Waiting Wall, and affirming that he understands Hebrew, said he heard the Jews say: “El Burak is ours. The Waiting Wall is ours. We cannot permit the new structure. Down with those who insult our Holy Places.”

Raschied then introduced household pictures purchased three and one-half years ago in a Jewish shop in the Old City. He testified that he had presented these pictures to the Moslem Supreme Council three years ago, which in turn had sent them to Mecca for examiation. The examination discovered that one picture showed a Mosque mounted with Zionist flags. Raschied asserted.

Sir Waher Shaw wanted to know: What is the point of these pictures: They look to me like the sort that might have been taken in London.” “Do you mean these affected the Arab mind?” Merriman asked. “Exactly,” answered Maughanam, a secretary of the Arab Executive who is also serving as a member of the Arab counsel.