Luke Takes Witness Stand; Says Cournse During Outbreak Dictated by Policy, Not by Weakness for Cowar

If You Are Pleased with the “Jewish Daily Bulletin” Tell Your Friends to Subscribe

The statement that until Yom Kippur of 1928 the Moslems never attached any religious significance to the Wailing Wall, was made yesterday by Acting Governor of Jerusalem Cust, before the Inquiry Commission, lending support to consistent assertion on the part of Jewish leaders that the weakness of the Palestine Government, in submitting to Moslem demands and ordering the removal of a screen on Yom Kippur, 1928, at the height of the holy day services, helped to transform an incident into an issue.

Although the Wailing Wall was always regarded physically and structurally a part of the Mosque area, in his ten years of service in Palestine, until the incident on the Day of Atonement, he had never known that the Moslems had any religious interest in it, Cust said, adding that the name El Burak has only recently been given the Wall. According to the more recent Moslem claims, the horse of Mohammed, El Burak, is buried on top of the Wall.

At the same time, Cust nailed the misstatement of Vincent Sheean, correspondent of the North American Newspaper Alliance, who declared in a telegram to his syndicate that he had turned anti-Zionist because he had seen “the Jews offer deliberate, organized insult at th holiest Moslem place in this country.” Quoting this Sheean statement, Sir Boyd Merriman, counsel for the Jewish Agency, asked Cust whether he agreed with Sheean. “This is an entirely false description of what happened that evening,” declared Cust, who proceeded to give his own description of what occurred on Tisha B’Ab.

Tracing the formation of the Jewish Committee for the Protection of the Wailing Wall, headed by Dr. Klausner, which had its Arab counter society, “El Aksa,” formed by sheiks of the Mosque, he declared that after the incidents on Tisha B’Ab, the tension had increased to such an extent that neither the Palestine police, the Jews, or the Arabs, were able to cope with the situation.

A visit to the Wailing Wall on Tisha B’Ab, he explained, is more important than on Yom Kippur, in the eyes of observant Jews.

Nothing untoward occurred on Tisha B’Ab, he said. The Moslem authorities had previously consented to suspend building that week. The Moroccan Arabs, inhabiting the Wakf, agreed to reduce their movements on that day, to a minimum. The rabbis, and Dr. Klausner, head of the Wailing Wall Committee, used their influence to maintain order and decorum. All the Jewish authorities, including Mr. Hoofien, of the Anglo-Palestine Bank, who acted for the Zionist Executive, and Mr. Solomon, who represented the Palestine National Council, Vaad Leumi, were opposed to the Jewish demonstration on the afternoon of Tisha B’Ab. The crowd, however, was excited and determined, some seeking to clash with the police. Cust said the authorities made it clear that any attempt to demonstrate in front of the (Continued on Page 4)

The Moslems were informed that the Jews intended to form a procession to the Wailing Wall. As a result, the government was obliged, the next day, to permit the Moslems to hold a demonstration. The permission was given, with the proviso that the crowd should follow a route to be decided on in advance, and that it should not use the new gateway. The promise that these limitations would be observed was given by responsible sheiks of the Mosque. The police brought about the removal of Jewish beggars from the scene. On August 17th, the Arab procession, numbering 1,000 to 1,500 Arabs, marched to the Wailing Wall. It was in a state of excitement such as only those living in the East know. Bearing banners, and shouting, the mob raised cries which he had never before heard of in connection with religious observance, he stated. Among the cries he heard were: “Mohammed arose by the sword.” When the crowd emerged from the Wall, it was in a greater stae of fanaticism than previously.

Discussing the Arab demonstration on Thursday, August 16, the day following the Tisha B’Ab demonstration of the Jews. Cust, Acting Governor of Jerusalem, declared that when the Arab demonstration dispersed, he returned to the Wailing Wall, and found the beadle, sweeping up heaps of burned paper. He ordered him to remove all traces of the havoc as soon as possible. At the same time, he said, he saw Wolfgang von Weisl gathering up scorched scraps of paper and putting them in his pocket. He told Weisl, he testified, that a world-wide repercussion was bound to follow as the result of the outrage at the Wailing Wall, and begged Weisl, as a leading journalist, to refrain from saying anything that was likely to excite the Jews.

Continuing, the witness stated that he later called together the Jewish leaders, expressed his regrets at the incident, and counseled the editors of the Jewish newspapers to make an effort to calm the populace. All agreed, he said, that it was necessary to allay the alarm of the community. That same Friday evening and on Saturday the Jews conducted services as usual at the Wailing Wall.

The Moslems of Jaffa. Gaza and Hebron, who sought to stage counter demonstrations, were discouraged by the Grand Mufti, who assured them that the Moslem demonstration in Jerusalem had obtained full satisfaction.

Describing the tension after the killing of the Jewish youth, Abraham Mizrachi, Cust stated that the government felt if the following Friday and Saturday passed quietly, the crisis would be overcome. Friday, August 23 arrived, and he was informed that an unusually large number of Arabs, armed with clubs and sticks, were arriving in Jerusalem. He toured the old city, and noted many Jewish shops were closed. He also visited the Grand Mufti. Apart from the electric atmosphere, he saw nothing on his tour which would indicate that anything was likely to happen. When he returned to Jaffa road, however, he saw a number of Arabs running up David Street, while a Jew was being clubbed by six or seven Arabs outside of Cook’s office, Cust concluded his testimony.

He was immediately placed under cross examinatoin by William Henry Stoker, Arab counsel. Stoker endeavored to construe the playing of the Arab orchestra, in the garden to the left of the Wailing Wall, as liturgical music, necessary to the ritual of the Moslems of North African origin, such as the Moroccans who inhabit the hovels near the Wall.

Cust, however, held his ground, and insisted that an orchestra had never before been heard anywhere in the Wailing Wall area. Despite Stoker’s insistence, the witness proved adamant.

He resisted the attempt of Stoker to make him say that the appearance of the muezzin, on top of a building near the Wall, calling the Arabs to prayer, was not an innovation. He maintained that the muezzin had never before appeared near the Wailing Wall.

He also denied Stoker’s suggestion that the Jews tried to convert the pavement outside the Wailing Wall into an open synagogue, although he admitted that some extremist Jews might have had such aspirations.

Taking up Cust’s previous statement that in view of the existing tension it would have been criminal to allow Jews on Moslem ground and vice versa, Stoker asserted that the Jewish demonstration on Tisha B’Ab was on purely Arab ground, neglecting to mention that the Jews had the right, by immemorial use, to visit the Wailing Wall. He insinuated that it was accident rather than design which caused the destruction at the Wailing Wall, that it was the pressure of the Moslem crowd during the demonstration which upset the furniture at the Wall and that the Moslems did not wantonly smash the appurtenances. He insinuated further that Arab children might possibly have burned the prayer-books.

All these suggestions were challenged by Cust.

When Stoker quoted the address of Chief Rabbi Kook, welcoming the young Jews who were prepared to protect the Wall, Cust said that the Grand Mufti had carried out every undertaking to assist the authorities.

If You Are Pleased with the “Jewish Daily Bulletin” Tell Your Friends to Subscribe