Merriman, Summing Up, Says British Officials Lacked Sympathy for Jewish National Home; Charges Preed

Charging a lack of sympathy by British officials with the Jewish National Home and accusing government counsel Kenelm Preedy of having distorted his questions in re-examining witnesses, of not putting a single question to Arab witnesses relative to their propaganda tending to incite the population, of doing nothing to ascertain whether there was complicity among the Arabs to provoke riots, Sir Boyd Merriman completed his summary of the Jewish case Tuesday night before the Palestine Inquiry Commission with the members divided in their opinion as to the admissibility of Merriman’s attack on Preedy, who, Merriman charged, had failed to force the Arab Executive or the Mufti to produce communications sent by them o### various parts of Palestine or abroad ###nce the riots of last August.

Sir Boyd’s summing up terminated abruptly after seven and a half hours when he sat down and refused to continue after being interrupted thrice by Commissioner Hopkin Morris, despite he permission of Chairman Walter Shaw to continue.

Citing sections of Preedy’s cross-examination of both Arab and Jewish witnesses, the counsel for the Jews declared that the government’s method of putting questions to Jewish witnesses was distinctly puzzling and appeared to consist of an attempt to discredit the most sincere and most straightforward testimony. Although the Zionist Executive had done everything to aid the authorities, Merriman declared that Preedy in cross-examining, even the most respectable people in the community had created the inference that they were untruthful.

At this point Commissioner Morris broke in to say that he had not been asked to make up his mind as to the conduct of the case and asked Merriman to refrain from discussing it. In defense Merriman said that the conduct of the case “had repercussions.” He retorted that “if Preedy thinks it is his duty to establish the fact that every Englishman here is against the Jewish National Home he has succeeded.” Chairman Shaw interrupted to point out that Preedy could not be attacked personally but Merriman, insisting that there was a vast difference between refusing to examine Arab witnesses on the most vital points and (Continued on Page 3)

EVENTS AFTER FIRST DEATH IMPORTANT

A distinguished gathering was present when Sir Boyd launched into his summing up by mentioning the terms of reference of the Commission and Chief Rabbi Kook’s reminder that the Commission was investigating why defenseless Jews had been killed. Answering in the affirmative his own assertions that the Arabs had attacked the Jews except in Haifa and that even there to say that the first shot was fired by a Jew as the start of the outbreak would be to confuse cause with effect he launched into a discussion of the exact time that the first person was killed in Jerusalem. Here he jaid down the principle that the exact time of the first death and whether it was of a Jew or an Arab did not matter but what was important were the succession of events and whether they were only a spasmodic outbreak or the result of organized incitement and if so who was responsible.

TRACES MUFTI’S INCITEMENT

Citing the police officers’ testimony that a religious basis underlies all of the disturbances in Palestine, he remarked that he was unconcerned with the minor actors and following up that unconcern he concentrated on the Mufti, showing that his desire to consolidate the Moslems, including violence to his opponents, was the result of his scheme to perpetuate himself in office. Merriman traced the Mufti’s organized Burak campaign since Yom Kippur 1928 and ridiculed the Moslem assertion in a resolution submitted to the Mandates Commission that the Jews could only enjoy visitors’ rights to the Wailing Wall the same as other tourists. The introduction of the muezzin, the orchestra and other innovations emphasized the Moslem property rights, said Merriman, and he insisted that “the whole idea of the Holiness of the pavement to the Moslems was a new-fangled idea trumped up for the purpose of the Burak campaign. It is a squalid insistence of property rights against what should be universally admitted religious rights.”

“SHOWS UP” ARAB CONTENTIONS

Showing up the contentions of the Mufti and other Arab witnesses that the Mizrachs and the Simchath Torah flags betray Jewish designs on Mount Moriah, Merriman recalled Rabbi Kook’s evidence of spiritual hopes and not physical possession regarding the area sacred to both Jews and Moslems. Merriman dismissed all of the Moslem evidence of Jewish encroachment as unutterable rubbish. Taking up the matter of the myth of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and their publication in the Moslem papers, Merriman submitted that the whole Burak campaign was merely complicity in the incitement. He enumerated all of the evidence showing the movements of Arab agitators throughout the country before the riots and mentioned the fanatical sheik whom the Mufti had sent ostensibly to pacify the mob on that fateful Friday.

Using the police evidence Merriman exclaimed if the police could describe the sheik as dangerous “I don’t hesitate to say the same of the Mufti himself.” Turning to the Arab Executive. Merriman suggested that their putting forward political grievances as the immediate cause of the outbreaks throws light on their part in the matter. Briefly discussing immigration, Sir Boyd reminded the Commission that they were not dealing with major issues although the Balfour Declaration as a contributor to the unrest was not arguable. Assuming what he absolutely denied, that the employment of Jews involves higher taxation. Merriman pointed out that it is inherent in the Mandate that the British administration supply work to Jews on public works. Continuing, he declared that the existence of the British government in Palestine is bound up with the Jewish National Home “because we committed ourselves to the Balfour Declaration. We got the mandate with the help of such men as Sacher. The British administration resulted in increased government efficiency and comfort for the inhabitants. If you assert what is contrary to truth, that taxation has been increased, the Arabs should weigh the advantages of British rules against the disadvantages.”

LAND GRIEVANCE NOT REAL

Regarding the land policy Merriman asked. “Why in connection with the wildest rumors about Jews attacking and defiling Moslem holy places, bombing and slaughtering, haven’t we heard people say ‘our land was taken from us’? Why wasn’t the land cry raised when the mob shouted ‘the religion of Mohammed with the sword’? If the land grievance is real how will you explain the fact that Hebron, Safed and other Jewish settlements were so completely sacked?” Adhering to his promise to deal only with the major Arab “actors,” Merriman mentioned Moussa Kazim’s visit to Jaffa to supervise the printing of inciting pamphlets, and turning to Subhi Khadra, in court with Arab counsel, said that this ex-major of King Feisal’s army was one of the more sinister figures to have come before the Commission.

Apologizing for the difficulty of summarizing a day’s evidence in several hours, Merriman gave a formidable list. (Continued on Page 4)

REITERATES ATTACK ON LUKE

Referring to Luke’s “I don’t recollect and I can’t charge my memory” answers, Merriman then turned his guns on the government, prefacing his attack with “I don’t run away from a single word of my opening speech” in which he had charged the former Acting High Commissioner of being guilty of weakness and imperfect sympathy with the Jewish National Home. Merriman then went on to recall the communiques, cables and important interviews which Luke had not remembered and reiterated his belief that it had been a grave error to disarm British Jews. He then passed on to the following main charges against the government.

He first charged the administration with failure to quell the incitement begun in January when the Arab press had urged a holy war over the Wailing Wall. Then he declared there should have been a government proclamation refuting the charges of Jewish aggression against Moslem sanctuaries. “What Col. Amery could do in Parliament the government should have done here.”

Merriman spent more than an hour on the third point in which he pointed out that in allowing the demonstration on Tish B’Av the government became responsible for the events that followed it and it was not a question between the Zionist Executive and the government but between the government and the boys and girls who staged the demonstration. In his fourth point he charged that not enough importance had been attached to the warnings of Jewish representatives from everywhere who in all reports, including the Hebrew press, converged on Friday as the day on which dreadful things would happen. The fifth point was that the government in disregarding the warnings had not called for reinforcements and had used inadequately the available forces and had not opened fire on Jerusalem. He mentioned Jaffa and Nablus where after the troops had fired on the mob the trouble did not spread.

GOVERNMENT AIDED ENLARGED AGENCY

Merriman’s final shot was a discussion of Preedy’s suggestion to Sacher that the enlargement of the Jewish Agency was designed to get more from the government and thereby had terrified the Arabs. Merriman then reminded the Commission that the Mandate provides for the enlargement of he Agency to replace the Zionist Organization and that the enlargement had been consummated at Zurich against opposition and with every tage of the program worked out with the cooperation of the British and Palestine governments.

Following this up, Merriman asked ‘why does the government counse’ walk to the Zionist Organization representative as if the extension of the Agency were an anti-Arab design? If this is so the government here and it London must share the responsibility since they were parties to its existnce.”