Revisionists and Jewish Labor Group Grumbling Because All Sides Not Heard at Inquiry

As the Jewish case before the Inquiry Commission nears its end there appears to be dissatisfaction in several quarters because of the feeling that all sides have not been presented. While even the “Davar,” representative of the labor forces, and an implacable foe of Harry Sacher, chairman of the Palestine Zionist Executive, described the evidence that he gave as “frank, comprehensive, vigorous and proud,” the labor organ feels that the idealogy of the Jewish pioneering was not prominently featured before the Commission.

The Revisionists are embittered because their chief, Vladimir Jabotiusky, was not invited to testify. Following the refusal of Sir Boyd Merriman, chief of the Jewish counsel, to summon Jabotinsky, the latter wrote to the Commission offering to appear but it declined to hear him before his departure for Europe, holding out, however, the possibility of hearing him in London. Sir Boyd evidently feels it unwise to tax the patience of the Commission, which already has stayed long- (Continued on Page 4)

er than originally intended and is disappointed because it has not finished in time to return to England for Christmas, with more witnesses than are absolutely necessary.

The evidence to be given today by Dr. Arthur Ruppin member of the Palestine Zionist Executive treating of the problem of the 16,000,000 Jews of the world versus the Arab race of a similar number is expected to emphasize the vital necessity of Palestine as the solution of the Jewish problem. He will stress Palestine’s limited area compared with that of the neighboring countries; including Transjordania, where the Arabs have been given an opportunity to develop themselves politically and the country economically. Ruppin’s evidence will be in secret which is another cause of complaint, because the evidence offered by the Arabs attacking the Jewish National Home was in public. Col. Frederick H. Kisch will also submit his evidence privately. His testimony will discuss a general scheme of self-defence for the Jewish settlements.

Some bewilderment has been caused by the report that Kenelm Preedy, counsel for the government, will not sum up. The report is particularly surprising in view of the vigorous attacks that have been made on the conduct of the Palestine administration during the disturbances. It is also possible that Sir Boyd Merriman’s final address will include an attack on Preedy’s advocacy, especially in view of the latter’s insinuation that the massacres may have resulted from the Zionist policy. On the other hand it is admittedly difficult for Preedy to sum up without openly taking sides.