Revisionists Have Day in Court; Wolfgang Von Weisl Tells of First Attacks; Explains Revisionist Stan

The Zionist Revisionists had their day in court yesterday when Wolfgang Von Weisl, prominent Zionist Revisionist and newspaper correspondent, testified as to the events of the 16th of August at the Wailing Wall and of the 23rd on the Jaffa Road, before the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. His evidence, which was the first unofficial eye-witness account of what transpired, was dramatically enhanced by the fact that he was among the first persons attacked on the 23rd. He is still suffering from the nearly fatal wounds he received, which are expected to permanently impair his health. He came to the hearing before the Inquiry Commission attended by a nurse and his wife, a Palestinian, who occupied the seat usually reserved for Lady Betterton.

The description of what Weisl saw and experienced occupied but a fraction of the time of nearly a whole day’s session that was devoted to a searching examination and cross examination of the Revisionists’ principles, which the witness strongly defended. He explained, stressing again and again that Revisionism represents the first Zionist principles and contains nothing that could justly excite a feeling of apprehension among the Arabs.

Weisl further testified that he had arrived in Palestine prior to an intended journey to the United States, where he had been appointed correspondent of the “Vossische Zeitung.” He explained that he had gone to the Wailing Fall on August 16 to witness the Arab demonstration. He saw Arabs removing petitions from crevices in the Wailing Wall and tearing and trampling papers. Weisl said that he found sheets of burnt prayer-books, including the Tish B’Ab lamentations. (Continued on Page 3)

Coming down to the tragic Friday which saw the beginning of the outbreaks, Weisl said that he first heard rumors of disturbances on the Jaffa road after one o’clock. He rushed to the Jaffa Gate where he saw British police with rifles and unarmed Arab police. A British officer and Cust were there when 150 or 200 Arabs came to the gate brandishing swords and sticks. The witness added that he saw a Jews running towards the police but he was hit before he reached them. He got up and was hit again. The police picked him up and placed him behind their lines.

Weisl told how Cust tried to calm the Arabs but five minutes later another Jew was knocked down and the mob rushed down the Bethlehem road, but were intercepted by the police. Weisl said he eventually proceeded down the Jaffa road where he heard the alarmed Jews shout that the Arabs were coming. The mob was shepherded by two mounted police in the front and a motorcar of four British police in the rear. The mob was moving more or less quietly, he continued, when suddenly a big Arab rushed at a Jews with a stick. Almost simultaneously Weisl was struck by two Arabs but he warded off the blows of his attackers with his sun helmet. Weisl said he grasped one assailant and shouted to the police to arrest him, but the police said they were too busy. As the Arab tried to disentangle himself from Weisl’s grip, another Arab stabbed Weisl in the back.

The witness said he was certain that he saw the police push his attacker back into the procession. It was at that time that Raitan was mortally hit by another Arab and Ittamar Ben Avi, Hebrew publicist, exclaimed that he had been hurt.

After putting to Weisl a question regarding the time of the assault, William Henry Stoker, Arab counsel, launched into a cross examination of Weisl’s views on Revisionism.

Weisl stated that he came to Palestine in 1922, immediately applying for citizenship which was granted to him in 1925. Explaining his views on Zionism, he declared that while it is true that he does not agree with Dr. Weizmann, it is untrue that the views of the Revisionists are more extreme than those of other Zionists. Dr. Weizmann’s political and economic policy, he stated, is regarded by the Revisionists “as harmful to the development of Palestine and the Zionist organization in three ways, namely : 1. Weizmann has overemphasized the philanthropic side of Palestine upbuilding. We do not believe that gifts alone will build the country although we recognize their importance. Secondly, the money collections necessitate the creation of an optimistic atmosphere by the Zionist Organization, thus obliging the Zionists to tell the Jews that conditions are satisfactory, whereas we believe the contrary. Thirdly, the Revisionists oppose the unproductive manner in which the money is spent in Palestine,” Von Weisl stated.

“The New Palestine,” official organ of the Zionist Organization of America, figured prominently in the proceedings because of two articles by Dr. Chaim Weizmann, President of the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization. In one of these articles, Dr. Weizmann wrote : “The key to the door of Palestine is not in the hands of the High Commissioner, but in the pockets of the Jews of America.”

Asked by Stoker whether he agreed to this statement, Weisl said, that while he does not wish to interpret Weizmann’s meaning, he understands the quotation to mean that the doors of Palestine would open wider, if the Jews would increase their financial contributions. The Revisionists, however, dissent from such a view. They believe the key to the door of Palestine is in the hands of the High Commissioner since the Jews would be prepared to give millions of dollars if favorable legislation for Jewish immigration were obtained.

Turning to an article by von Weisl in “The New Palestine” of August 21st, two days before the witness was stabbed, entitled “By Order of the Grand Mufti,” Stoker demanded to know whose views were represented there. Replying, Von Weisl said the article expressed his own views. He declared the source of his information regarding the removal of the screen from the Wailing Wall, in 1928, on Yom Pippur, was the beadle. He asserted that he still believes that no harm would have been done the Arabs, if the screen had been removed a few hours later, and less harm would have been caused the Jews than by taking it away during the progress of the Holyday services. Keith Roach, District Commissioner of Jerusalem, by whose order the screen was removed, could have requested the Grand Mufti to agree that the screen remain until after the services, asserted Weisl.

Returning to the events which led up to the riots in August, Weisl declared that he was informed the day before Tisha B’Ab, the day of the Jewish demonstration, that the Arabs were preparing to attack the Jews early the next morning. The Jews, asserted the witness, go to the Wailing Wall, not only for prayer, but for moral and nationalist reasons.

Preedy, counsel for the Palestine (Continued on Page 4)

Asked to explain the objects of Revisionism, Weisl asserted that its object is the gradual development of a Jewish majority in Palestine, reminding the Commissioners that this program was taken from the speech made by Sir Herbert Samuel, first High Commissioner of Palestine, in 1919. Gradual, he explained, means twenty-five or thirty years. It is the Revisionist hope that the Arabs, in becoming a minority, should have no less rights than the Revisionists ask today for a Jewish minority.

The views expressed by Vladimir Jabtinsky, head of the Zionist Revisionists, in an open letter to the London “Times,” following the outbreak, which were the subject of much comment, were endorsed by the witness.

Explaining the opposition of the majority of the Chaluzim to Revisionism, the witness asserted that the Chaluzim, Palestine pioneers, oppose Revisionism, because they consider it more important to obtain help from rich American Jews than to obtain the maximum of assistance from the Government. The Revisionists, on the other hand, do not believe that the difficulties can be overcome with money alone. Government co-operation is necessary in order to attract money.

The troubles at the Wailing Wall could have been avoided, had the government taken a firmer stand, he averred.

“Don’t you think another outbreak would occur if the Arabs feared that they were being swamped?” asked Preedy.

“No such fear is justifiable,” replied Weisl. “The experience of the last ten years shows that the Arab population has increased faster than the Jews, despite Jewish immigration. Palestine and Transjordania together are capable of supporting five million people, whereas the highest Jewish population figures one might expect would be three million. The Revisionist idea is to make Palestine a place where the Jews outnumber the Arabs otherwise our coming here is not worthwhile,” he declared.

Continuing, he said: “An immigration of twenty-five thousand Jews annually is possible if Palestine could be made to attract middle class Jews, leaving the initiative to them, and if the Zionist Organization would not interfere too much, merely creating suitable conditions.”

“Wouldn’t the Arabs become nervous over an increased immigration?” queried Preedy. Weisl’s reply was: “Thirty-five thousand Jews entered Palestine in 1925 and Arab-Jewish relations were never happier.” Immigration slackened in the years 1926-1927, he pointed out, due to economic depression caused by outside factors, and the government was obliged to provide unemployment relief. He stated between forty and fifty percent of the taxation is paid by the Jews.

The Revisionist view, he maintained, is not that Palestine should become as Jewish as England is English. “It will be sufficient if the Jews form more than one-half of the population. If the Jews form a majority, they would no more oppress the Arabs than they wish to be oppressed by the Arab majority now. We want a Jewish majority, because we fear that the Arabs will do to the Jews what they say they fear the Jews will do to them.”

The Revisionists object to self-government in Palestine, because it is dangerous and pernicious to the Jewish settlement, he said. It is very unreasonable for the Arabs to object to a Jewish majority since Emir Feisal of Iraq, who was the representative of the Arabs at the Peace Conference, wrote a letter to Dr. Weizmann in which he expressed agreement with the Jewish nationalist aspirations.

Von Weisl’s contentions concerning an increased Jewish immigration were supported by Sir Boyd Merriman, counsel for the Jewish Agency, who pointed out that the Arabs were absolutely bound to share form the developments in industry, agriculture, and in other ways as a result of a larger Jewish immigration.

Von Weisl was followed on the witness stand by district officer of Nablus, Miller. Miller described the Arab demonstration on August 17th in celebration of the birthday of the Prophet, which followed on the heels of the Tisha B’Ab demonstration of the Jews, and which led up to the bloody outbreak on August 23rd.

Miller stated that the rowdy elements among the Moslems proceeded to Jerusalem on August 17th, a most unusual occurrence, since normally only the better class of Moslems go. He declared that the Young Men’s Moslem Association has changed from a religious body, organized to oppose the Young Men’s Christian Association, to a political body. He declared the Moslem Youth wished to hold a demonstration against the alleged demonstration of the Tel Aviv youth, at the Wailing Wall, which he refused to permit.

On August 20th, he said, the Arab shops in Nablus were closed owing to reports that the Jews had killed Moslems in Jerusalem. The crowd, he asserted, pretended not to believe that the rumor was false, shouting: “We believe only the Grand Mufti.” When the Grand Mufti telephoned that he did not require the help of the Moslem youth of Nablus, the leading Moslem notables assured him that they were all awaiting his orders.

The Moslems, he asserted, who were previously disorganized, became united after August 16th, due to the Wailing Wall issue.

He stated he saw two German hand grenades used by Arabs of Nablus. Asked by Silley, junior Arab counsel: “Do you think the Moslem excitement was the natural outcome of the Jewish demonstrations?” Miller replied: “I don’t think any procession or demonstration any place in Palestine would cause trouble without the work of agitators. The people of this country follow a few agitators.”

Who generally leave the country when trouble comes?” inquired Silley. “Sometimes,” replied Miller. “Like the Zionist officials?” interrogated the Arab counsel. “Yes, and I might say like the government officials,” asserted Miller.

Acting Governor of Jerusalem Cust was recalled to the witness stand yesterday. Cust described the exciting effect produced on the Jews by articles in the Hebrew press, following the permission given by the government to the Arabs to build at the Wailing Wall. He said also that the proceedings in Zurich affected the Arabs.