Rutenberg Tells of Warning Luke of Tension and Imminence of Outbreak Unless Caution Was Exercised

Piuchas Rutenberg, Chairman of the Vaad Leumi, Palestine National Council, was placed on the witness stand yesterday, by Sir Boyd Merriman, counsel for the Jewish Agency, interrupting the cross edamination by Stoker, counsel for the Arabs, of H. C. Luke, Chief Secretary of the Palestine Government and Acting High Commissioner at the time of the outbreaks in August.

While Luke waited in an ante-room, Mr. Rutenberg told the story of his interviews with Mr. Luke and his repeated warnings to the then Acting High Commissioner of the tension in the country and the possibility of outbreaks unless the utmost caution was used.

Mr. Rutenberg was introduced to the Commission yesterday in view of the fact that his name had been brought into the testimony of Luke, whose interviews with the head of the Vaad Leumi Luke failed to remember, although he acknowledged that the conferences had taken place.

Testifying throughout the morning at an open hearing, followed by an afternoon session in camera, Rutenberg confined himself to events immediately preceding and following the riots, including the incidents over the prohibition of the blowing of the Shofar at the Wailing Wall on Yom Kippur by the Government due to the pressure of Arab threats. Three points were established by Mr. Rutenberg: namely that he had warned Luke not to permit the Jewish demonstration at the Wailing Wall on Tisha B’Ab, that he had informed Luke that the prohibition of the Shofar at the Wailing Wall owing to the pressure of the Arab threats was an insult to Jews, and that Police Commander Foley had erred when he stated that occupants of a car belonging to the Rutenberg Electric Works were arrested for firing on the residents in the streets of Haifa during the riots.

The Commissioners displayed the keenest interest in the testimony presented by Mr. Rutenberg.

On August 8. Rutenberg related, he said a visit to Mr. Luke and informed him that the continued Moslem building operations at the Wailing Wall were offensive to the Jews, and that the excitement among the Jews was becoming dangerous. Luke, he said, thought Rutenberg’s description exaggerated, but told him, nevertheless, about the preparations of the Jewish youth of Haifa to come to Jerusalem on Tisha B’Ab, asking him to prevent it. Mr. Rutenberg’s statement at this point contradicts the testimony of Luke, who stated that he had been informed by Rutenberg about the Haifa youth plans. Rutenberg said he promised to arrange that no Jewish youths should come from Haifa. He insisted, however, that Luke should prevent large crowds of Jews from registering their protest on Tisha B’Ab, owing to the possibility of a reaction by the Arabs. He advised Luke, he stated, to use British police at the Wall, and to regulate the visitors so that only small parties should be permitted at the Wall at one time. He informed Luke, the witness stated, that he foresaw an unavoidable clash, engendered by the provocative attitude of the Arabs, who were irritating and interfering with worshippers at the Wailing Wall. Luke promised to take the necessary precautions.

On August 20, Rutenberg continued, he saw Sir John Chancellor in Lon- (Continued on Page 3)

Passing to the question of the prohibition of the blowing of the Shofar at the Wailing Wall, upon the conclusion of the Yom Kippur service, Rutenberg testified that at the request of Harry Sacher, member of the Zionist Executive, he saw Chancellor on October 11, in connection with the Government’s order. Advised by Chancellor to see Luke, the latter gave as his reason for the offensive order the protest of the Moslems, who objected to the blowing of the Shofar on Rosh Hashonah, the Jewish New Year. He warned Luke, Rutenberg asserted, that no Government was entitled to interfere with the Jewish service. Not only the Jews, but the Christian world, would be shocked, and “the Government would break its neck on that blow of the horn.” Both he and Mr. Sacher pointed out to Luke that the Government, in issuing the order, had yielded to Moslem threats. Impressed by the argument, Luke said he would inform Chancellor.

Rutenberg asserted that he informed the Government authorities that if the Government thought the blowing of the horn would cause trouble, the Government should make the Wailing Wall inaccessible to the Jews, rather than force a departure from the ritual. Sir John Chancellor, however, refused to prohibit the Jewish access to the Wall on Yom Kippur.

Silley, junior Arab counsel, endeavored to force an admission from Rutenberg, under cross examination, that Chief Rabbi A. J. Kook sought to have the status quo of the Wailing Wall changed and claimed the right of consultation as to what should be allowed on the Moslem Wakf property.

Rutenberg replied that “Rabbi Kook considers the Wall the holiest place of the Jewish people, and that the Chief Rabbi is entitled to be consulted on matters affecting the freedom of worship and decency at the Wailing Wall.” He said that Rabbi Kook sought a dignified solution of the problem, with the assistance of the Government. He agreed, he said, with the complaint of Rabbi Kook against making the pavement outside the Wailing Wall, a thoroughfare, against the muezzin’s calling the Arabs to prayer in the midst of the Jewish prayer, and against the Arab donkey drivers irritating the Jewish worshippers.

The new regulations on the Wailing Wall, he stated, make no reference to the blowing of the Shofar. The prohibition of the Shofar blowing was humiliating to the worshippers and offensive even to the non-observant Jews. Rabbi Kook, he said, yielded to the omission of an essential part of the Jewish service because he wanted to save Jewish lives.

Although the Jews cannot produce documentary evidence of their right to the Wailing Wall, they are entitled to worship at the place which they consider most holy, Rutenberg asserted, adding that it is the duty of the Government to assure them decent and dignified facilities.

Asked by Sir Walter Shaw, if in his opinion the blowing of the Shofar should have been allowed, even if it had not been blown before, Rutenberg answered in the affirmative, reiterating that the Moslems used the Shofar as a pretext for interfering with the Jewish service, such interference and pressure being offensive to the Jews, from the viewpoint of dignity and religion.

Preedy, counsel for the Government, at this point interposed: “The Commission has been asked to adduce from the alleged Government weakness over the Shofar blowing in October that it was weak in August.” To which Rutenberg replied: “If you ask me, I would certainly say that the Government was weak in August.” He stated, however, that he had the greatest admiration for the fairness and justice of Sir John Chancellor. Sir Walter Shaw objected to Preedy’s attempt to extract deductions from Rutenberg on the ground that Preedy had objected to Merriman’s questioning Luke in the same vein. Rutenberg finally stated that the reason he urged the Government to close the Wall on Yom Kip- (Continued on Page 4)

Following Rutenberg’s testimony, the cross examination of Luke was resumed.

Stoker continued his questioning on whether or not Luke had ordered the Grand Mufti to abate the nuisance of the Moroccan jazz band in the Garden near the Wall pavement during the Jewish prayers.

Luke asserted he was indignant because the noise continued despite the promise to maintain silence. He said he pressed the Mufti to keep his promise, although in dealing with such a high dignitary, he employed a tactful manner.

Stoker introduced the “Doar Hayom” of August 16, containing a colorful account of the Jewish demonstration on Tisha B’Ab, as well as Dr. Klausner’s address against “The Aggressions on Our Wall.” Luke said that he had not read this before. He admitted that the Moslem authorities had been asked to keep the Moroccans out of the way of the Jews at the Wall on Tisha B’Ab, but that the Moslems exercised no restraint in not interfering with the Jews, who made their customary visit, but were “accommodating.”

Merriman was asked by Shaw to produce copies of the Hebrew publications “Davar” and Ha’Aretz,” in which they attacked the “Doar Havom” as being responsible for the Jewish procession on Tisha B’Ab.

Merriman deposited, with the Commission, the Zionist Executive report to the Zurich Congress, also the Zionist reports to the Permanent Mandates Commission from 1924 to 1929.

That the Arabs are dissatisfied with Stoker’s handling of their case is reported here. Considerable friction occurred yesterday among Arab counsel, Auni Abdul Hadi desiring to cross examine Luke in place of Stoker, who refused to yield his place.