User:Zero0000/Shaw Commission Testimony

Page 326. Testimony of Mr. H. C. Luke continues
8366.	Mr. Stoker: Now another question. Have the Arabs been continually asking and pressing the Government to give effect to the White Paper ? — Yes.

8367.	And so far the only response the Government have made is this statement in the Proclamation of the 1st September and these new regulations which are stated to be provisional and which in point of fact enable the Jews to do something which all along the Arabs have disputed their right to do—tables, lamps and so on? — Yes.

8368.	It does a great deal more than the Arabs contend that the Jews are entitled to if the provisions of the White Paper were brought into effect? — That depends on the decision of the appropriate body on what was permitted under the Turkish régime. That is unfortunately a point which the Palestine Government has no competence to settle in view of Article 14 of the Mandate.

8369.	Yes, but that has never been raised, has it? — It has been raised by the Palestine Government with the Home Government. I will now ask the indulgence .of the Commission about this, because this is a matter that forms the subject of protracted and confidential correspondence between this Government and the Home Government.

8370.	Is there any objection to giving, the date when this was first taken up by the Palestine Government? — I should have to look that up.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: It seems to me that you can only go into this matter of the disputes at the Wall and the history of the disputes in so far as that is the cause of the riots. As to the history and the merits of the actual facts themselves, the rightness or wrongness of the contentions themselves, that falls under Article 14.

Mr. Stoker: The questions I am asking the witness are with that view, and also with the view of showing that somebody has raised the question of Article 14—that is to say, it has been brought into the field.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Whether or not it has been raised, it is there.

Mr. Stoker: It is regulated entirely by Article 13, and the proviso at the end of Article 13 states the matter really, and the Commission to be appointed under Article 14 does not relate to anything such as this particular matter. I quite appreciate the fact that the Commission do not consider themselves the proper authority to settle that matter. But that is a point, and it is a substantial and serious view that will be raised at the appropriate time by the Moslem authorities. They have had no opportunity of raising it, because they know nothing whatever about the so-called application under Article 14. They know nothing about it, I think, until I arrived here and the matter was discussed. They may have had their suspicions aroused by Mr. Sacher’s statement, reported in the Jewish Chronicle of the 9th August at the Jewish Congress, in which he says it was the opinion of his Executive that the whole question of the Wailing Wall was governed by the Mandate :—
 * "It was the opinion of the Executive that the whole question of the Kotel Maaravi (Wailing Wall) was governed by the Mandate, the doctrine of the status quo hitherto adopted by the Government as a basis of its policy, was not warranted by the Mandate, and that Jewish rights under the Mandate were more complete and extensive than those embraced within the principle of the status quo."

Now, so far, that is the first time that has been raised.

Chairman: How does that affect this Enquiry?

Mr. Stoker: At that particular time it was one of the many sorts of apprehension and anxiety which the Moslems have felt as to the use of the Wailing Wall. First we get what they consider to be encroachments on two occasions.

Chairman: It shows obstruction on their part?

Mr. Stoker: More than that. The Arabs say:
 * "This White Paper is going to settle it. We are going to be freed from these worries and anxieties as to what is being done at the Wailing Wall, and we are going to be satisfied." They go on producing their documents, and the Jews delay delivering theirs, and there is a question raised, and at last, in August, they hear of these resolutions or speeches made at the Zionist Congress. What else can be expected?

8371.	Chairman: Do not argue your case now. When you have finished your evidence you can tell us; you have told us enough to show what your view is? — Now, Sir, having refreshed my memory by having gone through the papers, I see that this Government took up with H.M. Government the question of the method of the ascertaining what is permitted under the Turkish regime, in January of 1929. As soon as we had got Mr. Sacher’s statement we sent it home.

8372.	Mr. Stoker: I read to you, Mr. Luke, that statement, that paper on which you gave evidence—I forget whether it was yesterday or not—to the effect that the Moslems themselves became so alarmed by the position with regard to the Wailing Wall, that they began to consider it necessary to form protection societies, in order to safeguard their rights. Was not that the position? The Jews on the other hand, formed a Wailing Wall Committee and had previously formed that? — Yes. I do not know the relative dates of the formation of the two societies.

8373.	Now, do you think, or do you not think, that the combination and succession of circumstances which I have referred to would tend to make the Arabs perturbed and even excited about what the Jews were going to do as to the Wailing Wall? — I certainly think, in fact I know, that the Arabs were anxious about what they called the non-implementing of the White Paper.

8374.	Did not other things happen, apart from the resolutions and speeches at the Zionist Congress, to make them apprehensive and anxious? — Well, there were articles in the press and so forth.

8375.	Quite so. Apart from articles in the press there have been a good many statements in books with regard to what the ultimate hopes or designs of the Jews are as regards this site? — There may have been, but I cannot say that I am familiar with them.

8376.	Have you read a book called "Palestine of the Jews, Past, Present and Future"? — I read it about nine years ago.

8377.	The author, Mr. Norman Bentwich, is Attorney-General here now. — Yes.

8378.	The book was written before he was Attorney General? — What is the date of the book?

8379.	1919? — He was then, I think, Legal Adviser.

8380.	Mr. Preedy: To this country? — I think so.

[page 327] 8381.	Mr. Stoker: I am under the impression that he did not write this book while he was occupying any official position. He is described as Norman Bentwich of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force. This book is fairly widely read in Palestine as a book of interest, and it would be eead fairly widely by Jews? — Yes, I should think so.

8382.	By Zionists also? — Yes.

8383.	And also probably by some Arabs? — Yes.

8384.	You say you have not read it? — I have not read it for about nine years.

8385.	You have read it then. I want to refer first of all to pages 98 and 99 of it. This is not only with regard to the Wailing Wall, but the whole subject of Zionism. I had better read the whole of the paragraph:—
 * "But 60,000 of the Babylonian exiles returned with Zerubbabel to Judaea to form the nucleus of the restored Commonwealth. Before the war double that number of Jews had their home in Palestine, and were the pioneers. It is now necessary to organise on an altogether fresh scale the immigration into the country. Thirty years have seen the development from the impulsive movement of little groups of enthusiasts aided by philanthropic organisation to the systematic effort of nationalist societies to build a Jewish centre. But the effort of the whole nation to make Palestine a Jewish country and a national home remains for the new era, which the world revolution has now ushered in. When peace comes, the time will have arrived to sound the trumpet, to raise the banner, and to gather the exiles from the four corners of the earth. Then the promise of prophecy will be in the way of fulfilment: 'And the seed shall be prosperous, the vine shall give his fruit, the ground shall give her increase, and the heavens shall give their dew ; and I will cause the remnant of this people to possess all these things.'"

Now the next passage. At pages 112 and 113, you will have noted, Mr. Luke, when I read that passage, it says: "But the effort of the whole nation to make Palestine a Jewish country," that means a Jewish country as well as a national home. Then at page 112:—
 * "Refusing to recognise in it the symbol of ruin he makes it the corner-stone of regeneration. Christianity and Islam venerate in Jerusalem scenes hallowed by the lives of their two founders. Judaism recognises no single founder and no single prophet, but centres its thoughts and hopes about the old national life and the coming national restoration."

Then, at the top of page 115:
 * "Within its borders there is not only the Jewish Temple wall, but one of the great basilicas of early Christendom, now the Mosque of El Aqsa. In the new era, though it may remain the special religious demesne of the Moslems, the Haram must be opened freely to men of all creeds."

Then at page 125. This is dealing with immigration:
 * "But when organised Western immigration begins in earnest, the Arabs will be a comparatively small class."

That, I take it, refers to what is expected in the future of the submersion of the Arab population by the Jewish population. That is obvious, is it not? — Yes, but of course, the White Paper of 1922 has removed that.

8386.	Some of these passages deal with the subject of the Wailing Wall and some with the general subject of Palestine. Now, at page 194, there are set out the various views as regards the future of Palestine, and it sets out that:—
 * "A fourth, and bolder, view asks for the foundation immediately of a Jewish State or Republic, guaranteed by the League of Nations."

And it goes on to say:—
 * "It is not the time now to consider the relative merits of these proposals. What is common to them all is the principle that the Jewish people shall have special rights in Palestine, not simply freedom of immigration and settlement, which have been denied to them under the Ottoman Government, but rights of self-government and powers of developing the country's resources without let or hindrance. Whatever the form of the State, Palestine is to be the National Home of the Jewish people. State sovereignty is not essential to the Jewish national idea. Freedom for the Jew to develop according to his own tradition in his own environment is the main, if not the whole, demand."

Now, no exception will be taken to that, but the central principle of that is obvious, is it not? — You must recollect all this was written before the Mandate and before the 1922 White Paper.

8387.	Then at page 205, and this is the last I propose to trouble you and the Commission with, that is dealing with the future of the land and people:—
 * "There are the homeless millions of Poland and Lithuania, exiled during the war and little likely to find a welcome back to their old homes when the hostilities are over. For them emigration is the only solution of the conflict of nationalities, and a steady stream will flow eastwards to the land of Jewish promise as well as westward to the land of material prospects."

It seems to me that is a perfectly legitimate idea of immigration. It does not go to the extent the other passages do. Mr. Bentwich is now the Attorney-General of this colony? — It is mandated territory.

8388.	As a matter of fact, I do not wish to say anything against Mr. Bentwich, who is no doubt an idealist as well as being an able lawyer, but the fact that he has been Attorney-General here necessarily is calculated to arouse suspicion in the minds of Arabs as to the incidents and motives of his legislation here? — Well, of course, Mr. Bentwich has never made any pretence of not being a Zionist, but he, like all other members of the Government of whatever creed, naturally subscribes to the policy of His Majesty’s Government as laid down in the Mandate and more closely explained in Command Paper 1700.

8389.	As a matter of fact, the Arabs have on more than one occasion, have they not, taken exception, considering his pronounced Zionist views, to his occupying the position of Attorney General in this mandated territory ; is not that the position? — They have taken exception, certainly, but I would not like myself to accept the definition that you gave of "his pronounced Zionist views."

8390.	Has he not delivered lectures here since he has been Attorney General in this mandated territory on Zionism? — I do not know; I have not heard them.

8391.	Have you ever heard him say in a lecture first, a Zionist, second a Zionist, third a Zionist and lastly a British subject? — I have not heard it. It is possible to be a Zionist without being a pronounced Zionist. He is not a Revisionist.

8392.	Is there much difference between a Revisionist and a Revisionist Zionist, are they not about the same?

Chairman: Don’t you think you had better ask these questions of witnesses Sir Boyd Merriman is going to call?

Sir Boyd Merriman: You will find the whole thing summarised on page 251 of the Minutes of the Mandates Commission, paragraph 5, a formal demand for Mr. Bentwich’s dismissal.

8393.	Mr. Stoker: I hope it will be understood I am not moving in any way for Mr. Norman Bentwich to be recalled, but it is my duty simply to call attention in connection with the fears of the Arabs to this book and the passages in it and to the [page 328] anxieties of the Arabs on the subject. Now did you have occasion to see a board leading to the Burak which had on it a notice? — I did not see the board myself but I know something about it.

8394.	Will you tell the Commission what you know about it? — I must just search my memory about it for a moment.

8395.	Can I help you? My instructions are that fairly recently there was a board, I do not know what it was, whether it was made of wood or what, but posted up leading to the Wailing Wall, on which there was in large letters "Way to the Synagogue of Wailing Wall." Does that bring it back to your recollection? — Yes that is so.

8396.	That implies the Wailing Wall was a synagogue, not merely a place of lamentation? — It certainly looked like it at first sight, but investigation proved that it did not bear reference to the pavement. It was a board put up by the beadle, Noah Gladstone outside a little synagogue of which he has charge which is in the lane which leads down to the Wailing Wall and which he apparently calls the Synagogue of the Wailing Wall. The legend was in Hebrew and in English. There was some difference between the two versions. I am not quite clear now, I should have to refresh my memory if thought sufficiently important, but apparently the Hebrew merely said "Wailing Wall Synagogue" indicating the place where the Board was, whereas the English version had "Way to the Synagogue of the Wailing Wall" which would certainly lead anybody who did not know Hebrew to think it denoted a Synagogue at the Wailing Wall. On our receiving a complaint by the Moslem Authorities about this and on investigation being made I instructed the Deputy District Commissioner to have the English version of the board so altered as to make it quite clear it referred to the synagogue outside which it stood.

8397.	Were you satisfied in your own mind that that is what the placard or direction was intended to convey? — Yes.

8398.	You did not have a conversation with Mr. Sacher on the subject? — No.

8399.	He did not argue with you on the subject? — No, I did not see him.

8400.	Or any other learned members of the Jewish community? — No.

8401.	Your conversation was simply with the beadle? — No, my conversation was with the Deputy District Commissioner solely.

8402.	To whom was the explanation given as to what was really intended? — Well, it was given possibly to the Arab Executive or the Supreme Moslem Council.

8403.	The Supreme Moslem Council did not object to it? — Yes, then the investigation was made with the result I have described. They were under the very natural impression that it was a notice board to the Wall and called the pavement a synagogue.

8404.	That is quite sufficient for me. Have you ever seen this rather instructive picture denoting aspirations? — I do not know if I have seen this one; I have seen things like it.

Chairman: What is the date of this and what is it?

Mr. Stoker: It is a print, an illustration, there is no date on it but I am told 1922 was the date that this was issued. The central feature of it is the Zionist flag on the Dome of the Rock. The witness says he has seen something like that at all events.

Sir Boyd Merriman: Can we he told who is supposed to have published this and when.

Mr. Stoker: The lithographer’s name is on it.

Sir Henry Betterton: Who is this published by?

Mr. Stoker: The name is on it.

Sir Henry Betterton: Was it on sale, what is its publication?

Mr. Stoker: My instructions are it was on sale.

Sir Henry Betterton: On sale in the shops?

Mr. Stoker: In 1922.

Sir Henry Betterton: Is it on sale now?

Mr. Stoker: We have not found it is on sale now, but it was on sale in 1922.

Sir Henry Betterton: Before you part with this, Mr. Stoker, if you place reliance on it, can you tell us first of all what the letter press means.

Mr. Stoker: I have a translation of it which I will pass up to you.

Sir Boyd Merriman: I am not objecting at all, but could it be ascertained when and where it is said this thing was published, in what country it was published?

Mr. Stoker: In this country.

Sir Henry Betterton: That is a question I asked and the answer I got was it was published in 1922 in Jerusalem by a gentleman named Monson.

Mr. Preedy: What is it? I have not seen it.

Chairman: You cannot put this in, Mr. Stoker, until you have proved it. You can ask Mr. Luke if he has seen it, and, if he says no, that is an end of it.

8405.	Mr. Stoker: He says he has seen something like that. Have you seen this one? — I cannot remember whether I have seen anything issued by Mr. Monson, but I have seen this sort of thing.

8406.	Sir Henry Betterton: It was suggested that the Zionist Flag appears on the Dome of the Rock, does it? Can you say whether it appears there or not? — No, it does not.

Mr. Stoker: I do not want to detain the Commission over this. There is another paper I want to put in and I cannot find it at the moment. I must ask leave to put it to the witness on another occasion.

Chairman: You must call some witness and put these things in. What is the good of putting them to Mr. Luke, it is only taking up his time and ours unnecessarily.

Mr. Stoker: I am just asking him if he has seen it.

8407.	Chairman: I do not suppose he has, have you? — Yes, I have seen this (indicating exhibit 48 ).

8408.	Mr. Stoker: Where have you seen it? — I think Haj Amin Effendi has shown me this.

8409.	Will you look and see where this is published? — In New York.

8410.	Chairman: It may not he that particular one? — I have seen the drawing.

Mr. Stoker: The point is the drawing which shows numbers of people flocking into the Mosque with the Zionist flag on the top of it.

Chairman: What is the date of this.

Mr. Stoker: The date is on it.

Chairman: It is 1920, before the Mandate.

Mr. Stoker : It all goes to show the trend of the aspirations of the Zionists.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Has the letter press anything to do with the picture?

Mr. Stoker: I think so. I have not gone through it myself. It is in Hebrew, but I have a translation of it. At the top in large, letters are the words: "The living people of Israel! The living people of Israel!" The name of newspaper: The Jewish People; the newspaper is a Zionist paper and is the organ of American Zionists. Over the picture the following words are written: "The matter has been completed," written by B. M. Raskin:
 * "Let the word be heard high and its echo resounded as a bell. From country to country and from place to place. From land to land and from man to man. Every Jew should go there. The people have seen the dream, the matter has been completed."

Mr. Snell: Do you say this is a picture of the Dome of the Rock?

Mr. Stoker: Yes.

Mr. Snell: It does not appear to bear the least resemblance to it.

Mr. Stoker: It may be a bad picture; I put that in as an exhibit.

page 498. Testimony of Haj Amin al Husseini continues
12,599:	Did you receive a letter afterwards from the Chief Secretary to the Government with reference to your discussion with the High Commissioner? — Yes.

12,600.	Is this the letter—it is in Arabic? — This is the translation I have got. It is addressed to His Eminence Haj Amin Effendi Husseini, Grand Mufti of Palestine:—
 * "Sir,
 * With reference to the discussion that took place between you and His Excellency the High Commissioner in connection with the objection you raised against Sir Alfred Mond’s speech manifesting in it his aim that a temple he built up in the site of Sacred Rock.
 * "His Excellency has been in communication with concerned authorities at London, add consequently has received a reply which reads as follows:—
 * "'Reference your telegram No. 243 dated 1st July. The words said by Sir Alfred Mond, as I am informed, reads as follows:—
 * "He believes ’that Palestine would once more send out religious missions to the world.'"
 * "Furthermore, Sir Alfred Mond paid much attention to his subject and explained that his wish is that a great building be completely established once more on the site of Solomon’s Temple.
 * "With Regard to B. Rose’s question (?), Sir Alfred Mond had only anticipated a future for Palestine, but he has no idea of entertaining discussion of any interference with the site of the Sacred Rock." (19th July, 1921.).

— Yes.

12,601.	Is that the original Arabic letter you received from the Chief Secretary? — We have asked for the original to be produced by the Government, and the Government has informed us that it will only be produced at the request of the Commission. This is therefore only a copy of the letter sent to me.

Chairman: This is sent by the Government? Is it a copy?

Mr. Stoker: I have a copy of what was sent by the Government, but the Government have received a despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies which the Commission can see.

Mr. Snell: This is sent by the Government?

Mr. Stoker: By the Local Government to the Grand Mufti.

Chairman: Are you putting that in?

Mr. Stoker: Where is the original in English? Was it addressed to him in Arabic? I understand that the letter was written to the Grand Mufti in Arabic and this is the translation of it.

Mr. Snell: Was the translation supplied by the government?

Mr. Moghannam: It was by me.

Mr. Stoker: It is not an official translation but Mr. Preedy can have no objection to producing the original of the letter to the witness, a copy in English of the letter sent to the Grand Mufti in Arabic.

Mr. Preedy: If there is any question about the translation, I am quite willing to prodnee the English of it. I do not know that anybody wants it at present.

Chairman: It is not queries by anybody, I think.

Mr. Preedy: I can give a proper translation of the Arabic

12,602.	Mr. Stoker: Perhaps we may have that back and have further copies made. You have referred to pictures and other matters as leading to the belief amongst the Moslems as to the intentions of the Jews. Is there anything else you want to refer to? You have a statement about books? — There is also another picture published in Egypt. This is a copy (produced).

12,603.	Where did you get that copy? It is the same as the other, is it not? — The original of this was purchased by someone who took the original with him in Egypt and had this copy of it made.

Chairman: You have the original? It may have some letterpress round it like the other one.

12,604.	Mr. Stoker: Is that the same as the other one, the big painted one? — Not exactly the same.

Chairman: You cannot put that in unless you have the original.

12,605.	Mr. Stoker: Very well, leave it out? — This is an original also.

12,606.	What is that? — A picture of the Dome of the Rock and under it the Burak, and then—I am now referring to the translation of the Hebrew on the back of it, verses in Hebrew.

l2,607. Have you got a translation of it which the other side can check? — There is a translation in Arabic—bad translation on the back of it.

Chairman: Where was it obtained from and when? We must connect it somehow.

12,608.	Mr. Stoker: Where did you get this from? — Somebody purchased it in Jerusalem and gave it to me.

12,609.	What about it? — It shows the designs of the Jews.

12,610.	Chairman: Where was it obtained from and when? — It reached my hands about a year ago, from Jamaal Effendi Wahbeh, the Director of the Moslem Orphanage, who had bought it in Jerusalem. I do not know from where.

Sir Boyd Merriman: I do not want to take any technical objection about that. Let it go in.

Chairman: Do you want to put that in?

12,611.	Mr. Stoker: Yes, that is Exhibit No. 78. What about that document? Just explain why you think it conveys that idea to the Moslems? — This shows the Dome of the Rock with some Hebrew inscriptions on it and the Wailing Wall with inscriptions on it, and with verses in Hebrew underneath. This, coupled with what we know about their designs, which has been proved by other pictures and statements, caused anxiety in our minds, because if it were a question of historical sites, they could have put other historical sites than the Mosque, such as the Holy Sepulchre, which is extremely historical, but because of what we know of the designs of the Jews there is a meaning towards the Dome of the Rock here.

12,612.	You have referred to books? — Yes.

12,613.	Have you any particular one in your mind? — We have the Jewish Encyclopaedia.

Chairman: What is the date of that book?

12,614.	Mr. Stoker: You need not bother about that. You, can see it yourselves if you like to put it in yourselves? — I mentioned this only because it shows what the Jewish beliefs are on this subject.

12,615. Mr. Stoker: Yes, it is clearly set out? — There is also the book of Mr. Bentwich.

12,616.	I have read certain passages out from this book before the Commission already, but are there any particular passages to which you want to refer? I do not know if they are on the transcript, the passages I read. Are there any particular passages you wish to refer to? — Page 8.

12,617.	I think we might take it generally. You read Mr. Bentwich's book? — I did not read it personally because I do not read English, but parts of it were translated to me.

12,618.	And those that were translated to you—what was the idea that they conveyed to your mind as a Moslem? — I understood from this that the Jews intended to possess this country, Trans Jordan and other parts of the Arab countries. They will start by making a National Home for the Jews in Palestine and then the work will increase, and that they want to take possession of the Burak and to make it a place of public gathering or meeting, and then to take possession of the Haram area and there restore the Temple. This is the gist of what I understand the book to mean.

[page 499] 12,619.	Can you think of any reason why the Jews should come to Palestine unless it is to establish themselves in the Temple and Holy Places in history? Can you think of any reason why the Jews should come to Palestine.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: We cannot have it in that form, Mr. Stoker.

Sir Boyd Merriman: Considering that the League of Nations has thought of a dozen reasons, is that a proper question to put to the witness?

12,620.	Mr. Stoker: Is that one of the books you are referring to? — Yes.

12,621.	Now one moment. Can you tell us anything more about what, to your knowledge, is in the Moslem mind as regards the presence of the Jews here in this country? — The Moslems' belief is as follows with regard to the presence of the Jews here, that the Jews did not want Palestine because it is a rich country nor because it has other amenities.

12,622.	Sir Boyd Merriman: Attractions? — Yes, attractions, but because the only place they would gather is round the Temple of Solomon which is and has been in the possession of the Moslems for the past 13 centuries, and they believe that the designs in question is a question both religious and political. Other countries richer than this country were offered to the Jews and they refused to take them, and the Jews fell fell upon Palestine because of the presence of this holy place in Palestine.

12,623. Mr. Stoker: Now coming to this little book in Arabic, where did that come from? — It is a translation from the French.

12,624.	And what is the title of the book? — The Jewish Conspiracy against the Nations." That is the title.

Chairman: This is an Arabic book, not a Jewish book?

Mr. Stoker: I understand this is a book published in England under the aegis of the "Morning Post," in 1921. This is translated into several languages. There is a French edition, which I will produce this afternoon. This is an Arabic version of it, and we can no doubt by cable get the English version of it, which contains very important passages.

Sir Boyd Merriman: Before my friend produces any of it at all, will he tell you whether he is aware that it has been exposed as a forgery in 1921?

Mr. Stoker: I am not aware of it, but certain people who did not like the book being published said it was a forgery.

Sir Boyd Merriman: Look. at the files of the Times, the dates of which I will give you.

Mr. Stoker: We produce the book, and you produce the files of "The Times".

Chairman: Let us defer this evidence until tomorrow, and then look at the files of the "Times."

Sir Boyd Merriman: I have not the files, but I have the dates.

Mr. Stoker: I do not know how the book can be a forgery. The allegation is that it was a translation of some book written by Russian Zionists and that the Zionists did not like its publication, saying that it was a forgery. This is the original book published in Arabic.

Chairman: It is not published by the Jews, but by the Arabs, apparently.

Mr. Stoker: I am putting it in as evidence of what is in the Arab mind.

Chairman: You must prove that it is a book published by the Jews, or some Jewish body, otherwise you cannot put it in.

Mr. Stoker: Surely I can put it in as something that affected the mind of the Arabs; whether they were right in having their minds so affected is another matter. They did not print it themselves. It is most difficult to get you to understand that this is a book which was not printed by the Arabs themselves, it was printed in England under the aegis of the "Morning Post" and translated; the contents were published in almost every language. This one is published in Egypt in the Arabic language. This is a book that anybody can buy in a bookshop in Egypt.

Sir Boyd Merriman: My objection does not merely turn on the exposure in the "Times". The attempted use by the witness and his entourage of this book has been the subject of correspondence with the Government of Palestine, who will be able to elucidate the question of whether or not it is legitimate to make any use of it.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: The point to to me to be this, Sir Boyd. This book can be no evidence against you, but if Mr. Stoker puts it in, and says "this is the sort of thing that is being circulated and that affected the minds of the Arabs, that will be a point for what it is worth, but it is clearly no evidence against you.

Sir Boyd Merriman: I am afraid I am putting it the other way. I am saying that deliberate use has been made of that, in spite of the fact that the forgery has been pointed out.

Mr. Stoker: Therefore you want it in badly, if that is your case.

Sir Boyd Merriman: Perhaps I may be allowed to take my own course with regard to that but I object to its being put in by this witness in evidence against the Jews.

Mr. Stoker: I am questioning the witness about its effect on the Moslem mind.

Chairman: Do you not think that you might defer it until to-morrow, and make some enquiries about it?

Mr. Stoker: I am going to produce a French edition of the book. Here is an Arabic version of it; not printed by the Moslems, but printed as one of the copies, just as if it was Shakespeare’s plays. Shakespeare’s plays; have been published in almost every language, and this is in the same category. It is a book which has been published in English, French, and other languages. I do put in the Arabic version of it, and after lunch I will put in the French translation.

Chairman: If you can put in the French edition, do so. Is it supposed to have been written by a Jew?

Mr. Stoker: My witness does not understand French, but does understand Arabic.

Chairman: Who is this book supposed to be written by, by a Jew or by whom—the original, I mean? Who is the original author of the book; is it some member of the Zionist Executive, or who?

Mr. Stoker: I have never alleged who it was.

Chairman: You must know something about your case, whom is it written by?

Mr. Stoker: The text can be read from that; and then, we will get the French version of it.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: The position seems to me to be this. It is no evidence against the Jews unless you connect them with it. If it has a large circulation amongst the Arabs here and affected the Arab mind, thus leading to the riots, then it is material. But it may be that it is a forgery, and then you put it in at your peril. It may very well be that this book was issued, let us say, by his Eminence himself, and circulated amongst the Arabs. This is the worst that can be said about you, nevertheless it would affect the Arabs. It is material from the point of view that it may have had a large circulation, and may have been in any degree accepted, but clearly it is not evidence against Sir Boyd Merriman’s clients.

Sir Boyd Merriman: May I just add to that that I do invite my friends at the other end of the room to take a part in this discussion, because I assert without fear of contradiction that its importation into this country was prohibited as long ago as March, 1926?

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Then it becomes all the more important and material. Supposing the contention is upheld that the importation of the book was prohibited, and it was published by anybody on the Arab side, and this affected the Arab mind, throughout [page 500] the country and caused the riots, it is still more important to put it in.

Chairman: It seems to be pursuing another March hare.

Mr. Stoker: I am not aware of any March hare. That is a matter which the Commission will come to a conclusion on in their final judgement.

Chairman: Very well, Mr. Stoker.

Mr. Preedy: We propose to make enquiries as to what has been done about this book. When I know, I shall be able to inform the Commission. At the present moment I have to look up the files. I do not know what evidence Sir Boyd and Mr. Stoker are going to call, and I cannot have the whole Secretariat here to meet points that may crop up. I have sent word now to find out about it, but I have no information myself about it.

Sir Boyd Merriman: I can help my friend. I have a complete file ready, a file of correspondence on the subject.

Mr. Stoker: Here now, does my friend mean the Government file?

Sir Boyd Merriman: What I mean is correspondence between the Zionist Executive and the Government with reference to the use of this document.

Mr. Preedy: I want to know what the Government did?

Sir Boyd Merriman: If you will look at the letters you will find the reference numbers and dates and everything.

12,625.	Mr. Stoker: Are there any other publications or pictures, or statements which, you wish to mention to the Commission as affecting the Moslem minds as regards the aspirations of the Jews? — Yes, we have seen many declarations in the Arabic press, translated from other languages. But I could not get the originals of those declarations. Among other declarations is that made by Professor Einstein. In that statement it was stated that he said that the Jews without a temple are like a body without a head and therefore they must get back their head so as to be able to live. Then there is another declaration or statement which was taken from a Hebrew paper called "Kol Yacoub"—"The Voice of Jacob," and it was was translated and printed in an Arabic newspaper in Jaffa in 1921. It was said in that paper that the Jew who does not believe that the temple area is a Jewish wakf is an infidel.

Chairman: Have you this paper?

12,626. Mr. Stoker: Have you the name of this paper? — Yes, "The Voice of Jacob".

12,627.	Chairman: You ought to have it if want to put it in? — The "Falistin," it can be produced. It was stated that the Jew who does not believe that the Temple area is a Jewish Wakf is an infidel.

Chairman: If you want to give extracts from newspapers you really must produce them. You cannot rely on the evidence of the witness.

12,628.	Mr. Stoker: I agree that it would be more satisfactory to produce the papers. I personally did not know that this was going to be cited. No doubt we can get the "Falastin". I will make enquiries. Have you anything else you wish to add? — The Moslems always understand that the Jews are designing upon the possession of the Temple area itself. From that point they called the Wailing Wall or Burak the Western Wall; the Western Wall meaning the Western Wall of the Temple, and if they have such great respect and veneration for the Western Wall, it is the inference that they are coveting or designing for the whole of the building to which the Wall belongs.

12.629.	They want the whole thing, the Wall round the Mosque area? — Yes, the part of the Haram area.

Mr. Stoker: You will get the French copy of that book.

Chairman: We are proposing to sit until 5.30 to-day, in order to get on with the evidence.

Testimony of Haj Amin al Husseini continuing on page 527
13,103.	Sir Boyd Merriman: Now I wish to come to another subject.- I see you have still got in front of you a brown book, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? — Yes.

13,104. When did that book first come into your possession? — This book is not mine.

13,105.	When did you first see a copy of that book in English, French, Arabic Or any other language? — The first time I saw a copy of this book was four or five years ago at Haifa. I glanced through it then.

13,106.	Have you a copy in any language in your possession? — No.

13,107.	Are you aware that that book was exposed as a forgery in the "Times" of August 19-21? — No.

13,103. Are you aware that it was composed in Russia and was a plagiarism from a French book published in 1865 directed against Napoleon III? — No.

13,109.	Who showed you the book? — The first time?

13,110.	Yes? — I do not quite recollect.

13,111.	Try? — I was staying at the Hotel Majestic for two days four or five years ago and somebody showed me that book, but I cannot remember who it was.

13,112.	Who gave you that copy of it? — I must ask Mr. Stoker who gave it to him. Mr. Stoker showed me this and asked about it. You must ask him who gave it to him.

13,113.	Are you aware that the importation of that book into this country was forbidden by the Government in 1926?

Mr. Drayton: I do not think that that is quite accurate.

13,114. Sir Boyd Merriman: I will put it in the terms of an official letter of March, 1926. Are you award that in March 1926 a recently published Arabic version of the "Protocols of Zion" appeared in this country? — I do not know it, I think it is this book.

13,115.	And that measures were then taken by the Government? — I did not hear of any measures.

13,116.	To prevent the public advertisement and circulation of this objectionable publication? — I do not know anything about it. I do not know anything of what you have stated, but I know the following fact. Exactly a year ago the High Commissioner, in the presence of Mr. Luke, told me that he understood that the Jamia Al was publishing quotations from this book and asked me to use my influence and to advise that paper not to do so in future. I informed His Excellency that, although I had not got direct influence or power on the Jamia, which is not an organ of our Council, yet I would use whatever influence I might have or respect they might have for me, and ask them to cease from publishing these articles. I did speak to the editor of the Jamia and he stopped further publication. That is all I know about this.

13,117.	I am going to ask you more about it. Was an extract of this book published in the Jamia of the 1st October, 1928? — That is what I have been referring to.

13,118. I am going to ask you a little more about it. Did you see that article in the Jamia when it was published? — Although I am a subscriber to the paper, I do not read it fully. I just glance through it; I may or may not have seen it.

Sir Boyd Merriman: I am told the extracts I want from this were put in among the selected press extracts. "Incitement File" (Exhibit No. 45 (i) (a).

Mr. Preedy: I have a note here which shows that the interview between His Excellency and His Eminence was on the 3rd January, 1929.

Sir Boyd Merriman: I thought that it was probably at the end of December.

Mr. Preedy: And what be has just said is confirmed by a note which I have here.

13,119.	Sir Boyd Merriman: I want to know what preceded that interview. It is a little important from my point of view. First of all, does the heading read as follows:—
 * "The Elders of Israel in the 15th Century.
 * "In the year 1880 there was published in the Review of Jewish Studies, a magazine which receives its support from Baron Rothschild, a document stating the Elders of Zion since the 15th Century worked with a view to a Jewish conquest."

— Yes.

13,120.	Then go down a little bit: —
 * "Respecting your statement that you are forced to give up all possessions, therefore make your children merchants, so that little by little they may gain strength and retaliate.”

— It is rather different here. It reads: "So that little by little they may take the properties of the Christians."

Mr. Stoker: It shows how unreliable these translations are.

13,121.	Sir Boyd Merriman: Just read the next paragraph and tell me if it is substantially right: —
 * "Concerning your statement that they made assaults on your lives, make your children physicians and chemists in order to be in a position to destroy the lives of the assailants."

— No, this reads, "in order that they may destroy the lives of the Christians."

Mr. Stoker: I would suggest we have a fresh translation; it is all very well, but every sentence as quoted, seems to be wrongly translated.

13,122.	Sir Boyd Merriman:
 * "Regarding your statement that they are pulling down places of worship, make your children priests, that they may find means of pulling down churches."

— "Regarding your statement that they are pulling down your places of worship, make your children priests and clerics so that they may destroy their churches."

13,123.	I do not want to read the rest of it now. Look on at the one of the 8th October (Exhibit No. 45 (i) (b). I will not read the whole thing, just glance at it and tell me if it does not purport to [page 528] be a copy issued by a Jewish army commander to the troops under him in 1920? — There is a date of March, 1920, and the signature of the Chief of the General Staff and the Commander of the Army.

13,124.	All of whom have Jewish names? — I only know that Cohen is a Jewish name, I do not know the others.

13,125.	Does it contain this passage:—
 * "Upon the basis of this, I command all captains explicitly, the captain of the battalion, the captain of the Tabor, and the captain of the artillery, who are under my command, to send in to the centres of the fight Red troops which were mobilised from their abodes' and towns, leaving to the Jews the offices of politics and departments and what resembles them."

— There is something else..

13,126.	There is an allusion after that? — The opponents to offices.

13,127.	"Leaving to the Jews the offices of politics." — And appointments to offices and departments."

13,128.	I have one or two others of these. But did His Excellency, tell you that, after the publication of these articles, the Zionist Executive wrote a very strong letter asking that these publications should be stopped? — I do not remember. I do not think so. I do not think so, because it is not the habit of His Excellency to inform me of the reasons he has for making certain requests, and he has never been in the habit of repeating to me correspondence.

13,129.	Very well. Did the publication of these articles in the Jamia continue? — After His Excellency spoke to me?

13,130.	No, before? — His Excellency told me that the Jamia had printed certain extracts, that would mean probably that it put in two, three, or more extracts, but I know for certain that after his request not one extract was published.

13,131.	Your Eminence has told us that, already, but I want to get at what had preceded the articles. Was there a publication in the Jamia, I do not want to read it, but was there another publication on the 18th October, and another on the 22nd October? — I do not know.

13,132.	And was there one which I am going to put to you, was there one on the 13th December? — I do not know.

13,133.	Is this an article which purports to connect the Jews with Communism? — I will just read it and let you know. Yes, it does.

Chairman: Have we got this?

Sir Boyd Merriman: It should he in your file.

Chairman: We do not appear to have it.

13,134.	Sir Boyd Merriman: It must certainly go in. I will have it copied for you. As the Commission has not got this, and it is short, I propose to read it:
 * "A Communist Document about the Relations of the Jews with Communism.
 * "On the 30th April, 1920, the Soviet Military Court issued an Order from Kiev from the 12th Army Corps, from which we quote the following two paragraphs :—
 * "Paragraph 5. The villages known as inclined to combat the Soviets, especially those which manifest anti-Jewish feeling, must be entirely destroyed, and guilty individuals must be shot without any investigation or trial.
 * "Paragraph 8. Whereas the Jewish people are showing great zeal for the cause of Communism, on account of which they met with persecution on the part of Polish tribes, we shall support the Jews with the whole of our might and by all means.
 * "(Signed) Mignez Amikoff.
 * "(Signed) M. Atoff, Member of the Soviet Military Court.
 * "(Signed) Zelansky, President of the Political Section of the 12th Army Corps.”

Now, have you any doubt you saw these articles appearing in the Jamia last year? — As I said before, I cannot say definitely what I read a year ago in the papers, but I have seen something of the sort.

13,135.	Having now read those articles, can you imagine any reason for publishing them, except to stir up trouble against the Jews?

(After a discussion between the interpreters and the witness.) I do protest, a committee meeting is held after the translation of every question. It is true His Eminence asks for it every time, but is it necessary? Can you give a ruling about it?

Chairman: I think a short question like that ought to be translated straight away.

13,136.	Sir Boyd Merriman: There was no difficulty when my friend was examining in chief? — My difficulty is with these long questions.

13,137.	(Sir Boyd Merriman’s question was again put to the Witness by the Interpreter.) — I do not believe that the object of those articles was to stir up trouble against the Jews. In any case, this question should be put to the newspaper itself.

13,138.	I am now going to read a very short passage from Mr. Antonius’ evidence. I will read it first in English and ask the Interpreter to translate it:—
 * "Q. Now, the Al Jamia al Arabia; that is published, is it not, in Jerusalem? — A. Yes, I am a subscriber to that.
 * "Q. And it is edited by, we are told, a member of the Husseini family? — A. Yes.
 * "Q. And is in pretty close sympathy with the Supreme Moslem Council? — A. Yes.
 * "Q. I was guilty of the indiscretion of saying that it was actually an organ of the Supreme Moslem Council, but that is not far wrong, is it? — A. I do not know that it is. It has never been admitted to be an organ of the Supreme Moslem Council.
 * "Q. But supposing the Supreme Moslem Council wanted to make a publication in the Press, that is the vehicle they would turn to? — A. In theory, they have nothing to do with each other; in practice, they have."

Do you agree or disagree with that evidence of Mr. Antonius? — I agree with part of it and disagree with another part.

13,139.	Which part do you disagree with? — That it is in practice the organ of the Supreme Moslem Council, because the Supreme Moslem Council has not any newspaper whatever as an organ, but there are papers which support the Moslem Council, and this paper is among them. The Supreme Moslem Council publishes its publications in all the papers, if not in all, at least in the majority of them, and among others is this paper. The "Jamia" has very often criticised the actions of the Supreme Moslem Council, in spite of the fact that it is in sympathy with the Moslem Council.

13,140.	Does the "Jamia" receive any financial support from the Supreme Moslem Council? — None.

13,141.	None at all? — Neither in the past nor the present, not one mil.

13,142.	Does the Supremo Moslem Council support any papers financially? — Not one paper.

13,143.	Are you aware that I have read extracts from papers saying that the Wakf funds or the funds under the control of the Supreme Moslem Council are used for the bribery of papers? — That is not true.

13,144.	Has it ever been stated to be untrue in the press by the Supreme Moslem Council? — The Supreme Moslem Council has made a statement in the press denying any connection with the "Jamia" and the "Jamia" has also made a statement denying all connection with the Supreme Moslem Council.