1933, Those Arab Rioters

From:

LEAGUE OF NATIONS, PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION
Held at Geneva from May 30th to June 12th, 1934,
including the REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

SECOND MEETING.
Held on Thursday, May 31st, 1934, at 10.30 a.m.
__________

Palestine and Trans-Jordan : Examination of the Annual Report for 1933

...M. ORTS had before him pages 4 et seq. of the annual report, which dealt with the circumstances preceding the disorders of October and November 1933, and the report of the Murison Commission, which was entrusted with the enquiry into those disturbances.

He quoted various passages from the annual report to the effect that there had been
preliminary signs of these disorders since the beginning of 1933 and that those signs had recurred in different forms up to the eve of the Jaffa riot on October 27th.

It was clear that the Government had intervened on at least two occasions in order to
show that its Jewish immigration policy had not changed and that demonstrations likely to cause a breach of the peace would not be tolerated. The report also said that the Intelligence Service of Police and Prisons was still functioning and was found very useful in preventing disorders. Nevertheless, M. Orts desired to ask certain questions with regard to those incidents.

First of all, had the Government taken all means to prevent the riot which was to be
expected in view of the increasing excitement in Arab circles and in the Arab Press?

Had the Government endorsed the conclusions of the Murison report?

What penalties had been inflicted on the agitators and rioters?

Was there a likelihood of further agitation or fresh disorders?

Was the transfer of the chief of police at the time of the Jaffa disturbances, whose conduct had been favourably reported on by the Commission of Enquiry, connected with the riot?

Mr. HALL said he would endeavour to reply to M. Orts' questions.

(1) There was always strong Arab feeling in Palestine against Jewish immigration and that feeling had been intensified by Press articles for some weeks before the disturbances took place. The responsible editors had been warned and, on the publication of a statement by the Arab Executive that a demonstration was to be held in Jerusalem on October 13th, comprising a procession to the Government Offices, the speaker, in his capacity as Officer administering the Government, had sent for the President of the Arab Executive and informed him that no such demonstration would be permitted. He suggested that, in place of a demonstration, which would be illegal and might lead to bloodshed, the Arab Executive should send a deputation to lay before the Officer administering the Territory a statement of their grievance for transmission to the League of Nations. Musa Kazim Pasha undertook to consult his colleagues; but, in the result, less prudent counsels prevailed and the Arab Executive decided to adhere to their plan for holding an illegal demonstration. The public were clearly informed by official notice and otherwise that the demonstration would not be permitted. The demonstration was, nevertheless, held, and was in due course dispersed by the police without loss of life.

The High Commissioner, on his return, sent for the Arab leaders, who had announced their intention of holding a further demonstration at Jaffa, and solemnly warned them of the dangerous consequences that would follow, not only for themselves, but also for innocent members of the public if they persisted in this course. They rejected a suggestion, made by the High Commissioner with the object of providing a legitimate channel for the submission of their representations, that a certain number of their members should be allowed to proceed together to the District Offices and there lay their case before the District Commissioner, and reiterated their determination to proceed with their declared intention. The consequences of their attitude are described in the Murison report. Certain of the leaders were arrested and subsequently released on bail. Recently, they had been sentenced to terms of imprisonment varying from nine months. Appeals against these sentences were now pending.

(2) There had since, he thought, been some improvement in the political position. The relations of mutual confidence which the High Commissioner had established with influential Arabs had done much to ease the situation; there was also the increasing appreciation, on the part of the fellahin, of the measures taken by the High Commissioner to better their condition. Moreover, the High Commissioner had considered the possibility of providing both Arabs and Jews with some means of giving public expression to their views without danger to public security--(since the disturbances of 1929, no processions had been allowed)--and an amending ordinance had accordingly been passed early this year under the terms of which processions could take place on formal permission being granted by the District Commissioner, who was empowered to impose conditions as to the route to be followed, etc. Applications were duly submitted by the Arab leaders, in accordance with the terms of the new Ordinance, for permission to hold processions in various towns in Palestine on January 17th, and, the conditions laid down by the District Commissioners having been accepted, permission was granted. The processions duly took place in strict conformity with the Government's conditions, and passed off quite peacefully.

(3) The Government fully accepted the findings of the Commission of Enquiry.

(4) The accredited representative explained that the transfer of the police officer
mentioned by M. Orts was the outcome of disciplinary action under the Colonial Regulations arising out of an incident connected with the Jaffa disorders. He stated further, in reply to M. Rappard, that this question was outside the terms of reference of the Murison Commission.

M. ORTS supposed that that was the incident which had led to a question being asked in March 1934 in the House of Commons. He observed that the suppression of disorders was an ungrateful task; those responsible for such duties were invariably accused of being unduly energetic or not energetic enough.

M. VAN REES observed that several of the points on which he desired information had
already been raised by M. Orts. He wished in addition to refer to a discrepancy between the figures for casualties in the 1933 disorders as shown in the annual report and in the report of the Commission of Enquiry : according to the former document there were one constable and twenty-four civilians killed or died of wounds, twenty-eight constables and 204 civilians wounded, while the totals given in the Murison report were : Killed--police 1, public 26; injured--police 56, public 187. He was concerned, nevertheless, not so much with the discrepancy between those two sets of figures as with the fact that the disorders had evidently been of a serious character, and that, according to the findings of the Committee of Enquiry, the responsibility for direct instigation lay with the Arab Executive. That body, which had been officially recognised, had, by that fact, shown itself to be little worthy of confidence. Had the Government considered it necessary and advisable to take action against the organisation, as distinct from the prosecution of certain of its members?

Mr. HALL suggested that the number of casualties at Jaffa might perhaps give a wrong
impression of the seriousness and extent of the disorders in that town. The number of
casualties was to be explained in part by the difficulty of police action in a town such as Jaffa, with its narrow streets and topographical peculiarities.

Mr. Hall added that a reprimand had actually been administered by the High Commissioner, within a day or two of the disturbances, to those members of the Arab Executive who were available.

Lord LUGARD enquired what were the relations of the Arab Executive with the Istiqlal,
which was, he believed, the most reactionary party.

Mr. HALL said that the Arab Executive included among its members certain persons who
were prominent in the Istiqlal party.