Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1936, The Near East and Africa, Volume III

867N.00/283

The Consul General at Jerusalem (Morris) to the Secretary of State

No. 62

Jerusalem, April 25, 1936.
[Received May 9.]

Sir: I have the honor to refer to the Consulate General’s telegrams of April 18, 4 p.m., April 19, 6 p.m., April 20, 6 p.m., and April 21, 5 [6] p.m.,³ relative to the disturbances which have taken place in and around Jaffa, and to submit the following report in connection therewith.

To understand the atmosphere which prevailed in Palestine immediately prior to April 17 when it appeared that a disturbance of the local peace was imminent, the Consulate General believes it wise to refer to its despatch No. 691 of November 25, 1935,⁴ which was submitted subsequent to the events which succeeded the discovery of an important arms importation at the port of Jaffa and which described a situation closely related to that existing at the present moment. At that time, it will be remembered, tension was high and the fear existed that an open break between Arabs and Jews would occur at any time. The situation was further involved by the activities of Sheikh Izz-Ed-Din Kassem who organized bands of political highwaymen and, in effect, challenged the police to maintain security on the roads of north Palestine. His actions were said to constitute his contribution to the organized Arab protests that the local Government was unable to discover the importers or even to put a stop to the traffic in arms. Sheikh Izz-Ed-Din’s activities resulted in the death of one British constable, the wounding of another, and in the death of four members of his organization (if such it may be called) and the capture of five others. Political brigandage thereafter disappeared in Palestine until during the week of April 5, when it reappeared and helped to precipitate the present disorders.

It will likewise be remembered that the tension which existed during October and November was dissipated only after the High Commissioner⁵ advanced his proposals for a Legislative Council. These proposals successfully broke down the united front which had been established by the five Arab parties in circumstances which they described as a “national emergency”, by causing a renaissance of the political and personal jealousies which had hitherto characterized Arab politics in Palestine. As negotiations between the Arab leaders on the one hand, and between the leaders and the personnel of their respective parties on the other, continued, the breaking down of the united front became more apparent and all thought of united Arab action in regard to the Legislative Council was abandoned. Whether or not present events will restore the united front still remains to be seen, for the struggle between Husseini⁶ and Nashashibi⁷ is more severe at the present moment than ever before.

The Jewish attitude on the other hand became more unified. Organized opposition to the Legislative Council was crystallized not only in Palestine but throughout the world and particularly in Great Britain, where continual and urgent representations against the Council were carried on. An important by-product of the solidarity which the Jews exhibited, which was first mentioned in the Consulate General’s despatch No. 691, became more and more noticeable during the period between November and April: an attitude which began as one of smugness and cocksureness and which gradually evolved, as mentioned in the Consulate General’s despatch of April 18,⁸ into one of open derogation of the local authorities and even of the High Commissioner. Several noteworthy incidents illustrating the new attitude occurred during that time: Jewish individuals, apparently spontaneously and not in accordance with any preconceived plan or design, began indulging in acts of an anti-Arab nature which, although of no particular importance in themselves, were significant when taken together. Stones were thrown at passing Arabs, shop windows were broken, tills robbed and finally, early in March on the occasion of the opening of the Dizengoff Museum in Tel Aviv, a large crowd of Jews openly hissed the High Commissioner when he arrived at the building in which the museum is housed. Never before had such an occurrence taken place. During the same time, also, the feeling was prevalent that relations between the High Commissioner and Jewish leaders were becoming strained because of his ardent desire to establish a legislative council, and the equally ardent desire on the part of the Jews to prevent its institution. The Jewish attitude thus became definitely anti-Mandatory.

The above background will perhaps make more understandable the series of events which occurred during the middle of this month. As reported by telegram on April 18, the first factor contributing to the occurrence of the disturbances was the recrudescence of political highway robbery by bands of Arabs. Although Sheikh Izz-ed-Din had been captured and executed by the police, his spirit was reinvoked to inspire the Arabs to begin again their annoying practices on the highways. There was, however, a difference in the modus operandi of these bands as compared with those which operated under Sheikh Izz-ed-Din. The latter worked merely to annoy the Government, whereas the former operate on what can only be described as anti-Jewish lines. On one occasion busses were stopped on the Tulkarm-Nablus Road and all the passengers were forced to alight. The only three Jews in the busses were then segregated from their fellow passengers and placed in the cab of a truck at the head of the stopped column of cars. The door of the cab was closed and the Jews were fired upon at point-blank range. Of the three, one was killed outright, one died later of wounds, and the third was severely wounded. This incident was followed the next night by a revenge killing of two Arabs by Jews in a small hut on the Petah Tikva–Ranaana Road. It is reported by the police in this respect that at 10 p.m. on April 16 a car stopped before the hut and one of its occupants knocked on the door. In response to the knock the door was opened and two persons believed by the police to be Jews entered and, finding two Arabs within, shot them both dead on sight. One was shot six times with a Browning automatic and the other five with a Parabellum. The car with its occupants then disappeared.

When these facts became known the following morning tension between Arabs and Jews reached a crucial point. The situation was rendered acute later in the morning when the Jew who had been murdered by the “terrorists” two days before was buried as a martyr in the cemetery on the outskirts of Tel Aviv. The cortege following the body worked itself into a frenzy of righteous indignation and became disorderly. The efforts of the Jewish police of Tel Aviv to restore order and control the course of the procession were unavailing. A clash ensued and the Jewish police were routed. Reserves of British police were immediately called and likewise were attacked. By this time the excitement had spread to the occupants of nearby houses who joined the fray by throwing flower pots, cement building blocks and even iron bedsteads upon the heads of the police below. At one moment it seemed as though the British police would likewise be routed and troops were ordered to stand by from the encampment at Sarafand. Fortunately, however, order was at length restored, but not until after the police had been forced to fire into the crowd and many casualties had occurred both among the police and the rioters. The authorities were particularly apprehensive during the course of these disturbances because at Ramleh, no more than ten miles away, crowds of excited Arabs were celebrating the local feast of Nebi Saleh, and had word of the riots in Tel Aviv reached them a most serious situation would almost certainly have developed.

The following day, Saturday, passed without incident, but in an atmosphere of extreme tension. The police and the military authorities prepared for serious trouble.

On Sunday their fears were justified. A large crowd of Arabs gathered in the morning before the offices of the District Commissioner in Jaffa to protest against the murder of the two Arabs killed on the 16th, and as they were milling about in the square and working themselves into a condition of frenzy two Jews appeared and were immediately set upon. The crowd of Arabs then went berserk and pursued every Jew they saw. Fortunately, not many were at hand. The crowd then turned its attention to the main Jaffa–Jerusalem highway, stopping all cars and inspecting them for Jewish passengers. Many cars were wrecked and many casualties took place, among them an official of the Public Works Department, the son of the honorary Swedish Consul, the son of a well-known British contractor and a member of the Royal Air Force. When order was finally restored at 3:30 in the afternoon total casualties amounted to

7 Jews killed;	2 Arabs killed;
15 Arabs wounded;	39 Jews wounded.

Monday morning dawned on a Palestine prepared for disturbances of the most serious sort. All shops were closed and traffic was at a minimum on the roads. At about 9 a.m. the police received word of fresh outbreaks in Jaffa and, as a result traffic ceased on the Jerusalem–Jaffa road and was convoyed on the Jerusalem–Nazareth road. The disturbances remained localized in the no-man’s-land between Jaffa and Tel Aviv, where a platoon of the Cameron Highlanders had been stationed the day before, but a few minor incidents of stoning automobiles occurred in the Northern District near Jenin. To combat this development the Air Officer Commanding despatched detachments of armored cars to Nablus, Tulkarm and Jenin and likewise ordered detachments of troops to support the police at Tulkarm in case of a clash between the Arabs of that district and the Jews of the neighboring colonies. Casualties in Jaffa on April 20 were as follows: 5 Jews killed and 26 wounded; 2 Arabs killed and 32 wounded; on that day also 2 Jews died of injuries received on the previous day.

Outside of the fracas in Jaffa the only important items to note on April 20 are two incidents which occurred on the Jerusalem-Nazareth road: a convoy of cars carrying visiting French officers back to Syria was stoned near Jenin and windshields and windows were broken; the French Consul General abandoned his car near Nablus because of a demonstration then in progress and returned to Jerusalem by train. Also on that day Consuls Lynch and Scott journeyed to Tel Aviv and back to Jerusalem after learning that no American individuals or property had been involved in the disturbances, and Consul Brent returned from Haifa—all without incident.

On April 21 the situation was reported as being “easier”. Nineteen persons were wounded, 14 Arabs and 5 Jews, in “isolated assaults”; a Jewish lumber yard and other buildings were fired in Jaffa; traffic was resumed under convoy on the Jerusalem–Jaffa road; a crowd of Arabs bent on invading an outlying quarter of Tel Aviv were repulsed by the police; a general strike, which in effect has been only partial, was begun by Arab shopkeepers and still continues on April 25. This strike, which is supposed to have been inspired by that of the Damascene merchants some weeks ago and which is scheduled to last “until Arab demands are met”, is a most half-hearted affair unsupported by the Nashashibi element. (As far as can be determined the Arab “demands” are the traditional ones: cessation of Jewish immigration and termination of land sales to Jews.)

The most significant events of April 21 were the orations delivered by the Messrs. Rokach and Dizengoff, Vice-Mayor and Mayor of Tel Aviv respectively, before a crowd estimated at 10,000 persons who had gathered when Tel Aviv buried its dead of the day before. In the course of his oration Mr. Rokach said: “These victims have not shed their blood for nothing. This incident will open the eyes of the Jews to the necessity of joining together with renewed energy and strength …”^8a Mr. Dizengoff’s remarks were perhaps more pointed: “Some have fallen and the living must take their places … Many before you have made the same sacrifice. All of us are ready to make it … You have fallen not as wrongdoers but as a sacrifice to our weakness and powerlessness … We failed to secure enough power to keep at bay the danger which pursues us outside Palestine. Thousands have died before and thousands will yet die … No savage force, no murders, no attacks will move us from our position which we have gained here … You were the victims of our optimism … This silence bears witness to the strength of our people, to the power of our answer, to your determination …”

April 22 and 23 passed under circumstances officially described as “quiet but tense”. No incident of importance occurred. A few burnings were reported, traffic moved under convoy and rumors were rife. It is hard to describe the variety, extent and seriousness of these rumors. They included everything: Arabs were attacking Jewish colonies, serious riots had occurred in Hebron, the Jewish village of Talpioth had been destroyed by the Arabs of Bethlehem, Haifa was a bloody battlefield, the Mufti had been arrested and deported, troops had arrived from Egypt. All of these tales were eventually, and with maddening loss of time, proved false.

Two events which occurred during these two days are, however, worthy of mention. Both are important when considering the altered Jewish attitude. During the night of April 22 a police patrol was fired upon by Jews in the Tel Aviv district; the police returned the fire and a Jew was wounded. This fact was first circulated as rumor but was later confirmed and embodied in an official communiqué to which the Jewish Agency took formal exception on the ground that the report was unfounded and the Government was therefore culpable of disseminating untruths calculated to redound to the discredit of the Jews.

The second event occurred on April 23. It was a speech made by Dr. Weizmann when opening the World Congress of Jewish Physicians, at Tel Aviv. The essence of Dr. Weizmann’s remarks is contained in the following words: “This Congress is a symbol of our answer to the attacks of the last few days … On one side the forces of destruction, the forces of the desert have arisen, and on the other stand firm the forces of civilization—but we will not be stopped.” These words are worth considering. They contain Weizmann’s opinion of the Arabs and his challenge to the Mandatory; both apparently honestly expressed.

April 24 was awaited with more apprehension than any preceding day. As there had been three days of relative calm and as it was also Friday, the Moslem day of rest and, from sunset, also the Jewish Sabbath, it was presumed that if anything was to happen it would happen on that day, and probably in Jerusalem where are situated the Dome of the Rock and the Wailing Wall. But nothing happened. The day finally dragged tensely to a close, but with the immediate outlook unchanged. Several theories are advanced to explain the absence of disturbances on April 24. The most likely in the Consulate General’s view is that the Arab leaders had never been behind the Jaffa outbreaks, which were participated in principally by irresponsible Haurani workers⁹ in the port, and had not been more than half-hearted in their advocation of the general strike. Nashashibi, in fact, had urged on several occasions and particularly on April 23 that the leaders make a statement disavowing the present unrest, that they call off the strike and depart for London where they have been invited to express their views on the Legislative Council. Whether or not this advice will prevail will not be known until too late for inclusion in this despatch, as the meeting of leaders to determine present Arab policy is now in session and will not have ended before the mail closes. But it is believed that the fellaheen and townsmen, although perhaps in the mood for demonstrations on April 24, were not sufficiently affected by recent events to brave of their own accord the rifles and batons of the military and the police who were in riot mood.

In brief summary: the disturbances appear to have been begun by Jews entering a square in Jaffa which was packed by irresponsible Arabs gathered to demand the punishment of the alleged Jews who had murdered two Arabs two days previously; the district of unrest was localized in Jaffa–Tel Aviv for two days, when it spread without serious effect to the Arab nationalist centers in the north; the lukewarm attitude of the Arab leaders in general and of Nashashibi in particular appears to have prevented the spread of the disturbances and to have maintained quiet in Jerusalem (for riots would probably have occurred regardless of the careful preparations and presence in large numbers of both the police and the military had incitement been sufficient); the Arabs may use the present situation as a fulcrum for their demands (as was done with success in Egypt and Syria); and, finally, the situation has adduced considerable evidence to demonstrate that a significant alteration of attitude has occurred among the Jews, both individuals and officials—an attitude which implies the pushing ahead of Zionist designs in the face of all resistance, whether offered by Arab or Mandatory. In this respect the most significant fact, and one that has thus far not been mentioned in this despatch, is that the Jewish defense organization Haganah, once guarded in the utmost secrecy, is now openly boasted of as a sort of Zionist army, trained, disciplined and armed.

Respectfully yours,

Leland B. Morris

3. None printed.
4. Not printed.
5. Lt. Gen. Sir Arthur Wauchope.
6. Jamal Efendi al-Husseini, leader of the Palestine Arab Party and a close associate of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Efendi al-Husseini, who was also President of the Supreme Muslim Council.
7. Raghib Bey au-Nashashibi, ex-Mayor of Jerusalem and leader of the National Defense Party.
8. Not found in Department files.
9. Omissions indicated in the original despatch.
9. A poor type of labor employed in the ports for handling of cargo ashore.