867N.4016/88
The Consul General at Jerusalem (Wadsworth) to the Secretary of State
[Received June 27.]
Sir: Those who had hoped that the publication of the British White Paper, with its announcement of a new British policy, might have an immediately favorable effect on the status of public security in Palestine have been, I have the honor to report, greatly disappointed by developments of the fortnight under review. Not only have the Jewish threats of violence, which were reported in my last despatch on this subject,90 been translated into action; but there are no indications that the Arabs have been sufficiently appeased to consider abandoning their campaign of terrorism.
There have been during the fortnight four engagements worthy of mention between security forces and Arab bands. On May 23 the 2nd Battalion of the Queen’s Royal Regiment made contact near Tul Karm with an armed band believed to have been headed by Abu Bakr, the successor of the noted rebel leader Abdul Rahim El Haj Mohamed, who was killed on March 27 (See despatch No. 899 of April 12, 193991). Eleven of the band were killed and two were captured; of the troops a major and an Arab interpreter were killed, and an officer and three men wounded. A smaller group, believed to be of the same band, was engaged on May 27th; three were killed and one was captured, the military forces suffering no casualties.
In Galilee on May 30th the third of these actions took place, in the course of which five Arabs were killed, one wounded, and five captured. The fourth occurred on June 3rd when the security forces suffered the most serious loss of recent months. A patrol consisting of four British soldiers and three Jewish police was ambushed west of Tul Karm by an Arab band, and all seven were killed. Punitive action directed against this band was successful, an item to be reported in detail in my next fortnightly review.
Individual acts of Arab terrorism, on the other hand, have been relatively few, only some twenty instances of sniping and sabotage having been reported during the fortnight.
In addition to the engagements mentioned above, the security forces have continued their unspectacular but useful searches for arms. A rough compilation of press reports, which are evidently incomplete, shows that seizures during the fortnight include not less than 75 rifles, 20 pistols, 8 shotguns, and several thousand rounds of ammunition.
[Page 775]So far as Arab terrorism is concerned, the net results of the fortnight, as recapitulated above, might not from the British viewpoint, be considered discouraging. The reverse must be said of what appears to be a beginning of a Jewish campaign of violence.
On May 25th three Jews, traveling in a motor car stolen from the brother of Dr. Chaim Weizmann, fired some forty shots at a group of Arabs in a Haifa thoroughfare, wounding five persons, one fatally. On May 29th eight or more men, described in the official report as “dressed in European clothes and talking Hebrew”, entered the Arab village of Biyar Adas in the Plain of Sharon, where they killed four women and one man, wounding three other men.
More serious were two bombings in Jerusalem. On the evening of May 29th two bombs, exploding almost simultaneously in an Arab cinema theater, wounded three British constables, three Palestinian constables, ten Arabs and two Jews. A third bomb, found in a lady’s handbag, failed to explode. The second bombing, which occurred at about 9:00 a.m. on the morning of June 2nd in the Arab melon market near the Jaffa Gate, killed six Arabs and wounded eighteen. On the same day three bombs placed in manholes in various quarters of the city put out of action nearly one-half of the telephones in Jerusalem.
Except for the first of the four crimes mentioned in the two preceding paragraphs, it is not definitely proved that the perpetrators were Jews; and the Jewish press stresses this slight element of doubt, without, however, denying the possibility that extremist elements of the Jewish community may be responsible.
British officials and the general public, however, have no doubt that these acts of violence have been committed by Jews, and certain punitive measures against the Jewish community have been taken, including the closing of all Jewish cinemas and suspension of certain Jewish bus services. The Jerusalem District Commissioner, with whom an officer of the Consulate General discussed the situation yesterday at considerable length, does not accept the view that only irresponsible or extremist elements, such as Revisionist organizations, are to blame, but places the burden of responsibility squarely upon the Jewish leaders. When, he says, the Chief Rabbi, religious head of the community, publicly tears up the British statement of policy and proclaims resistance to it, and leaders of the Jewish Agency, officially organized to cooperate with the Government, publicly applaud this action; when these same Jewish leaders make numerous declarations of intention to oppose the new policy by all available means, couched in language which can be described only as incitement to resistance: then these leaders must accept the responsibility of the crimes which are the inevitable result of their public attitude. The only leaders whom he absolves from all blame are the [Page 776] members of the Jewish Community Council. Members of this body, he believes, are definitely opposed to terrorist tactics, and are sincerely endeavoring to discourage such a policy.
Jewish leaders have publicly denounced the use of violence, and, in cases where the crimes have been admittedly perpetrated by Jews, ascribe them to “no recognized body, but to irresponsible persons from whom the Jewish community dissociates itself.” Yet, while deploring and denouncing the resort to terrorism, which is at variance with traditional Jewish policy, they admit, to quote the Palestine Review, that “there are bound to be some who, not condoning nor excusing for a moment those acts, will consider them understandable”.
Partly as a result of this attitude of the leaders, there is a widespread feeling of deep and bitter resentment throughout the Jewish community. This feeling, responsible British officials fear, may result in a rapid increase in Jewish violence. At the same time the Arab population, especially in Jerusalem, is becoming extremely nervous, and a strong reaction is among the immediate possibilities. Said the District Commissioner, an official of twenty years’ experience in this country, and one in close touch with both Arab and Jewish opinion: “I take a very grave view of the situation. The new policy, which is a just one, might have been successful ten years ago. At that time the Jews were much less numerous, and might have submitted. Now they are a large community, well organized, and in a position to resist strongly. Also, ten years ago racial hatred was not so extreme, and cooperation between Arab and Jew was still a possibility; now, feeling has become so intense that I do not anticipate the possibility of peaceful cooperation in my time or in yours.” I find this view generally held among responsible British officials and neutral observers.
There is enclosed the usual recapitulation,92 from official reports, of acts of violence during the past fortnight, to which is added a record of military court trials.
Respectfully yours,