of the world, accentuated by such inhuman things as the recent pogroms in Russia; and if that tends to accentuate the alienism of the Jews, this resolution, if I interpret it-that is what is in my mind, at least-has for its great purpose, and its controlling purpose, the establishment of a refuge where these people who have been persecuted for 2,000 years can go, if they can get there, and everybody else who is in that country, and have perfect freedom of religious worship?

Doctor PHILIPSON. Then why single out Palestine, and not call for a refuge for the Jews everywhere?

That is our idea of the solution of the Jewish problem when the world shall be free. The Jews will knock in vain until freedom comes everywhere.

Mr. COCKRAN. Where would you have them in the meantime-driven from one place to another and not allowed to cultivate the soil or engage in business?

Dr. PHILIPSON. I do not think Palestine at all solves that. Palestine is not open to the Jews. Since the Balfour declaration there are more restrictions against Jews going to Palestine than before.

Mr. COCKRAN. You would not object, would you?

Dr. PHILIPSON. No. What I object to in this Balfour declaration is this: I object to any one country being called the national home of the Jewish people. America is my national home.

Mr. COCKRAN. But you say your countrymen are being driven around.

Dr. PHILIPSON. That may be true under present circumstances. They can not go into Palestine either.

Mr. COCKRAN. That is the object of this resolution.

Dr. PHILIPSON. Not yet. I will come to that afterwards.

Mr. COCKRAN. It has a political side as well as an economic side.

Dr. PHILIPSON. I am coming to that. I think that is an entangling alliance. Mr. COCKRAN. I want your view of that.

Doctor PHILIPSON. Then in 1917, Mr. Fish, after the United States entered the war, this was adopted by the conference:

"We herewith reaffirm the fundamental principle of reform Judaism that the essence of Israel as a priest-people consists in its religious consciousness and in the sense of consecration to God and service in the world and not in any political or racial or national consciousness. And, therefore, we look with disfavor upon the new doctrine of political Jewish nationalism, which finds the criterion of Jewish loyalty in anything other than loyalty to Israel's God and Israel's religious mission."

The CHAIRMAN. What percentage of the rabbis of the United States belong to this central conference?

Doctor PHILIPSON. Practically all the liberal rabbis belong to it. But, of course, the orthodox do not. They have an organization of their own, and even there there is a cleavage. There is a section that does not favor the political efforts of the Zionists.

Mr. COCKRAN. What proportion do the reform Jews bear to the orthodox? Doctor PHILIPSON. I do not think statistics have been taken. The reform Jews are in the minority as far as numbers are concerned. We always say that numbers do not count. God and one are a majority.

Mr. COCKRAN. That nobody will dispute.

Mr. FISH. Is Rabbi Wise a member of the reformed Jews?

Doctor PHILIPSON. Yes, sir, and he is a Zionist. I said before that there are some Zionists among the reform rabbis. They are, however, in a great minority. It is they who have persistently sought to secure an indorsement of the Zionistic movement by the conference, but they have never succeeded. Five times they have been defeated by large majorities.

Mr. FISH. Would you mind before making that statement if I put in the record a telegram received this morning from Rabbi Stephen Wise?

Doctor PHILIPSON. You can do it afterwards. Doctor Wise. I often have them but not here. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Doctor.

I have no discussion here with

Doctor PHILIPSON. This is the next one, in 1918. "The central conference of American Rabbis notes with grateful appreciation the declaration of the British Government by Mr. Balfour as an evidence of good will toward the Jews. We naturally favor the facilitation of immigration to Palestine of Jews who, either because of economic necessity or religious persecution, desire to settle there."

"We hold that Jews in Palestine, as well as anywhere else in the world, are entitled to equality in political, civil, and religious rights, but we do not sub

scribe to the phrase in the declaration which says 'Palestine is to be a national homeland for the Jewish people.' This statement assumes that the Jews, although identified with the life of many nations for centuries, are in fact a people without a country. We hold that Jewish people are and of right ought to be at home in all lands. Israel, like every other religious communion, has the right to live and assert its message in any part of the world. We are opposed to the idea that Palestine should be considered the homeland of the Jews. Jews in America are a part of the American Nation. The ideal of the Jew is not the establishment of a Jewish state-not the reassertion of Jewish nationality, which has long been outgrown. We believe that our survival as a people is dependent upon the assertion and the maintenance of our historic religious rôle and not upon the assertion and the acceptance of Palestine as a home-land of the Jewish people. The mission of the Jew is to witness to God all over the world."

The last one adopted was in Rochester, N. Y., in 1920, and reaffirmed here in Washington last spring, 1921. It is as follows:

"We indorse the action of the President in declining the invitation That is, the president of the conference"declining the invitation of the Zionist organization of America to appoint a delegation to participate in the extraordinary convention of delegates representing the membership of the Zionist organization held in the city of New York, May 9 and 10, to celebrate the issuance by the San Remo conference of a mandate over Palestine to Great Britain.

"We rejoice, indeed, at the present decision of the San Remo conference to give to Great Britain a mandate over Palestine in line with the Balfour declaration, but we hold to-day what the conference declared anent the Balfour declaration two years ago. We do not subscribe to the phrase in the declaration which says, 'Palestine is to be a national home land for the Jewish people.' We believe that Israel, the Jewish people, like every other religious communion, has the right to live, to be at home, and to assert its message in every part of the world.

"With confidence in the free institutions of Great Britain, we rejoice in and recognize the historic significance of such a British mandate for Palestine, in that it will offer the opportunity to some Jews who may desire to settle there to go there, and to live full, free and happy lives. And if facilities are offered for an appreciable number to go there from lands in which they suffer from religious, political or economic persecution they may be enabled so to shape their communal life that, inspired by the hallowed associations of the land in which Israel's prophets announced world-redeeming ideas, they may become a great spiritual influence.

"While we thus rejoice, we do not, however, admit that this historic event is what it has been called, the Geulah or the redemption of Israel. Convinced that the mission of the Jew is to witness to God all over the world, emphasizing the religious function of Israel, and rejecting any assertion of Jewish nationality, which it has long ago outgrown, we hold that Israel's redemption will only be realized when the Jew will have the right to live in any part of the world, and all racial and religious prejudice and persecution ended, Israel will be free as a religious power and integral part of all nations to give world service."

These are the declarations of these representative organizations. I need not add anything to those except to say this, that here it is a matter of principle as to really what the Jew means in the world. I believe that the Jewish nationalistic movement or Zionism misreads the entire significance of the Jew in the world; it has turned the clock backwards thousands of years. We believe that the Jews have been scattered by Providence throughout the world to live for the world. We also believe that this Jewish question is going to be solved, not by the Balfour declaration, but by full freedom for the Jews to live everywhere as well as in Palestine.

I want to add further that I also am opposed to this resolution indorsing the Balfour declaration, because I am an American citizen. What is this whole Balfour declaration? Yes; what is it? Is it not a part of Old World politics? We refused to go into the Genoa conference. Why? Because European political questions are being discussed there and I think our position is absolutely correct as far as that is concerned. I believe in the League of Nations in its very large sense, and I believe firmly also that with political questions in Asia and Europe we ought to have nothing to do. That is what the Balfour declaration is. That is what it means—a mandate over Palestine.

There is the crux of the matter. Is it not an echo of Franco-Anglican Near East policy? Is it right for the United States to go into a thing of that kind? Why in the world should this be brought on the floor of the House of Representatives? I can not understand it at all. It is none of our business. The Balfour declaration assures Palestine to the Jews, but if we indorse it we are departing from the American policy of having nothing to do with Old World questions. Yes; it is a matter of Franco-British Near East policy. Both of them wanted Palestine and Great Britain secured it. Great Britain wanted it as a buffer State between Egypt and Asia. That is very well known. Great Britain is a wonderful nation. I rejoice that she will have this mandate over Palestine, but I do not think that it is right for the United States Government to meddle. Furthermore, gentlemen, this is another point I want to make: The American Jews are divided on this question. What right has the United States Government to take sides in what is really an internal question? Would the United States Government have had the right to take sides, for example, in the Catholic controversy on the question of papal infallibility_that divided the Catholic world in 1869? What would have been said if the United States attempted to do anything of that kind? Has she any right to take sides in the internal concerns of a religious communion whose members differ among themselves?

Mr. COLE. In what proportion are they divided?

Doctor PHILIPSON. I can not say. I do not know. That makes no difference to me. Numbers do not count. This is a matter of principle.

Mr. COLE. One-third against two-thirds?

Doctor PHILIPSON. I can not say. It may be even more. I do not know how they are divided. But they are divided.

Mr. COLE. When it comes to votes that is of importance.

Doctor PHILIPSON. I know it is, but I do not think this is or ought to be made a matter of votes. That is what distresses me, coming down to the matter of votes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what alarms you?

Doctor PHILIPSON. Yes, sir. I do not believe in the Jewish vote, the Catholic vote, or the Protestant vote in the United States. This talk of the Jewish vote in the United States alarms me very much.

Mr. LINTHICUM. There is one thing that I want to bring out. A good many questions were asked you as to the census, how many your people represent and how many the orthodox represent. As I understand it, it is a Jewish practice in religion not to take a census. Even David in his time did not take a census because it was thought it was contrary to the laws of God.

Doctor PHILIPSON. That is true; but a census has been taken since frequently. Mr. FISH. Mr. Linthicum mentioned that David did not take a census of the Jews. I rather think that David began to take a census of all of the Twelve Tribes, but did not complete it. That census is quite interesting. The committee was discussing yesterday how many people were under the Palestine mandate, how many people could immigrate there, and how many could the land maintain. That census of David, as I understand, stated that there were 800,000 fighting men, probably between the ages of 18 and 60, and that there was one other tribe of Judah with 300,000 more. That makes 1,100,000 men, showing that there was a population in Palestine at that time of about 4,000,000.

Doctor PHILIPSON. That is exaggerated.

Mr. COLE. Did they all live in Palestine?

Mr. FISH. According to the Bible most of them did. This census of David is the one I am talking about.

Doctor PHILIPSON. No; I did not speak of that.

Mr. LINTHICUM. I brought it up. I think you will find that that is mostly guesswork. I think it was contrary to the laws of the Jews to take a census. That is the reason that David did not take a census.

Mr. FISH. Those are the figures quoted in the Bible.

Doctor PHILIPSON. It is very interesting for me to hear laymen discuss Biblical questions. Furthermore, I want to say that as the conference expressed in one of its resolutions we feel very strongly that this entire agitation by the political Zionists and their constant reference to Palestine as the national home of the Jewish people implants in the minds of non-Jews the thought of the alienism of the Jews everywhere.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the point.

Doctor PHILIPSON. I consider this a terrible disservice to the Jews. The Jews have been in this country for centuries; yes, there were Jews with Columbus in

the voyage of discovery. They have been in every war and helped build up the country. Why in God's name shall there be anything that will cast any reflection upon the citizenship and Americanism of the Jew? This has been done. This resolution speaks of establishing a rational home for the Jewish people.

What does that mean? It means that Jew is a national term. That is not SO. America is my national home. You can not speak of the Jews as the Jewish people in the national sense. You can speak of them religiously but not politically or nationally, because they are English nationals, German nationals, French nationals, Spanish nationals, American nationals, and nationals of all lands as the case may be. You can not speak of the national home of the Jewish people. I would not even speak of a national home for the Jewish people. I would speak of national homes for Jews. This is what I am trying to express, and I believe I speak for those who are called the liberal Jews or Reform Jews, or for all such as have been termed Americans of the Jewish persuasion.

Mr. COCKRAN. Will you explain what you mean by the difference between liberal Jews and orthodox Jews?

Doctor PHILIPSON. That would take us far afield. I would be very glad to send you a volume that I have written, entitled "The Reform Movement in Judaism."

Mr. COCKRAN. Is it so slight that it takes a volume to point it out? ter.]

Doctor PHILIPSON. Yes. [Laughter.]

[Laugh

Mr. COCKRAN. If there is not a very wide distinction you could mention it in a few words.

Doctor PHILIPSON. The distinction between the orthodox and reformed Jew is that the reformed Jew has given up certain doctrines, ceremonies, and traditions in this case as in all reform movements. However, I want to emphasize that among the distinctive teachings of Reform Judaism, which arose in the beginning of the nineteenth century, are these that the Jews are not a nationality; that they do not expect a return to Palestine or a rebuilding of the temple, or a re-establishment of the sacrificial worship under the priesthood of the descendants of Aaron. Further, Reform Jews do not believe in the coming of a personal Messiah, but of the Messianic age of universal peace and good will.

Mr. COCKRAN. To establish a temple?

Doctor PHILIPSON. Yes.

Mr. COCKRAN. That explains the whole thing.

Doctor PHILIPSON. Yes. This is really a part of the basic principles of this reform movement which the conference has simply been expressing in its resolutions, and this whole matter of the return to Palestine hangs together with this idea of nationalism and the coming of the personal Messiah.

Mr. FISH. You seem to be very much opposed to the national home in this resolution. Suppose we change that and put in a national home?

Doctor PHILIPSON. I am entirely opposed to the Government of the United States aligning itself in any way, be it with the Jews, Catholics, Protestants, or anyone else.

Mr. COCKRAN. The doctor is contributing very clearly to the information of the committee, and I wish to express my personal appreciation.

66

The CHAIRMAN. The doctor has contributed very largely to this matter. Mr. FISH. Of course, you have discussed a long time in your statement that you were opposed to the words, the national home of the Jewish people." We could easily change this to read, "a national home for the Jewish people." Doctor PHILIPSON. Do you not understand my other objection? Mr. FISH. I understand, but do not agree. There are a great many different races that have come to the United States. Would you think that if we gave the Czecho-Slovaks, or any one of these races that you might pick out, an expression of sympathy for the land of their birth that they would not be just as good Americans?

Doctor PHILIPSON. You seem to forget this, that the Jews and Judaism are in a class by themselves because they represent a religion. Czecho-Slovak does not represent a religion. We are a religious people. That is our point of view. and we do not want to put the Jews in the same category with the Irish and Czecho-Slavs. That is Zionistic. We say that the Jews are a unique people, that they are a religious people, an international religious people, a religious people that is international.

Mr. FISH. No one disputes it.

Doctor PHILIPSON. Then you can not compare them with the Czecho-Slovaks and the Irish. They are in a class by themselves.

Mr. FISH. Not in a class by themselves, but I believe that from the statements of Members of Congress who have come before this committee representing great Jewish constituencies and familiar with the thoughts and aspirations of these people, that most Jews sympathize with this resolution and want such a resolution passed.

Doctor PHILIPSON. Not with the Jewish people, but with a section of the Jewish people.

Mr. FISH. They say they represent them. You represent, I believe, a very small section. Besides, as you said, you are unable to give any figures. Doctor PHILIPSON. They have given figures?

Mr. FISH. No; but they come from the people themselves. There is nobody who can say whether it is 90 per cent or 95 per cent. They say 90 to 95 per cent.

Doctor PHILIPSON. I can say 60 per cent if I want to. There are statistics. Mr. FISH. That is what I would like to arrive at.

Doctor PHILIPSON. According to the figures of the Zionist organization, which is the only thing you can go by, it has not over 30,000 members in this country. Mr. FISH. They admit that.

Doctor PHILIPSON. That is all we have to go on.

Mr. FISH. It would not make any difference how large the Zionists were in number; as far as what the Jewish people believe. What we would like to find out is, what is your idea. You seem to think that the Jewish people are not overwhelmingly for such a resolution.

Doctor PHILIPSON. I do not say that. I do not know anything about numbers. It means this. In the first place, our interpretation of Judaism is that it is a religious belief. We believe in the Constitution of the United States, and I do not think the American principle permits the Government to take sides in an internal question, as I said before.

Mr. CONNALLY. Your viewpoint, and, of course, it is very clearly expressed, is that we should view this question from the Jewish standpoint as religion? Doctor PHILIPSON. Yes.

Mr. CONNALLY. Under the Balfour declaration and the mandate. I understand that the British mandate under the League of Nations does not become purely a political question.

Doctor PHILIPSON. Absolutely.

Mr. CONNALLY. Do not the terms of that mandate follow your suggestion of the policy, with no religious aspect at all?

Doctor PHILIPSON. Absolutely.

Mr. CONNALLY. But it makes it political.

Doctor PHILIPSON. That is just the point. I am going to say something now which may not be agreeable in some quarters. There are any number of nationalistic Jews who do not care a fig for the religion. They are purely Jews in nationality that is all-quite a number of them. Their great leader is Max Nordau, almost a confessed unbeliever, but he is the great national leader. Now, Dr. Max Nordau could never be a Jewish leader, according to my interpretation of Judaism. Only a religious Jew could be that. Of course, there are many Zionists who are religious. I simply can not understand how such can accept irreligious leadership.

Mr. CONNALLY. Not from the Jewish standpoint, but from the Gentile standpoint, when a Gentile speaks of a Jew, does he mean a man whose ancestors happened to have lived in Palestine 100 or 300 years or a thousand years ago or does he speak of a type that is known the world over for particular characteristics that distinguish him, from a religious standpoint?

Doctor PHILIPSON. I can not answer for the Gentile.

Mr. CONNALLY. You certainly can answer as to what the popular meaning of the word is.

Doctor PHILIPSON. I would say yes. You can not dissociate the experiences of a great group of people from what has been the outcome of those experiences. Now, the Jews were excluded for 15 centuries. They were put into ghettoes and not allowed outside of the ghettoes. I do not know Washington very well, but suppose a street here 20 feet wide and possibly a quarter of a mile long and imagine on both sides of that street great towering buildings in which hundreds of people are herded like cattle and not allowed to leave there after sundown and excluded from decent occupations. What would be the result of that? The result would be the formation of certain characteristics. Pursue