« PreviousContinue »
Mr. LIPSKY. Now, I just want to say a few words with regard to Professor Reed's observation that this resolution presented here by Congressman Fish is a trap. He used the word "trap” twice, but I think the committee will hardly agree with him in his attempt to read into this resolution something which is not in it.
The Fish resolution, which embodies all that is necessary for this purpose Mr. COOPER (interposing). That is 52?
Mr. IPSKY. The joint resolution. The Zionist organization is not interested in the form of the resolution. We are interested in the intention of the resolution.
We hope that it is the intention of the committee, and that it will be the intention of the House and of the Senate to express both their sympathy and interest in the development of the Jewish national home in Palestine, or haven, or refuge, or whatever it may be, which will enable the Jewish people to establish in Palestine for themselves a place where they can develop without interference. That is all they ask.
Mr. COOPER. Is that this resolution?
Mr. COOPER. You do not mean the Lodge resolution is the same thing. That is different, you know.
Mr. LIPSKY. The Lodge resolution is much stronger, much clearer, and I desire to direct your attention to that instrument which the committee desires to approve for our purpose, the Fish resolution, No. 52.
Mr. COOPER. You want the committee, if it considers anything, to consider the one that you are presenting; is that the idea ?
Mr. LIPSKY. That is exactly it.
I say with regard to this resolution being a trap, with regard to the American Government going into foreign alliances without being conscious of it. The resolution was introduced in the Senate by the leader of the Republican Party, who was outstanding in his opposition to have the American Government enter into the Senate treaties. I think that he stands very strongly against foreign alliances. It is assumed that the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate would not introduce a resolution of this nature unless he had the assurance of the approval of the State Department, which is, we take it, carrying out the policy of the present administration with regard to foreign affairs.
I submit that the American administration knows what is involved, what is stated, and what is intended in the Lodge resolution. I am sure that the Fish resolution should have the approval of those who are familiar with foreign affairs, and of the members of the House and of the Senate regardless of party, because it expresses the sentiment without definitely stating the instrument to which approval is given.
. In the nature of the circumstances the American Government will have to adjust itself to the conditions that are to be created within the territories that were formerly the Turkish Empire. The American Government has certain interests. It will have to come into contact with the British Government, or whoever is in possession, no doubt, to protect these interests. But a treaty with regard to this matter can not be regarded as an entangling alliance.
We submit that to express sympathy and interest in the endeavor to establish a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine is in line with the ideals of the American people, with the traditions of the American Government, and would be at this time a practical indication on the part of the American Government of its interest in having justice dealt out to the Jewish people..
Mr. COOPER. I think that is all.
Mr. LIPSKY. The Chairman agreed the first day that I should introduce into the record the statements of the various governments that have approved of the Balfour declaration of November 2, 1917.
Mr. COOPER. Well, just indicate those to the reporter. (The indorsements referred to are printed in the record in full as follows :)
GOVERNMENT INDORSEMENTS OF JEWISH NATIONAL ASPIRATIONS, AND OF THE
The following letter, of December 27, 1917, from Milenko Vesnitch, the head of the recent Serbian mission to the United States, was sent to Capt. David
Albala, a veteran of the Serbian army, and forwarded by him to the Provisional Zionist committee :
SERBIAN WAR MISSION TO THE UNITED STATES. DEAR CAPTAIN ALBALA : I wish to express to your Jewish brothers the sympathy of our Government and of our people for the just endeavor of resuscitating their beloved country in Palestine, which will enable them to take their place in the future society of nations, according to their numerous capacities' and to their unquestioned right. We are sure that this will not only be to their own interest, but at the same time to that of the whole of humanity.
You know, dear Captain Albala, that there is no other nation in the world sympathizing with this plan more than Serbia. Do we not shed bitter tears on the rivers of Babylon, in sight of our beloved land, lost only a short time ago? How should we not participate in your clamors and sorrows, lasting ages and generations, especially when our countrymen of your origin and religion have fought for their Serbian fatherland as well as the best of our soldiers.
It will be a sad thing for us to see any of our Jewish fellow citizens leaving us to return to their promised land; but we shall console ourselves in the hope that they stand as brothers and leave with us a good part of their hearts, and that they will be the strongest tie between free Israel and Serbia. Believe me, dear Captain Albala, Very sincerely yours,
The French Government made the following official declaration in favor of a Jewish State in Palestine in accord with the declaration to the same effect made by the British cabinet on November 2, 1917.
The Provisional Executive Committee for general Zionist affairs has been authorized, by M. Tardieu, the French high commissioner to the United States, to make public the following communication bearing on this subject:
[Message from Foreign Minister Pichon to M. Tardieu.]
FEBRUARY 12, 1918. Having seen M. Sokolow (representative of the Zionist organizations), I authorized him to state that, as regards the question, our views were essentially the same as the views entertained by the British Government.
[Naval radio from the press bureau of the ministry of foreign affairs.] M. Sokolow was received to-day by Mr. Stephen Pichon. M. Pichon was happy to reaffirm that the understanding is complete between the French and the British Governments concerning the question of the Jewish establishment in Palestine.
Through its ambassador at the Court of St. James, the Italian Government, on February 25, 1918, officially signified its approval of the English and French declarations in favor of the Zionist movement and of a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. Mr. Nahum Sokolow, representative in London of the Zionist International Political Committee, received from Ambassador Imperiali the following formal statement of Italy's attitude of these questions:
“On the instructions of His Excellency Baron Sonnino, His Majesty's minister for foreign affairs, I have the honor to inform you that His Majesty's Government is pleased to confirm the declarations already made through their representatives in Washington, The Hague, and Salonica, to the effect that they will use their best endeavors to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish national center, it being understood that this shall not prejudice the legal or political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
On March 14, 1918, M. Politis, the Greek minister for foreign affairs, stated in the Chamber of Deputies:
“I have already had occasion in Salonica to express the very sincere sympathy of the Liberal Party and of all Hellenes for the Jewish nation, for 20 centuries the victim of misunderstandings and persecutions. I am glad to renew to-day the promise which I then gave that at the right moment the
Liberal Government will put forth every effort to assist the national task of the Jews in full accord with the great allies of Greece. Apart from the motives of sympathy which we have had for the Jewish race, a new bond is now added. Among other points in common, the Jewish race and the Greek race have that of both belonging with those races which have ceased to be subjected to persecution. At this moment when Hellenism has been literally led to exhaustion by the barbarians of the East, I address with emotion to the Jewish race all my wishes for their establishment as a nation."
Mr. Jacobus Kann, president of the Dutch Zionist Federation, was authorized by the Dutch Government to declare that it is sympathetic toward Zionist aspirations.
The Zionist organization of America received the text of a statement issued by the Siamese Government expressing its approval of the plan to establish in Palestine a national homeland for the Jewish people. The statement was issued to Mr. E. S. Kadoorie, one of the leading bankers of China and president of the Shanghai Zionist Association, by H. R. H. Prince Devawongse Varopakar, Siamese minister for foreign affairs. It reads as follows:
FOREIGN OFFICE, Bangkok, August 22, 1918. DEAR SIR: I have the honor to state that the Royal Siamese Government expresses its accord with the sympathetic position taken by its allies with reference to the establishment of Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people and, in cooperation with the allied powers, will use its best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing will be done that may prejudice the civil or religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. I am, very truly yours,
The Zionist organization of America received a cablegram from Mr. E. S. Kadoorie, president, and N. E. B. Ezra, secretary of the Shanghai Zionist Association, informing it that on December 14, 1918, the Chinese Government had ofiicially indorsed the project for establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The text of the Chinese indorsement is as follows:
" The Chinese Government expresses its complete accord with Great Britain's proposals for the restoration of Palestine as the national home of the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country, and will cooperate with her allies at the Peace Conference in the attaining of that object.”
The Government of Japan authorized its ambassador to Great Britain to announce its approval of the preject to establish in Palestine a Jewish national homeland, in accordance with the principles enunciated in the Balfour declaraton of November 2, 1917.
STATEMENT OF DR. FUAD I. SHATARA, 153 CLINTON STREET,
BROOKLYN, N. Y.
Doctor SHATARA. My occupation is surgeon.
Doctor SHATARA. No, sir, Palestine; but I am an American citizen and graduated from an American college.
Mr. MOORES. Columbia University?
Doctor SHATARA. Yes, sir; but my father and mother and brother are in Palestine, and when I hear Mr. Goldberg speak about the miseries of the Jews through-. out the world it reminded me of my father and mother suffering during the late war because of their proally sympathy. They were deported to Asia Minor and suffered a great deal, and we are willing to share with Mr. Goldberg some
of the miseries of the Jews of this country and elsewhere. It is nothing to compare with the miseries that the people went through within Palestine during the war and before the war under the oppression of the Turks. Is it any wonder, gentlemen, that we have not made any progress? Any native who dared express any liberal ideas was forced to evacuate and leave the country. Any foreigner who tried to accomplish something in Palestine was opposed by the heavy taxation which made it impossible to develop the land, and even up to the present date most of the Jewish colonies that Mr. Goldberg ha mentioned were managed by Arab labor. Arab labor has created Jewish colonies, but I have seen in one of the Zionist reports on the Zionist colonies in Palestine in spite of the help from outside countries that they are up to this date not self-supporting. They demand outside subsidy.
Gentlemen, the word “ Palestine” itself is taken from the word “ Philistine.” The Philistines were the arch enemies of the Jews. I am a Semite myself. I can not be accused of anti-Semitism at all. I can not be accused of being against the Jews, for several reasons. I have spoken to Jews themselves who are opposed to the Zionist movement. Do you know that when Lord Northcliffe recently visited Palestine a delegation of native Jews in Palestine went to Northcliffe and protested against the Zionists?
Hon. Henry Morgenthau, in World's Work in July, published a strong article against Zionism, in which he states it is the most stupendous failure in Jewish history, wrong in economics and in spiritual aspirations.
Recently Sir Stuart Samuel, brother of the high commissioner to Palestine, brother of Sir Herbert Samuel, in an interview published in the Daily Mail of February 18, makes out a case against Zionism and advises the Jews to keep out of Palestine because they say it means added trouble to them.
Mr. COCKRAN. Whom do you mean by they?
Doctor SHATARA. The Jews. Lots of Jews thought Palestine was a paradise and found things were otherwise when they go there. All that is a beautiful dream and vision, and I admit it is when you read it on paper, but applied in practice they find it far from what they have been led to believe it is.
Mr. Fish. I understand that you referred to Sir Stuart Samuel. He has denied that statement.
Doctor SHATARA. I have not seen the denials.
Mr. LIPSKY. An interview published in a London newspaper attributed cértain statements to Sir Stuart Samuel. Subsequently, Sir Stuart Samuel issued an official denial of that interview published in the same newspaper.
Doctor SHATARA. I have not seen the denial. I might also mention that a few years ago a Member of this House, Julius Kahn, came out against Zionism in 1918 or 1919. When President Wilson left for Europe a protest of Zionists was handed to him and signed by Jews only, among them Adolph Ochs, editor of the New York Times, the late Professor Jastrow, Julius Kahn, and several others. Gentlemen, you see the idea is this
Mr. COCKRAN. Did Otto Kahn sign it?
Doctor SHATARA. Not Otto; Representative Julius Kahn. What I am trying to get at is this: This is Jewish. We are not against the Jews. The Jews before this Zionist movement lived with us in friendly and neighborly harmony, and we shared with them our rights and privileges in the land and our duties. The difference between our proposition and the Zionist proposition is that Palestine is a home for the Palestinians who have been in the land for 2,000 years, descended from the stock in Palestine before the Jews invaded, and they persisted long after the Jews ceased to be a nation. As Lloyd-George once said, there is a limit to the title of property; and, as one of the northern papers recently said, if one does not go back home for 2,000 years he can not expect to go back with a title over persons who are making Palestine a home Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans. We do not discriminate against anybody. The Zionist proposition is different. We maintain these people who have borne the oppression of Turkey for many years are now entitled to develop their home land and, in justice, they should be given a trial. They have never had a chance. Give them 10 years and try what they will do with help. Nobody could do anything under Turkey.
These colonists, most of them, had immunities which the natives—the farmers in Palestine--did not have, and consequently they throve when the natives did not.
Mr. COCKRAN. What immunities? That is very important.
Doctor SHATARA. I can not specify the immunities, but during the Turks' régime capitulations, certain rights, concessions were granted foreigners of various organizations. They were allowed to have their own post offices, and they were exempted from taxation, or they were taxed very lightly, and there were other privileges.
Mr. COCKRAN. Those were not extended to Jews?
Doctor SHATARA. But these Jewish colonists were extended immunities because subsidized.
Mr. COCKRAN. Subsidized ?
Mr. COCKRAN. Was there a different kind of taxation for the foreign colonist from the native farmer?
Doctor SHATARA. I think so.
Mr. COCKRAN. That is a very important matter. That is a fact we can ascertain and have verified. Otherwise we can not consider a mere thought in the matter.
Doctor SHATARA. I can look it up.
Doctor SHATARA. A word about these massacres that Mr. Goldberg referred to. As you have seen, after the Jaffa massacre, which was one main riot, there was an official commission headed by Sir Thomas Haycraft appointed to investigate those riots. This commission was perfectly neutral, reported on all those riots, and that is the report from which the chairman has read. I might here state that these are some of the posters circulated there, to use a surgical term, as the exciting cause for these riots: “ Long live the Communist Internationale; Long live the free women of the Communist Society; Down with the English usurper."
These posters were circulated in Palestine, and are the exciting or the immediate cause, as you choose to call it, for these main riots.
Mr. COCKRAN. You do not attribute this to the Jewish colonists?
Mr. COCKRAN. The men who had property themselves circulated these circulars against property?
Doctor SHATARA. I do not know about property. They were probably people conveyed into Palestine by Zionists.
Mr. COCKRAN. What proof have you that they were Zionists?
Doctor SHATARA. This was established by the Thomas Haycraft commission.
Mr. COCKRAN. How does he do it?
Mr. Fish. One would think you assumed the Arabs were trying to protect the British and the conflict between the Arabs and Jews was the result of trying to protect the British. Is that what you try to make out against the Jewish colonists?
Doctor SHATARA. No; but those things were irritating to the Arabs and started the riots, and, as Mr. Goldberg began to say, there was a fight among the Jews themselves at first.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Goldberg says these were circulated by Bolsheviki—50 in all—and the impression was that they had been sent there for that express purpose.
Doctor SHATARA. I do not know that he can substantiate it.
Mr. COOPER. Do you think the Jew, the owner of private property and proverbially a believer in private property, would circulate any law that would destroy private property?
Doctor SHATARA. Yes, sir.
Mr. COOPER. Do you believe in Mr. Goldberg's explanation, or do you believe that private owners of property would circulate communist circulars?