Page images

jumble. That is my reason for wanting to have one side heard and then the other side heard.

Mr. CONNALLY. Should we not consult the convenience of the witnesses, or those who have come from a distance?

The CHAIRMAN. That question does not enter into this.
Mr. CONNALLY. Did you say it should not enter into it?
The CHAIRMAN. It does not enter into it in this particular matter.

Mr. MOORES. We have already invited a Jewish rabbi from Baltimore and an Episcopal clergyman from Baltimore to be here to-morrow, so that if this witness said he wanted to close the discussion, it was just a slip.

Mr. COOPER. It is a slip that I noticed, and I do not want it adopted as the committee's purpose.

Mr. REED. May I have 50 minutes, as the other gentlemen had all the morning yesterday?

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I rise to oppose this resolution for the following reasons

Mr. COOPER (interposing). The gentleman will pardon me for interrupting him, but I think these questions should be settled as we go along. I understood the gentleman to say that the gentleman who has just sat down had 50 minutes.

Mr. REED. I asked for 50 minutes.

Mr. COOPER. But you said you asked for 50 minutes because the other side had had 50 minutes.

Mr. REED. They had all yesterday morning. That is what I said.

The CHAIRMAN. It is the rule of the committee to be liberal in the matter of time.

Mr. REED. I thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Please state your name in full.

Mr. REED. Edward Bliss Reed, of New Haven, Conn. I am a professor; residing in New Haven.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your present occupation ?

Mr. REED. My present occupation is assistant professor of English literature at Yale University.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you held that position?

Mr. REED. I joined the Yale faculty as instructor in the year 1897. I began teaching in 1897.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you been teaching ever since then ?

Mr. REED. I have been teaching continuously since then, except for the time when I was studying abroad.

Mr. FISH. You do not represent Yale University here, do you?

Mr. REED. I do not represent Yale University. I am appearing here in my private capacity, just as all the members of the Yale faculty have a right to do. I am representing no Yale sentiment.

Mr. Fish. You are not representing any organization ?

Mr. REED. No, sir. I am speaking as an American citizen, trying to do all I can to keep my country from making what I think would be a bad blunder.

Mr. MOORES. Have you been to Palestine?
Mr. REED. Yes, sir.
Mr. COLE. Have you been there since the war?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; between the signing of the armistice and the signing of the peace treaty.

Mr. COOPER. You said you were there between the time of the signing of the armistice and the signing of the peace treaty. How long were you there?

Mr. REED. I was there three and one-half months.

This resolution is in effect an indorsement of the Balfour declaration, and, if adopted, it will be so understood. It will also be understood as an indorsement of the Zionist organization, because this resolution is recommended strongly by them. I believe that the Balfour declaration is un-American, and I believe political Zionism to be un-American in principle. I am here simply to present facts; I shall not make any argument, but I shall present simply facts, and I shall ask you to judge on the basis of the facts. In order to make my case so clear that there should be no dispute about it, I shall take every fact I present from Zionists' documents.

If I took my facts from my own personal experience you might say I was prejudiced; if I took my facts from letters from travelers in Palestine, you might say they were prejudiced, or if I took them from letters of Americans living over there, you might say they were prejudiced. I am taking every one

of my facts from Zionist documents. I have my statements here, and if there is any question about them. I have lugged down from New Haven this very heavy portfolio full of the original documents. Therefore I have everything perfectly straight here.

In the first place, may I take one moment to show the geography of the situation? You go east from the Suez Canal, and the Syrian coast line extends something like that (indicating). Now, suppose you run 400 miles, north and south, along the coast, and the north line will be up here [indicating). There is a natural boundary, formed by the Taurus Mountains, along the north This whole country, extending here over 400 miles, for centuries has been recognized as Syria. The lower part of this country, extending 170 miles north and south, is called Palestine, and the rest of this country is now called Syria.

Mr. COLE. How wide a country is Palestine?

Mr. REED. It is from 75 to 100 miles in width, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Syrian Desert.

Mr. COLE. What is its width from the seacoast to the eastern boundary?

Mr. REED. It is from 75 to 100 miles from the seacoast to the Syrian Desert. This country is inhabited by a race of people that are generally calied Arabs. I shall not take up your time with a discussion of that term; but let me say that they are not Arabs. It is customary to speak of the people in Palestine as “Arabs," and some of them are Bedouins, but the Bedouins are only a small part of that population. These people were faithful to the cause of the Allies, and the way in which the Turks and Germans robbed them, starved them, and oppressed them was terrible. They claim that their country was stripped and devastated by the Turks and Germans, and there can be no doubt about that. They did not know that England and France had made a secret treaty, and that the secret treaty involved the partition of this Syrian country—170 miles of it, north and south-Palestine, separated from the northern part of it, Syria. According to that treaty they have now partitioned Syria, and it is done by a very peculiar line like this (indicating). The north line runs like this (indicating). and extends in this way down through the Sea of Galilee; then it goes east toward the desert.

One sile of this line of partition they said was to be English and the other side French. On one side of the line they have Egyptian coinage and on the other side French coinage; and on one side they have the English language and on the other side the French language. They have one language here (indicating), and another language there (indicating); one coinage here [indicating), and another coinage there (indicating]; one set of laws here, and another set there. You can well imagine what the people of that country feel about it. This partition of Syria is a very unfortunate thing. The French now have 29,000 troops holding Syria, and in Palestine, a country about the size of Vermont, of 10.000 square miles, they have now 7,000 English troops, and they are sending in black and tans. It is a most unfortunate thing to partition a country that way. It is exactly like running an arbitrary boundary line through the center of the State of Maryland. The Zionist Organization in its publications has objected to one thing: That the line has not been drawn far enough north for them to get all the water they want for the irrigation of Palestine lands. It is purely an arbitrary line, which can not be sustained upon any historical grounds. Upon historical grounds it must be obliterated some day.

In the land of Palestine before the war there were Jewish colonies. Mr. Lipsky, I think, gave the number as about 70 at present; but before the war there were not so many.

There were about 50 of those Jewish colonies before the war, comprising some 12,000 souls. They were not, therefore, a decisive factor in a population of 700,000 people. They employed to a very large extent, to a surprisingly large extent, native labor. In fact, I might say that without this native labor it is extremely problematical whether some of those colonies could have been established. The colonies were never competitive colonies; and they had very generous support from Zionists, and they deserved it. For instance, the present Lord Rothschild contributed about £120,000 to one of the colonies where they make very excellent wines. They have good streets and roads, and they were a blessing to the country. Nobody would deny that at all. They have opened up many villages, and what they have done has been a good thing for Palestine. More than that, the Zionists had very good schools, and they had good hospitals. There was no outcry whatever against them, and even in the days of the ascend

ancy of the unspeakable Turk not more than 500 troops were needed there to preserve order. In those days they did not have airplanes and they did not have field artillery. They had none of that, for there was no trouble in the country.

Now, suddenly there appears the Balfour declaration, which struck those people like a bolt from the blue. President Wilson had promised all people in subjection to Turkish rule an “ absolutely unmolested opportunity for autonomous development.” This “unmolested opportunity for autonomous development” is promised in the twelfth of the fourteen points ; and if that phrase means anything at all, it means that people in a country such as Palestine should have an unmolested chance to develop themselves. They really believed that opportunity would be theirs; they believed that this was true; and then suddenly came the Balfour declaration.

I wish now to speak on just one point of that declaration, which you are asked to indorse. I want to show you how truly un-American the Balfour declaration is, and what a tremendous check you are signing if you indorse it. If you will allow me, I shall take everything I say from Zionist sources.

Mr. COLE. Would this proposed development of Palestine by the Jews come within the meaning of President Wilson's twelfth point?

Mr. REED. I wish to show what that involves, and I shall come to that in a moment. You will see that in this resolution you are asked to indorse the Balfour declaration, and I wish now to show you how that declaration was made. Let me read this short statement about the Balfour declaration, showing how it originated, because I think it is well to know what it is that you are asked to indorse. The president of the Zionist organization is Dr. Weizmann. I take this statement from "A Guide to Zionism,” published by the Zionist Organization of America, 55 Fifth Avenue, New York City, 1920, pages 85–86:

Weizmann is a Russian Jew, a British subject, who became professor of chemistry at the University of Manchester. During the war he perfected a certain chemical that was essential to Britain in the making of munitions

* * *

Mr. COOPER. Have you given the name of the Zionist document from which you are reading?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; I have given it. Mr. COOPER. The title of the document is stated in your manuscript? Mr. REED. Yes, sir; everything is stated here, including the pages from which it is taken.

Mr. COOPER. What I want is the date of the publication.

Mr. REED. It is 1920. Everything is stated here, including the page. This article continues :

“Mr. Arthur James Balfour liked him. And the war came. And Chaim Weizmann served Britain-and served Israel—with his chemistry. Weizmann asked no reward for his chemical discovery. But the reward came on November 2, 1917.

Mr. COOPER. This was in 1917 ?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; November 2, 1917. Now, may I comment on this? “ This declaration was sent from the foreign office to Lord Rothschild as representative of the English Zionist organization.”

Mr. COOPER. May I suggest, since you are making a comment upon it, that those were the very dark days of the war, when he made that promise.

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; if I may go on with the statement

“Arthur James Balfour, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, wrote his famous letter to Lord Walter Rothschild, embodying the following declaration:

" • His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.'

“ This declaration was sent from the foreign office to Lord Walter Rothschild as representatitve of the English Zionist organization. It came, perhaps, as a surprise to large sections of the Jewish people and notably to those who had either opposed or not interested themselves in Zionism.

But to those who were active in Zionist circles the declaration was no surprise. Among the leaders it had been expected for many months. The wording of it came from the British foreign office, but the text had been revised in the Zionist offices in Amer ca as well as in England. The British

declaration was made in the form in which the Zionists desired it, and the last clauses were added in order to appease a certain section of timid antiZionist opinion.”

Now, here is a country of 700,000 people, and the Zionists compose just about one-tenth of the country, and here s a declaration that is going to change absolutely the whole status of the people of that country. Have they one word to say about it? Are they consulted about it in any way? Are they asked about it, or do they know anything about it? They did not even know it was coming, or from where it was coming. Where does it come from? It comes from the Zionist offices in Amer ca as well as in England.

Mr. SMITH. What are the other 90 per cent of the population of that country?

Mr. REED. I think the best figures I can give, and, indeed, the only figures are those given by Sir Herbert Samuel. They go back to August 30, 1921. The figures given at that time by Sir Herbert Samuel are: Sixty-four thousand Christ'ans, 76,000 Jews, and 560,000 Mohammedans. Mr. Lipsky has raised those figures, for he says there are 80,000 Jews. Sir Herbert Samuel is practically the dictator of Palestine, and it has been said that he is an ardent Zionist.

Now, according to this statement, the wording of the declarat on came from the British foreign office, but the text was revised in Zionist offices in America as well as in England.

This next statement I am about to read is from Dr. Weizmann's Reply to his Critics, an address delivered at the Cleveland convention on Wednesday afternoon during the fifth session, printed in the New Palestine, published weekly by the Zionist Organization of America, New York, June 17, 1921, page 5:

“ Perhaps you will let me get rid of a legend, one of the hundreds of legends. It is said that the Balfour declaration was framed here, was made here, and the text of it was really drafted here. In that statement there is only this amount of truth, that after the formula had been drafted in London a modification was suggested in one clause by our American friends and was accepted. I do not underrate the value of the American suggestion. It did not affect the essence of the declaration, and it was helpful so far as it went. That is all there is in it. Except for this one amendment, the declaration was framed in London. It was drafted by Lord Milner and his secretary, and the original text of the Balfour declaration, as it is, is at present in the archives of the British Government."

That is a little different version-Lord Milner drafted it.

Now, I come to another strange thing in connection with the Balfour declaration, which also tends to show that the document really came from the Zion'st organization, and that the text was accepted or approved by the British Government. This statement is taken from The New Palestine, New York, September 9, 1921 :

“The Zionist executive proposed to the British Government a draft of the Balfour declaration, which the executive submitted to Sir Mark Sykes, Baron Rothschild, and President Wilson. All of them approved of the statement. On July 18, Lord Rothschild forwarded it to Mr. Balfour. The Cabinet submitted their own version to representatives of both sides with a covering letter, in which was stated that “in view of the divergence of opinion expressed on the subject by the Jews themselves, they would like to receive in writing the views of representative Jewish leaders, both Zionist and non-Zionists.' The letter was sent to the following gentlemen : Sir Stuart M. Samuel, Mr. Leonard M. Cohen, Mr. C. G. Montefiore, Sir Philip Magnus, Dr. Hertz, Mr. N. Sokolow, and Dr. Weizmann.

“ To strengthen the hands of the friends of Zionism in the Government, it was thought advisable to obtain support from America. Accordingly, Mr. Justice Brandeis approached President Wilson. The latter sent a personal message to the British Government, intimating his agreement with the ideas of the pro-Zionist pronouncement. Finally, on November 2, 1917, Mr. Arthur James Balfour, the then foreign secretary, sent to Lord Walter Rothschild the now famous Balfour declaration."

One thing is certain, it was submitted to President Wilson through Justice Brandeis, and it was submitted to the Zionist organization in New York. However, one other thing is certain, it was not submitted to the people of the country that it affects. If you believe that the people of that country had any right at all in their own country, or were entitled to any consideration at all in its disposition, it is certain that you can have nothing to do with Mr. Fish's resolution.


I wish to say one other thing in that connection, I want to show you that there is a little inaccuracy in this. It is hard to argue this case, because there are so many inaccuracies in the Zionist statements. I have read to you a statement from the official Zionist publication, in which it was said that the declaration was made “ in the form in which the Zionists desired it.” Now comes something very interesting. This is taken from the translator's introduction to Ten Essays on Zionism and Judaism, by Achad Ha-Am, translated from the Hebrew by Leon Simon, London, George Rutledge & Sons (Ltd.), 1922, pp. 15 and 16:

"All the details of the diplomatic conversations in London which led to the declaration have not yet been made public; but the time has come to reveal one * secret.'

I can assure you that all the details have not yet been made public, and I am certain you do not wish to commit this country to an agreement, all of the details of which have not been made public. This statement continues :

"All the details of the diplomatic conversations in London which led to the declaration have not yet been made public, but the time has come to reveal one 'secret,' because knowledge of it will make it easier to understand the true meaning of the declaration.

"To facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people'—that is the text of the promise given to us by the British Government. But that is not the text sugges' ed to the Government by the Zionist spokesmen. They wished it to read: The reconstitution of Palestine as the national home of the Jewish people’; but when the happy day arrived on which the declaration was signed and sealed by the Government it was found to contain the first formula and not the second. That is to say, the allusion to the fact that we were about to rebuild our old national home was dropped, and at the same time the words ' constitution of Palestine as the national home,' were replaced by . Establishment of a national home in Palestine

*! 'Had the British Government accepted the version suggested to it—that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people its promise might have been interpreted as meaning that Palestine, inhabited as it now is, was restored to the Jewish people on the ground of its historic right; that the Jewish people was to rebuild its waste places and was destined to rule over it and to manage all its affairs in its own way, without regard to the consent or nonconsent of its present inhabitants.”

There is one very interesting thing there, the Zionists could not force the British Government to adopt all of the Zionist declaration, but they went to work and secured it in the mandate. I shall not have time to discuss the mandate. The last sentence in this statement reads:

“ That the Jewish people was destined to rule over it and manage all its affairs in its own way, without regard to the consent or nonconsent of its present inhabitants."

That is exactly what they are trying to do, without any regard to the right of the people of that country to any sort of self-determination.

There is another most in'eresting statement, and it is taken from the New Palestine, September 9, 1921, page 12:

“Mr. Sokolow and Dr. Weizmann accepted the draft, though they would have preferred 'reconstitution of Palestine as the national home' to the establishment in Palestine of a national hoire,' and regarded the provisos as un necessary, because self-evident."

They are not self-evident. If we take the Balfour declaration we can not find out what it means. If you ask, What is “ a national home,” Mr. Balfour will not tell you. There is a delegation from Palestine in London, and they have been there for five months. The head of the delegation said the other day that they had tried to find out at the Colonial Office what “national home meant, but they coulld not find out. When Mr. Balfour was over here he was interviewed on the subject. A Palestine Christian tried to see him, but he would not see her until he learned that she was a journalist. When she said she was a journalist he consented to see her.

Mr. COOPER. You say that the people of Palestine were not consulted. Upon the face of it the proposition was to give them their rights, but they were not consulted as to whether they would have them or not. Now, how does that differ in principle from what was done by England, by the King and the rest of them, in the open, expressed written promise to Egypt. that if Egypt would use her troops to help the Allied cause Egypt should be free. The Egyptian's were not consulted at all; and, not only that, but when the Egyptians came

« PreviousContinue »