I do not object at all to having the British negotiate with all these Jews all over the world, but I want to ask you why did not the British_Government, in drawing this mandate, negotiate with one single non-Jewish Palestinian? If they sent to New York and sought our Zionist organization, is it fair that they should negotiate only with them? Do you mean to say that this League of Nations which says that tutelage of these people should be the business of the mandatory, should not let the others have a single word to say about it? Why did they not do it? Is it because, as a Zionist orator has said, the nonJewish Palestinians are "half-civilized Arabs"? Is that so? No; here are two gentlemen who are quite highly civilized; and I want to read a letter to you; and I want it inserted in the minutes, to show that there were men in Palestine who can be consulted by the British Government if the British Government were to do the fair and straight and honorable thing in wording the terms of that mandate. In wording the terms of that mandate I want to show you that there were several men they could have consulted. They consulted many others about the mandate, but not one single non-Jewish Palestinian.

66

I want to read to you, taken from the "Near East," a communication from the secretary of the Palestine Arab delegation now in London, which has more sense in it than scores of the pages that I have read of Doctor Weizmann. He is a Christian Palestinian; one of those men who has been compared to the American Indian; a man they call half civilized." Just see the moderation of this and the statesmanship of it, and if this is not the only proposition that is worth anything, and if it is not good Americanism I do not know what American doctrine is. The reason that I do not want you to vote for this resolution is because it is absolutely un-American. [Reading:]

"To the Editor of the Near East.'

"SIR: The conclusion at which Lord Northcliffe arrived as the result of his own inquiries into the condition of Palestine made on the spot will recommend itself to every Britisher.

"Lord Northcliffe's visit disclosed two facts: (1) The seriousness of the situation in Palestine, and (2) the necessity for an immediate, complete, and impartial investigation.

"Certain hurried commitments were made in 1917 to the Zionist organization, which have not conduced to peace and happiness in Palestine."

I do not think anybody can deny that. They never had these riots before that Balfour declaration. They lived in harmony. Palestine is not a happy country when you have to put in 7,000 British troops in a place the size of Ve.mont. It is not a happy country. It is not a peaceful country. [Continuing reading:]

"The Arabs, who form 93 per cent of the population, are decidedly disaffected. They complain of a gross injustice being done to them." Now, this is a statesman.

Mr. MOORE. Would you mind just reading the letter continuously?

Professor REED. Yes. I admire it so much that I can not help expressing myself upon it.

Mr. MOORE. You can comment on it later.

Professor REED. Yes, sir. [Reading:]

"They complain of a gross injustice being done to them. An impartial inquiry will either convince them of the baselessness of their complaint, or will recommend the redressing of their wrongs. No impartial inquiry has ever harmed a just cause. The Palestine Arab delegation, therefore, appeals to the British Government, Parliament, and the British nation to reserve their decision on the mandate until an investigation has found out the truth.

"A hurried settlement that is not based on the recognition of the facts must inevitably lead to disaster. The ideal must be realized through channels of the real. The Arab population of Palestine is a fact, and should be the main concern of politicians who are rearranging the world. To ignore this fact of the Arabs in Palestine and their unwillingness to be dominated by political Zionism may succeed for a while with the help of British armored cars and airplanes. But can England afford to be ever on her guard in Palestine and the Near East, to be continuously on the defensive with the Moslem and Christian population hostile to her? Certainly not. England neither can afford this nor is it the wish of her people that she should be so situated. The Arabs of Palestine are friends and should be treated as such, and not cowed by force of arms.

"The moment the delegation arrived in this country it asked in its official statement called 'The Holy Land,' that a commission of inquiry be sent out to Palestine to examine and report. It is now glad that Lord Northcliffe has recommended this as the best way of getting at the truth.

"This controversy might be kept up for years-statements made on one side and refuted by the other-without a satisfactory solution being attained.

"One condition the delegation would put forward which must readily meet with universal approval, and that is that the commission selected be strictly neutral and unbiased either one way or the other. If this condition is not fulfilled the inquiry would become a mere farce.

"I am, etc., (for the Palestine Arab delegation),

"HOTEL CECIL,

"London, February 21, 1922."

66 SHIBLY JAMAL, "Honorable Secretary.

Now, gentlemen, did the Zionist organization, did Doctor Weizmann accept that?

Mr. LIPSKY. Did he not accept that?

Professor REED. He did not, and you know that he did not; and I will show you what he did. All right, bring that up and read it, if you please. Have you got it?

Mr. LIPSKY. Go ahead.

Professor REED. Let me tell you what he did. You have walked into a trap. Mr. LIPSKY. Does the gentleman set traps?

Professor REED. No; that is a rhetorical figure of speech. Put that in the record, if you wish. Doctor Weizmann did not accept it. When this man asked for an impartial investigation, and said that no impartial investigation ever harmed a just cause, Doctor Weizmann did not agree.

Two things were proposed in that letter: One was that an impartial committee investigate; the second was that all action on the mandate be held up until that commission had reported. One reason that you are told here that you must hurry up this resolution is that it will help pass the mandate quickly. Doctor Weizmann did not accept that. If Doctor Weizmann had said, “Hold up the mandate and let us not have the mandate until we can investigate, there should not be any final action on the mandate until we can find out the facts"but he did not say that. Mr. Lipsky, I am very sure that if you will look up that short letter of Doctor Weizmann he did not agree. Very well; I will not address any more remarks to you. I merely asked him, Mr. Chairman, to confirm what I said. I will not ask him again.

The commission of non-Jewish Palestinians asked to hold up the mandate until there could be an inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of that?

Professor REED. February 21; and this is the letter of a statesman, and you are asked to pay no attention to that.

The CHAIRMAN. February 21 of what year?

Professor REED. February 21, 1922; this year. That is a very fine document. And now let me show you how the mandate was drawn. You had better know where you are going before you act on this matter, or you are going to get caught in it. I can not do any better than to quote from their own Zionist documents. You are going to get caught in the mandate. I am going to read you that. This is the way the mandate was made:

"Informal discussion between representatives of the Zionist Organization and British representatives at Paris on the mandate for Palestine began in the spring of 1919. Doctor Weizmann and Mr. Sokolow received much aid from the American Zionist delegation. Later, when the British delegation returned to London and when Doctor Weizmann was absent in Palestine and Mr. Sokolow in Paris, negotiations were conducted by Mr. Herbert Samuel, Doctor Jacobson, Doctor Feiver, Mr. Harry Sacher, Mr. Landman, and Mr. Ben Cohen. Drafts of the mandate were prepared by Prof. Felix Frankfurter and Mr. Gans. The first draft was presented to the British delegation on July 15, 1919. It was reconsidered when Lord Curzon succeeded Mr. Balfour as Foreign Secretary. The reconsideration resulted in a second draft, presented on June 19, 1920, which showed the following omissions from the first tentative draft:

"1. A paragraph in the preamble recognizing the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine.

"2. The term 'self-governing commonwealth' was deleted and ‘self-governing institutions' substituted.

"3. The right given to the Jewish agency to be consulted in regard to the granting of concessions which it does not take up itself.

"4. The recognition of the establishment of the Jewish national home as the guiding principle in the execution of the mandate.

"5. The intrusting of Jewish education to the Jewish agency.

"6. Mention of Jewish Sabbath and holidays.

"The Zionists objected strenuously to these proposed changes and entered into negotiations with prominent British officials and with groups in the House of Commons. Finally in December, 1920, the cabinet decided to reincorporate into the mandate the statement regarding the historical connections of the Jews with Palestine." (Summary of the Political Report of the Twelfth Zionist Congress, which began at Carlsbad on September 1, 1919. Printed in The New Palestine, September 9, 1921, p. 13.)

Now, these are little things that the British Government had nerve enough to throw out. Perhaps you would like to know how an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court had a hand in this mandate; and if I had a little time I would like to give you an interesting 10 minutes' talk on the Supreme Court of the United States and Zionism. It would make a very interesting story. I will read a quotation from page 10 of The New Palestine of September 9, 1921. This is from the report of the speech of Mr. Julius Simon, who speaks of this mandate. [Reading:]

66

Brandeis, he said, who has been accepted as a tried and true Zionist and follower of Herzl, was suddenly denounced as a bad Zionist, notwithstanding the fact that the only favorable point in the Palestine mandate, the point as to the creation of a Jewish agency in Palestine, is ascribable to the work of Brandeis."

Now, Mr. Brandeis may draw up very excellent constitutions. My only point is, Why in the world have not these people, who were promised a hearing, a single thing to say about the constitution of their land; and why does Mr. Brandeis write one one thing and Mr. Frankfurter or somebody else write another thing; and, in fact, who knows who wrote this and who wrote that? And now they come in here and ask you to pass the resolution, and one of them said if you passed this it would help to pass the mandate.

Mr. FISH. What are your exceptions to the view of Mr. Frankfurter? Professor REED. Not the slightest thing, except that I think it is peculiar that the Zionists alone are consulted.

Mr. FISH. You think it was wrong to consult Mr. Brande's and Mr. Frankfurter?

Professor REED. Absolutely, if you do not consult anybody on the ground. It is all right to consult them, if you give the other nine-tenths of the population a chance to be heard.

Mr. FISH. Of course Mr. Frankfurter and Mr. Brandeis are not inhabitants of Palestine. They are authorities on constitutional law.

Professor REED. Yes.

Mr. FISH. And very eminent Americans.
Professor REED. Very eminent Americans.

America is going to govern Palestine?

Then do you mean to say that

Mr. FISH. I think when Europe sees fit to come to this country

Professor REED. It is the Zionist organization. I want America to keep out of the Zionist organization.

Mr. FISH. I thought you said just now that the British Government consulted these men?

Professor REED. I beg your pardon.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. None of these things you have been reading are in the mandate.

Professor REED. Yes, Mr. Brandeis is. I will read it to you [reading]: "The only favorable point in the Palestine mandate, the point as to the creation of a Jewish Agency in Palestine, is ascribable to the work of Brandeis." Now, there is no doubt about that, and I will read it to you. I think you would like to see this book, used for this drive that is now going on in New Yorkand I will say, gentlemen, in my opinion one reason you are asked to hurry through this resolution is to help this drive. The British Government has already passed such a resolution in the Balfour declaration. Doctor Weizmann said that he made 1,000 personal calls before the British Government adopted the Balfour resolution. They took all that time, but you are asked to pass this resolution in two or three hours.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. What is it there in that mandate to which you object?

Professor REED. I am going to reach that. There are one or two other things before the mandate. I am going to read the mandate. Give me time and I shall come right out with it.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. I do not want to interfere with your course, but I wish you would come to the question that it seems to me is germane. You read what Mr. Justice Brande.s suggested.

Professor REED. What he wrote?

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. What he wrote, yes.

Professor REED. Yes, sir.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. He wrote to suggest what would later appear in the mandate; so that it was a written suggestion.

Professor REED. No; we have that here. He said that he wrote it. I will read it again [reading]:

66

Notwithstanding the fact that the only favorable point in the Palestine mandate, the point as to the creation of a Jewish Agency in Palestine, is ascribable to the work of Brandeis."

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. That was my recollection; the statement was that he wrote this suggestion for the mandate and they incorporated it.

Professor REED. Will the reporter put that in, then? Now, this is

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Wait just a minute. I asked what that was which he proposes-what was in the mandate to which you object? What was it? Let us see if the language itself is such as that we, as Americans, could indorse it. You have criticized it.

Professor REED. I wish very much you would let me continue my argument. I will come right down to it and show you what I mean.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. All right.

Professor REED. I have it right here, and "Brandeis" written right over it. Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Only anybody reading your argument and seeing your criticism of the Brandeis provision ought to be able to see the provision, then, right there.

Professor REED. Yes; may I make myself clear? I am not criticizing

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin (continuing). So that, reading it, they would understand what it was.

Professor REED. My point is that Mr. Brandeis may be one of the very greatest of lawyers-I am not a lawyer-but it is rather peculiar that Americans are making this mandate. Let me come down to the description of the mandate in this little book, the Keren Ha-Yesod book. I refer to page 27 [reading]:

"With all its defects, from our point of view, this document actually raises Zionism to a political height from which under normal conditions it can no more be deposed. The historic rights of Israel in Palestine are confirmed; the Jewish national home policy proclaimed as the main guiding principle in the administration of the country; the Zionist organization recognized as the legal adviser of the Government, and perhaps, by implication, as a subject of certain rights vis-à-vis the League of Nations; Hebrew adopted as one of the official languages of the country."

Now, then, I want to be very fair in my quotation. Mr. Lipsky, shall I read all of this? [Continuing reading:]

"We may regret the vagueness of all this; we may and must struggle for fuller guarantees "-they are not at all satisfied with the mandate as it is now-" but it can not be denied that, given a sufficient amount of alertness and energy on our own part, the mandate is a powerful political weapon."

Of course, according to the League of Nations, the people concerned in a mandate should be guided. This is going to be a very powerful political weapon in the hands of the Zionists.

Mr. MOORE. Would it interfere with you for me to ask you a question?
Professor REED. Not at all.

Mr. MOORE. Leaving aside the question as to the authorship and the evolution of the mandate, and assuming, as I suppose we must assume, that if there had not been such provision of that sort, conditions in Palestine would have been intolerable

Professor REED. Yes.

Mr. MOORE (continuing). What are your practical objections to the mandate? Professor REED. My practical objection is that it changes the Balfour declaration; or, put it another way, the Balfour declaration follows the mandate. I am perfectly correct about that.

Mr. MOORE. Take the mandate itself.

Professor REED. Now, I am coming to that, and I want to show you how the Balfour declaration is changed here. I do not know whether you want me to read the first clause, "Whereas," etc.

Mr. MOORE. No.

Professor REED. This is headed the "Mandate for Palestine as submitted by Mr. Balfour on December 7, 1920, to the Secretariat General of the League of Nations for the approval of the Council of the League of Nations." There is nothing relevant to this in the first two paragraphs, and then we come to this. (Reading :)

"Whereas by the same article the high contracting parties further agreed that the mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty "

Mr. FISH. Do you take any exception to the Balfour declaration?
Professor REED. Yes. That was my whole argument yesterday.

Mr. FISH. I thought you said that it did not carry out the Balfour declaration?

Professor REED. I think the Balfour declaration is very bad, but I think the mandate is worse.

Mr. FISH. I thought you took exceptions to the mandate because itProfessor REED. I take exception to the mandate, because it is worse than the Balfour declaration. That makes my position perfectly plain. This is 'added which is not in the declaration : "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

That is, I think, a very bad clause; part of it was intended for the Balfour declaration, as I said yesterday; and the British refused it, because they said, "If you put in reconstituting their national home,' it means that you have granted a right to make Palestine a Jewish national home without regard to the consent of its inhabitants. That is my previous testimony. They put that right in here in the mandate.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. You are not now reading from the mandate?
Professor REED. Yes; that is the preamble to the mandate.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. I thought you said this was Balfour's letter suggesting something for the mandate.

Professor REED. No; this is the mandate that I am reading now. Now, article 2. (Reading:)

"ART. 2. The mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative, and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safe-guarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

That sounds very well, and that includes again the idea that all the civil rights will be preserved; but I tried to show you yesterday what, under the Balfour declaration, the Zionists have asked for. (Continuing reading:)

"ART. 3. The mandatory shall encourage the widest measure of self-government for localities consistent with the prevailing conditions."

And here is what Mr. Brandeis suggested

Mr. FISH. Of course, I do not assume for a minute that you do not think that Brandeis and others have a right to make suggestions, or to make even requests for what they believe. You do not question their right on that.

Professor REED. Yes; I question that right if no one else is heard.

Mr. FISH. Does it not show considerable ability on their part if they are able to persuade the British Government?

Professor REED. No; it represents a considerable diplomacy on their part. Mr. FISH. They can not exercise any pressure on the British cabinet. Professor REED. No; they have not exercised pressure; but I can show you where Zionists say Mr. Balfour was their great friend.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not true that if they had consulted both sides in drafting this mandate, you would not object to it; but you do object to the consulting of 10 per cent of the population and ignoring everyone else?

Professor REED. Yes, sir; and I object to that, as absolutely foreign to the idea of article 22 of the covenant of the League of Nations, which I read to you. That is not "a sacred trust." If you did not let others in here, and let