« PreviousContinue »
very frequently the parents can not understand it. However, Hebrew is the language of Palestine.
Mr. MOORES. Hebrew language is used among the Jews there?
Mr. COCKRAN. I did not have the benefit of hearing the beginning of your address, but I gather from your answer to Mr. Fish's question that you have traveled through those countries of Europe where the Jewish question is quite acute?
Doctor LAZARON. Yes, sir.
Mr. COCKRAN.. You have seen the condition of the Jew in central and southeastern Europe?
Doctor LAZARON. Yes, sir.
Mr. COCKRAN. Is it not a fact that in a great many of those eastern countries, especially those that have been newly set up as independent nationalities, there is a disposition to exclude the Jews or to drive them out, as, for instance, from Poland?
Doctor LAZARON. Yes, sir.
Mr. COCKRAN. When he is driven from one country and reaches the frontier, he is stopped by the authorities of the other country and driven back, so that the most of them are practically wanderers.
Doctor LAZARON. Yes, sir; that is it.
Mr. COCKRAN. Is there any place in Europe to-day where there is a prospect of the Jew finding a resting place, or a place where he may exercise his industrial powers? Is there any place for him to go?
Doctor LAZARON. Nowhere except to the South American republics, Mexico, or possibly south Africa.
Mr. COCKRAN. He is practically excluded now under the immigration laws of the United States, is he not?
Mr. CONNALLY. That statement is hardly fair, because he is not excluded from the United States as a Jew.
Mr. COCKRAN. He is not excluded as a Jew, but under the operation of the immigration act he is practically excluded from coming from those European centers of Jewish population. What I am asking now is whether, outside of the South American republics, which are at a greater distance from Europe, and to which the cost of transportation is great, there is a spot anywhere in or around Europe where the Jew can cultivate the soil, or where he could be admitted to what might be called an industrial opportunity?
Doctor LAZARON. There is no place, and that is quite true. Besides that, there is the desire of hundreds of thousands of Jews for Palestine.
Mr. COCKRAN. That is the spiritual side of it, but I was speaking of the political and economic aspect of it.
Mr. MOORES. Are there any periodicals published by the Jews in Palestine?
Dortor LAZARON. Yes, sir; there are three journals published by the Hasolel Publishing Co., one in Hebrew, one in Arabic, and one in English. The English journal is the Palestine Weekly.
Mr. MOORES. One is printed in Hebrew, and not in Yiddish?
Mr. MOORE. I want to ask one question : As I understand it, the Balfour pronouncement is embodied almost literally in the terms of the mandate under which Great Britain proposes to act in Palestine. The exact provisions of the regulations under which she is going to act hereafter have been, as we are informed, submitted to the English Parliament and have been submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval this month. Have you studied the draft containing those provisions and regulations with a view to determining how far they go or what is proposed? Have you had occasion to do that?
Doctor LAZARON. Yes, sir; I have read through the draft of the mandate.
Mr. MOORE. The reason I ask you that is this: You seem to premise your discussion altogether upon the terms of the Balfour declaration, and I wanted to know if you had gone further and considered the terms that are carried in this draft?
Doctor LAZARON. Yes, sir; I have read the draft of the mandate.
Mr. LINTHICUM. Doctor, there is one thing I would like for you to explain to the committee: Yesterday there was something said about Doctor Eder or about some statement that he made in reference to wanting to make Palestine solely a Jewish home. I want to know whether you know anything about that, or whether that is really the prevalent idea among the Jews.
Doctor LAZARON. There are among all parties radical leaders, who in the enthusiasm of the moment will express themselves perhaps unwisely. That happened in this instance, just as it will happen everywhere. Some such exprezsion as this has been used by Doctor Weizmann: “We will make Palestine just as Jewish as England is English.” I believe that has been discountenanced and is not accepted by the conservative leaders of the Jewish people at all.
Now, gentlemen, in conclusion let me state a summary of my position: I am not talking as a Zionist. Of course, I must speak as a Jew, but I am not interested in the political end of this thing at all. I am interested in the opportunity which Great Britain has given to the Jewish people to build up Palestine, together with the Arabs, and not with any preferential rights or privileges. I am interested as an American citizen in seeing our country, so long as this resolution has been introduced, take its stand by the side of Great Britain in this matter, which is one of humanity.
Mr. Fish. You have read this resolution, a copy of which I introduced, and which is known as the Lodge resolution?
Doctor LAZARON. Yes, sir.
Doctor LAZARON. I am in favor of the Lodge resolution, because it embodies that phrase.
The CHAIRMAN. Before you sit down, Doctor, I call your attention to the statement attributed to Doctor Eder in the report of the commission of inquiry on the disturbances in May, 1921, as follows:
“ He stated that, in his opinion, there can only be one national home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between the Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish predominance as soon as the numbers of that race are sufficiently increased."
Doctor LAZARON. I do not agree with that point of view at all.
Mr. COCKRAN. Why would they not have the predominant voice in the government if their numbers were greater than those of the other people in the country? How could you have any government or society if some one were not predominant or if the majority were not predominant? If the majority does not rule, then the minority must.
Doctor LAZARON. I believe that question was discussed before you came in. We discussed the question of what probably would be the future form of any Jewish commonwealth there.
The CHAIRMAN. For your information, Mr. Cockran, I will say that I asked him if the Jews would not control the Government when they had a majority.
Mr. COCKRAN. Why would they not do so? Who would have the control if the majority did not have it?
Mr. LINTHICUM. Perhaps the Jews would not wish to elect all the officers from their own people.
Mr. COCKRAN. That is not the question, but they would control it just as much if they elected others.
Mr. LINTHIÇUM. I believe that six or eight years ago they had a Jewish mayor of Rome, and in that case the Italians certainly did not criticise their control by the election of one of their own people.
Mr. COCKRAN. There can be no objection to majority control.
Doctor LAZARON. I believe that the mandate would be carried out, guaranteeing, as it does, the civil and political rights of other people.
Mr. Fish. There are some congressional districts in New York City that are overwhelmingly Jewish in population, but they elect Christians from those districts to represent them. The same thing would probably occur over there.
Mr. LINTHICUM. That is the way I take it.
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. Fish asked you whether or not you favored this particular resolution, and you expressed your desire that the United States stand by the side of Great Britain and support the project. Now, what do you think of the proposition that Great Britain might feel that she was entirely capable of attending to this matter without any suggestion from us?
Dr. LAZARON. That is another question. Perhaps it might have been wiser if it had not been introduced.
Mr. CONNALLY. Would not that go to the propriety of this resolution?
Mr. COCKRAN. I do not think we should rat fy the acts of any foreign government.
Mr. FISH. I want at this juncture to make a statement to the committee in regard to the resolutions before the committee if I may have the permiss on of the Chairman. I introduced the original resolution as a concurrent resolution, then I introduced another resolution, of exactly the same character, as a joint resolution, because I thought it would be of greater effect if the President signed it. Then I understood from certain sources that Senator Lodge had seen the Secretary of State, Mr. Hughes, and that he had approved the so-called Lodge resolution, and that resolution has also been introduced. I have no preference between the resolutions and gladly leave the choice entirely in the hands of the committee. Of course, the committee will have to decide which resolution they desire to adopt. As I have said, the so-called Lodge resolution has the approval of the Secretary of State. The resolution that I introduced has been seen by the Secretary of State, and he has commented on it and suggested certain corrections. He has no objection to it. The other one has the approval of the Secretary of State. Both of the resolutions will come before the committee in executive session, and it will be up to the committee to decide which of them they want to adopt or reject.
Mr. COCKRAN. I do not think we should be put in the position of asking the witness to express a preference as between the resolutions.
Mr. Fish. If the gentleman has a preference in the matter, I think it is but fair to allow him to express it.
Mr. COCKRAN. I am perfectly willing to express my sympathy with the idea, but when it comes to ratifying the specific acts of some other country, I do not think we should do it.
Mr. LINTHICUM. I did not exactly understand you, Mr. Cockran. Do you not think that the witness should express a preference as between the resolutions?
Mr. COCKRAN. Mr. Fish asked him that question. I do not think he should be asked to express any preference.
Mr. LINTHICUM. The witness has a perfect right to express a preference for this resolution.
Mr. COCKRAN. He has that right-that is true.
STATEMENT OF RABBI DAVID PHILIPSON, OF CINCINNATI, OHIO.
Doctor' PHILIPSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the proceedings thus far. I will try to present this matter to you from a different angle, possibly, than has been done thus far. There seems to be a sort of idea, especially among non Jews, that this whole matter of a Palestine commonwealth, or the Balfour declaration, is congenial to all Jews. There is a very decided difference of opinion upon it, and I do not know that this has been brought out before the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. It has been to some extent.
Doctor PHILIPSON. I would like to speak first from that standpoint, and, secondly, from the standpoint of an American. There is a very decided cleavage of opinion among the Jews in this country on the matter of Zionism. There are those of us who feel that Jewish nationalism does not express the true interpretation of Judaism. We feel that Judaism is a religion, and that we are nationals of the country in which we are born and in which we live.
That is the decided opinion of quite a large number of Jews, and to prove this statement of mine I will read to you some official documents of great representative organizations of Jews. The chief lay organization of Jews in this country, so far as the liberal Jews are concerned, is the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. That organization comprises, I think, nearly 300 congregations, some of them the largest in the country and ranging down to the smallest ones. That organization meets in council every two years. Shortly after the Zionist movement was launched the Union of American Hebrew Congregations had a meeting in Richmond, where they adopted a resolution on that subject. In all the subsequent conventions that resolution has never been changed, and it stands today. That resolution reads as follows:
“We are unalterably opposed to political Zionism. The Jews are not a nation, but a religious community. Zion was a precious possession of the past, the early home of our faith, where our prophets uttered their world-subduing
thoughts, and our psalmists sang their world-enchanting hymns. As such it is a holy memory, but it is not our hope of the future. America is our Zion. Here, in the home of religious liberty we have aided in founding this new Zion, the fruition of the beginning laid in the old. The mission of Judaism is spiritual, not political. Its aim is not to establish a State, but to spread the truths of religion and humanity throughout the world.”
That resolution was adopted at Richmond in 1897, and it has never been rescinded or amended. There has been no further action take on the subject by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and therefore it can safely be said that that official pronouncement still stands.
Now there is large rabbinical association in America known as the Central Conference of American Rabbis. That is a very large organization, and it comprises fully 250 leading rabbis of the country. This organization has expressed itself upon this subject a number of times. Of course, there are some men in that organization who are Zionists, and they have persistently brought this matter up time after time. I have here some official expressions of the Central Conference of American rabbis upon the subject. In 1897, just at the time of the launching of this Zionist movement, they adopted this resolution.
Mr. FISH. That was before the war?
Doctor PHILIPSON. Yes, sir; but they have done the same thing since the war. In 1897 they adopted this resolution :
Resolved, That we totally disapprove of any attempt for the establishment of a Jewish State. Such attempts show a misunderstanding of Israel's mission, which, from the narrow political and national field, has been expanded to the promotion among the whole human race of the broad and universalistic religion first proclaimed by the Jewish prophets. Such attempts do not bene. fit, but infinitely harm our Jewish brethren where they are still persecuted by confirming the assertion of their enemies that the Jews are foreigners in the countries in which they are at home, and of which they are everywhere the most loyal and patriotic citizens.
“We reaffirm that the object of Judaism is not political nor national, but spiritual, and addresses itself to the continuous growth of peace, justice, and love in the human race, to a messianic time when all men will recognize that. they form one great brotherhood' for the establishment of God's kingdom on earth.” (Central Conference of American Rabbis—Yearbook, Vol vii, p. 41.)
Doctor PHILIPSON. Is it not transporting the east European attitude pf mind to America ?
The CHAIRMAN. I can not see that.
Doctor PHILIPSON. Bringing the group thought and the group idea into America from those countries where the Jews are forced to be a group minority.
Mr. COCKRAN. They will not come here.
Doctor PHILIPSON. I mean the state of mind that the Jews are a separate group, a separate national group. This is east European. It is not American.
Mr. COCKRAN. You say the Jews do not entertain that thought. But it is held by others?
Doctor PHILIPSON. That is the idea.
Mr. Fish. You have seemed to object to the passage of any of these resolutions. I would like to ask your attitude of mind on the League of Nations. Did you favor the League of Nations?
Doctor PHILIPSON. Very much.
Mr. Fish. It seems to me you have taken a contradictory position. You favored the League of Nations, yet you oppose this resolution, partly on the ground that the United States might perchance enter into some entanglement.
Mr. CONNALLY. Even as contradictory as the gentlemen's attitude, who is very much opposed to the League of Nations and now wants to help run it.
Mr. FISH. I am very much opposed to it.
Doctor PHILIPSON. Might I say this about the League of Nations? I was not concerned so much with the separate articles of the League of Nations. I was concerned with the great idea of the League of Nations and the great idea of forming that state of mind which might bring the world to what they wanted to be. I am not concerned with separate articles of the covenant of the League of Nations. There may be some things in those articles with which I am entirely at variance, but not with the great idea of the League of Nations.
Mr. Fish. I think everybody likes the idea of a League of Nations.
Doctor PHILIPSON. Exactly.
Doctor PHILIPSON. I want to say this, that I believe if we had ratified the covenant of the League of Nations as adopted at Versailles there would have been created a world state of mind that would have brought the world nearer to peace than is the case to-day, but that is all past. I do not think that has very much to do with the subject in hand. Mr. FISH. I think has a great
eal to with it. There is one other matter that I would like to put in the record. That is the telegram of Rabbi Stephen Wise, who, I understand, is a member of the reform branch.
Doctor PHILIPSON. Of a very radical branch.
NEW YORK, April 20, 1922. Hon. HAMILTON FISH, Jr.,
House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Regret impossible to appear before Foreign Affairs Committee meeting Friday morning. Earnestly hope for favorable action by committee on your resolution which represents the sympathies of the American people and meets the hopes of vast majority of American Jews.
Mr. CONNALLY. Which one of the resolutions which you have introduced ? Mr. FISH. No. 52.
Doctor PHILIPSON. That is his opinion, just as I have given you my personal opinion, except that I have also read resolutions by the respective organizations.
Mr. COOPER. Maybe that will explain the questions and answers.
Mr. MOORES. Ever since you made a statement, I wanted to ask a certain question. Along the line of the statement that Judaism was a religion rather than a race, the Rev. Dr. Messing, whom you know very well, told me that there were a very considerable number of Negro Jews in Africa. Is that true?
Doctor PHILIPSON. That is another story. Do you want to hear more from me or have you heard enough?
Mr. MOORES. Is that true?
Doctor PHILIPSON. That is a peculiar thing. It is most interesting. There was found in the eighteenth century by a Christian missionary a group of people of strange rites and ceremonies on the heights of Abyssinia, and in an investigation of these rites and ceremonies they were found to be very like the Jewish rites. They are called Falashas, which means stranger. They are not Negroes exactly; they are black. They observe the Jewish holidays.
Mr. MOORES. They keep the laws of Moses?
Doctor PHILIPSON. Yes; they observe the laws of Moses. They do not observe all the later laws. They remain a compact body in Abyssinia. We have a number of those Jewish colonies. One is in China. They had one Hebrew word,the word meaning Lord, and then there are also the Beni Israel of India. They are black, but not Negroes. The Jews of China are a very interesting group. Those must have become separated from the Jews long before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Mr. COOPER. You say, or I understood you to say, that this agitation began with the Balfour resolution, which tends to accentuate the alienism of the Jews in the minds of the non-Jews ?
Doctor PHILIPSON. Not any doubt of it; long before that.
Mr. COOPER. Has not the alienism of the Jew been accentuated and originated by the persecutions of Christians and other so-called religious peoples for fifteen or eighteen hundred years? Is that not what brought about the alienism in the minds of the great mass of others?
Doctor PHILIPSON. Yes, sir; partially true.
Mr. COOPER. It originated and keeps accentuated the alienism of people who do not live over in that country; that there is something wrong with the Jews that essentially they are alien to everybody else?
Doctor PHILIPSON. Yes.
Mr. COOPER. That is especially true in the minds of ignorant people. That being so, is not the alienism of the Jews, in the minds of the great mass of people