« PreviousContinue »
Mr. REED. Doctor Weizmann is quite an opportunist and I can show you where he contradicts himself. Now, you have said, and I should like to take up your point, that the Palestinians are rather adequately protected by that little clause, that nothing shall be done which “may prejudice the civil or religious rights of non-Jewish communities.” It has been intimated by Zionist leaders that those clauses were unnecessary; I think they are very necessary, even though the Zionist organization has put forward official utterances that simply throw that clause in the wastebasket. That is a strong statement, but let me prove it. One of the greatest Zionist authorities is Tolkowsky, a great ag. ricultural expert. You will find his pamphlets abroad, in England, in Germany, in Italy; they are quoted again and again.
Tolkowsky makes several suggestions to the Zionists after the Balfour decTaration had been made, with that little clause in it stating that nothing shall be done to interfere with the civil rights of the non-Jewish people of Palestine. This is a most astounding document. This is what he proposes. This is in the Maccabean and also in the English Zionist Review. Strange to say, no Zionist ever printed a word of protest. It is good Zionist doctrine.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you that?
The CHAIRMAN. I do not question it. If the committee wants to discuss it we will know where to find it.
Mr. REED. You want me to be accurate.
Mr. REED. Mr. Tolkowsky writes: “A considerable portion of the soil of Palestine consists of Crown lands
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Crown lands?
Mr. REED. Turkish Crown lands. A great many of those lands were stolen from the peasants. General Boles, Allenby's chief of staff, said he would have an investigation to see what lands the Turkish Government had seized and they would be restored. Some of the Crown lands were undoubtedly stolen from the peasants.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.
Mr. REED (reading). “A considerable portion of the soil of Palestine consists of Crown lands and waste and uncultivated lands; of these we must obtain possession at once both to settle our men and to produce foodstuffs."
If they are going to divide these Crown lands and waste lands, why should not nine-tenths of the population have a little right to them? It is exactly as if you open up Oklahoma and say only the Congregationalists of New England may have a chance at those lands. Then comes a very strange thing:
But as to lands other than those owned by the now-existing colonists I would lay down as essential requirements:
“1. That the mandatory power should grant the Jewish national fund a right of preemption on any lands, Jewish-owned or not Jewish owned, that may be offered for sale."
If Mr. Tolkowsky, one of the best Zionist authorities, could have his way, it would be perfectly impossible for a Christian in Jerusalem to sell his property across the Jordan to a Moslem. Why? Because the mandatory power could grant the Jewish national fund the "right of preemption on any lands, Jewish owned or not Jewish owned.” Does not that interfere with the right of the people? It puts forward a suggestion that you could not even sell your property. That is from one of the most prominent Zionists in Palestine. That is nothing? Should not a man have the right to sell his property? When it gets into the hands of the Jewish national fund it means it never can depart from Jewish ownership; that it can be leased only to Jews or Zionists and the Jewish labor union says nobody shall work on it except Jews or Zionists. If they redeemed all the land in Palestine it would be impossible for anybody except Jews or Zionists to own or lease land.
The CHAIRMAN. Repeat that, please.
Mr. REED. It is so extraordinary I do not think your committee can grasp it. I do not mean to make a reflection on your committee.
The CHAIRMAN. No.
Mr. REED). The whole thing is so perfectly extraordinary and so un-American you can not grasp the proposition that is put forward after the Balfour declaration had been made. Let me read it again ;
“ That the mandatory power should grant the Jewish national fund a righ of preemption on any lands, Jewish owned or not Jewish owned, that may be offered for sale."
The CHAIRMAN. The effect of that is this, that no one could buy this land ex cept the Jewish organization.
Mr. REED. Yes, sir, quite right; that is the proposition.
Mr. TEMPLE. Not literally. They were granted the right. They would have the right to refuse as well as to buy it.
Mr. REED. The Zionist organization might allow a man to sell his land if he wanted to. But, on the other hand, they had an absolute right of preemption on any land offered for sale.
Mr. COOPER. The object of the Balfour declaration was to establish a Jewish home.
Mr. REED. Yes, sir.
Mr. COOPER. If you shculd permit-to put an extreme caseif you should permit Turks to buy that land, very many Jews would not get hold of it and you would have great difficulty in establishing a Jewish home. The right of preemption, as Doctor Temple has well pointed out, would permit them to accept or reject. That suggestion was simply in order to carry out the very object of the Balfour resolution to make it a Jewish home, and if the Jews did not want to buy they need not, but they would have the first right to buy.
Mr. REED. My answer to that is that if the Balfour declaration involves any such violation of the rights of the country as that, the Balfour declaration ought not to be observed. Is it not one of the civil rights of a man that he can sell his land to whom he chooses?
Mr. Fish. As I understand it, you are referring to a statement made by some individual not representing any organization. Because a prominent journalist has advanced a certain statement, which has never been approved by any organization, you can not blame the Zionists; you might bring up thousands of other such statements ad infinitum.
Mr. REED. I accept your statement and I am very glad you noticed it, though Mr. Tolkowsky is a Zionist authority. I want in my own argument to put the weakest points first. I am coming to exactly your point. If anybody proposed that in a America, in a little town of 10,000, he would be swept out of office.
The CHAIRMAN. This right of preemption has this effect, as I understand it: The owner of the property can sell, provided he sells to this Jewish organization; otherwise he can not sell the property at all.
Mr. CONNALLY. No.
Mr. TEMPLE. That is not what it means. The Zionists would have the first right to buy. If they do not exercise that right, that does not interfere with his selling to somebody else.
Mr. COOPER. Exactly as I understand it.
Mr. Moore of Virginia. What you are deducing from this is that the Zionist is to be given the option over the Christian or the Syrian, or anybody else, to buy land.
Mr. REED. Certainly.
Mr. REED. It is the point that it is a denial of the civil rights of the people, as it is expressed in the Balfour declaration. Mr. Churchill addresses the Palestinians and says: “You have the Balfour declaration."
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.
“2. That all such lands be bought by the Jewish national fund as the inalienable property of the Jewish people, never to be sold, but only to be given in hereditary lease.”
“3. That these lands be leased only to Jews and only to such Jews as have passed as agricultural laborers through the training farms of the national fund, or to the children of colonists already settled in the country
The effect of such a policy will be:
“1. To make available for the purpose of settlement by Jews all lands that may be offered for sale in the future apart from Crown lands and waste and unoccupied lands, which should be turned over to the national fund right away." (From the Maccabean, January, 1920, pp. 19, 20, and 22, article entitled “Palestine under Jewish Ownership,” by S. Tolkowsky.)
Mr. Tolkowsky is one of the great Zionist agricultural authorities. I can quote pamphlets of his.
The CHAIRMAN. That is his statement?
Mr. REED. Yes; and it appeared in the official British Zionist paper, as well as in the American, and no Zionist uttered one single word of protest. They acCępted it as very good doctrine.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed with your statement.
Mr. REED. Let me answer Mr. Fish and come up to the testimony of those who are Zionist officials. If asked to name 10 of the greatest Zionists I would name Jabotinsky as one and, of course, Doctor Weizmann, president of the Zionists, and the world executive Jabotinsky is one of the world executives. This is a very interesting suggestion that he puts forward. He is a responsible man, an official, and a big man. He wrote a letter in the London Times March 14, 1921, in which he put forward this plan :
“ The Jews alone should have the right of military service in Palestine. They should be enlisted as part of the British army of occupation. They would do it more cheaply. The English would save £200,000 a year.” (Digest, from the Zionist Biweekly Palestine, of a letter by Jabotinsky in the London Times, Mar. 14, 1921.)
This same information is given in the American Zionist official organ, the New Palestine, for August 5, 1921 :
“Under date of July 29 the Jewish telegraph agency report Dr. Ch. Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, demanded the immediate formation of a Jewish legion for Palestine in his address before the cabinet ministers on Tuesday last “Lloyd-George promised that the proposition of the Jewish legion, as well other suggestions, would receive serious and immediate consideration
The British Colonial Office views with favor the immediate establishment of a Jewish legion in Palestine. The legion is to consist of five battalions of 1,000 each. The question of a strictly Jewish military force in · Palestine has been a much-debated subject and now seems settled. Some months ago the British Government announced its intention of recruiting a mixed Arab-Jewish unit, and the proposition evoked much opposition on the part of the Zionists and was finally withdrawn.”
Mr. COCKRAN. What word preceded “recruited "?
Mr. REED. The point is, Mr. Cockran, there is a large expenditure for keeping these people down. They are unhappy, discontented.
Mr. COCKRAN. Which people?
Mr. REED. The non-Zionist population of Palestine. They are afraid, as we would be if we should hear such things openly proclaimed. Mr. Jabotinsky is a very typical Zionist. The proposition is that the Zionists should have battalions, forces composed of Jews enlisted as a part of the British army of occupation. The Jews alone should have the right of military service in Palestinenone but Jews; and why? They would do it more cheaply; the English would save £200,000 a year.
If the mayor of a little town in my State, a town of 10,000 people, should · post up in his office that no Jews would be allowed to join the police force, he would be swept out of office and with right. These troops are simply police; they are not to march against Allenby or the Turks, say, but to serve as a police force; and Mr. Jabotinsky, over his own signature in a letter to the London Times, asks that no one except Jews in Palestine be allowed to enlist in the army, and tells the English that they would save £200,000 a year by this.
An elementary r‘ght of a citizen is the right to bear arms. Think of the discrimination. Is that in accordance with the Balfour declaration? Is military service included in the civil rights? Suppose you were to say that no Catholic or Protestant could go into the Regular Army, into the militia. In fact, this whole proposal is most extraordinary. It is so extraordinary that you can not grasp it. You can not understand it; it is so typically un-American. Mr. Fish, · I need not say that of course Doctor Weizmann is thoroughly in sympathy with that as head of the Zionists.
Mr. COCKRAN. Was that presented by any representative body? Mr. REED. Yes, sir; by one of the World Zionist committee. t shows their spirit. Mr. COCKRAN, It shows the spirit of that particular man.
Mr. REED. He is one of their heroes. He is a typical Zionist and one of the Arst 10. May I ask Mr. Lipsky? You raised the question of Doctor Weizmann. May I repeat:
cession for public works or for the developinent of the natural resources of Palestine.”
That is such a monopoly that you can scarcely grasp it unless you have been in Palestine. So, Doctor Weizmann and Sokolow, representing international Zionism went before the Peace Conference and asked that in any government contracts the Zionist should have the first choice. Palestine needs much work. They have got to put in water systems, railroad br.dges, school houses, lights, etc., and they want the work kept for the Zionists. The Zionists absolutely asked the Peace Conference to give them priority in every single government contract.
Mr. COOPER. Will you please read those words again: “ Precluded from making a profit” ?
Mr. REED. The money is to go to bringing in more immigrants or for establishing the Zionist State.
" For these purposes the mandatory power is to promote Jewish immigration and close settlement on the land ; to accept the cooperation of a council, representing the Jews of Palestine and the world, and to give this council (which is to be precluded from making a private profit) priority in any concession for public works or the development of the natural resources of Palestine."
I do not know where you could have a greater monopoly than that.
Mr. COOPER (interposing). To carry out the object of the Balfour resolution, which is to make it a home for immigrants to come in there.
Mr. REED. My point is, Mr. Cockran, that this is the way it will work: There are many educated Palestinians, who have been abroad and can talk much better than I can, and the Zionists come in with this proposition that I put before you, that non-Zionists are not qualified or capable as are all the Zionists. No; the Zionists have to have the first chance. If you tried that. in America—no organization in America would dare put that forward.
Mr. COCKRAN. The object in America would be private profit.
Mr. COCKRAN. It makes a very great difference. If you are acting for a public purpose, you can not have too much profit. But if it is for private purposes, it is otherwise.
Mr. REED. I call that a complete monopoly, to give the whole thing into the hands of the Zionists, and they are to use that money to bring in more immigrants to swamp those people.
Mr. COCKRAN. Any public enterprise is a monopoly, and this simply, as I understand it, is for the prosecution of a public work to develop the purposes of this scheme.
Mr. REED. Yes, sir; if that is the purpose, that means
Mr. COCKRAN (interposing). There is no doubt that it is the purpose, is there? Is there any doubt that that is the purpose? There is no doubt that there is not any pretense of or desire to make a profit.
Mr. REED. That is in there. The profits of the Zionist labor are to be used to build a Zionist state. This commends itself to the “ moderates.” It is a very moderate Zionist proposition.
Such in brief outline are the proposals which the Zionist leaders are making to the Peace Conference, and which have already commended themselves to most of the peace delegations by their moderation and good sense.” (From “The Jewish Palestine,” by H. Sacher, The Atlantic Monthly, July, 1919, pp. 123–124.)
This quotation is from The New Palestine, June 17, 1921, page 15, and concerns the English Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Churchill.
“The question of the mandates will soon be solved, Mr. Churchill states. Zionism would preclude for the present the possibility of applying the principles of self-determination to the population of Palestine.
" The granting of self-governing institutions would”—he is reported to have said—“lead to the suspension of Jewish immigration into Palestine; but England can not suspend immigration : that would be contrary to our promises. The Arabs' fears regarding immigration are illusory."
In other words, if we give non-Jewish Palestinians any self-determination, they will not have that immigration, for it does not give those people the chance for a fair economic struggle. It is not a fair fight at all. I want to