Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. REED. Doctor We zmann 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 ne 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?
Mr. REED. Everything is here; I have it here.

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,
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

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 :

*

106932-22

.

66

I have a most interesting statement on that subject; it is taken from Zionism. Its Ideals and Practical Hopes, by the Right Hon. Herbert Samuel, published by the Zionist Organization, London. This is a speech delivered by Sir Herhert Samuel in London on Sunday, November 2, 1919. Sir. Herbert Samuel, as I have said, is the dictator of Palestine. The statement reads, page 2:

“The Emir Feisul was under the impression that his opinions were invited as to the attitude that he would take up toward the immediate establishment of a complete Jewish State in Palestine. That, however, we all fully recognize is an impracticable proposal. No responsible Zionist leader has suggested it. The immediate establishment of a complete and purely Jewish State in Palestine would mean placing a majority under the rule of a minority ; it would therefore be contrary to the first principles of democracy, and would undoubtedly be disapproved by the public opinion of the whole world. The policy propounded before the peace conference, to which the Zionist leaders unshakably adhere, is the promotion to the fullest degree that the conditions of the country allow of Jewish immigration, of Jewish land settlement, the concession to Jewish authorities of many of the great public works of which the country stands so greatly in need, the active promotion of Jewish cultural development, and the fullest measure of local self-government, in order that with the minimum of delay the country may become a purely self-governing commonwealth under the auspices of an established Jewish majority.”

Mr. Samuel's point is this: That it would shock the conscience of the world if they were to set up a Zionist State there to-day, but that it would not shock the conscience of the world if you ordered British troops in there, if you granted concessions to the Zionists, and if Zionist immigration were promoted. Do you believe in the control of immigration to America by the Americans? The proposition here is that if you can not take from the Palestinians their country all at once, you can take it from them gradually. You must not shock the conscience of the world by taking it all at once. Now, how long will it take to do it; or how long will it take to make such a State? Dr. Weizmann said 10 years, and in that connection I read from a letter of Israel Cohen, dated London, February 4, 1920, and published in the Maccabean, March, 1920, as follows:

If there is any specific point in regard to which their views (Nordau's and Weizmann's) do not coincide, it is perhaps in regard to the rate at which the Jewish national home will develop into a Jewish State. Even Dr. Weizmann now speaks of this as a possibility within 10 years, and he has been able to make his calculations with the aid of experts on the spot and after paying full consideration to all the manifold factors involved.”

In other words, Doctor Weizmann says, or he said in 1920, that in 10 years Zionists could turn Palestine into a Jewish State. Do you think that the United States has not the right to control immigrat on into the United Statesthat is, to say how many immigrants shall come in and where they shall come from? Have the people of Palestine no right to control immigration? Do you mean to say that if immigration should come. subsidized by an organization of this kind, with the avowed purpose of establishing a majority so as to rule the country, they can not say, "No"? These people have been pillaged by the Turks and Germans; they have been reduced to poverty, and should we now say that they shall be kept down and deprived of their rights in their country in order to build up this Jewish State? I do not think that is the way to build a State.

Here is a very interesting statement from Zionist Policy, an address by Doctor Weizmann, delivered on Sunday, November 21, 1919, and published by the English Zionist Federation, London, pages 17–18:

Suppose were were to force the pace, or supposing that by some means or ways—Mr. Zangwill, for example, made a speech-and we convinced the English statesmen that we had to begin at once, and supposing that there was an outbreak, and supposing that to put down the rising the British had 5,000 casualties, it would start by shedding blood. One has to be careful not to press the screw too tight. It is slow ; it is disagreeable.”

How do you think the people of that land feel when they hear the president of the International Zionist Organization warning his followers not to press the screw too tight? It does not conduce to the happiness of those people,

Mr. COOPER. Does that one excerpt from the address, twenty or thirty words, give a fair impression of the whole tenor of Doctor Weizmann's discourse? It does not accord with what he just said, that is, if you put the sinister interpretation on those twenty words.

Mr. REED. Doctor We zmann 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?
Mr. REED. Everything is here; I have it here.

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.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

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 excep 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 :

[blocks in formation]

.

Do you

I have a most interesting statement on that subject; it is taken from Zionism, Its Ideals and Practical Hopes, by the Right Hon. Herbert Samuel, published by the Zionist Organization, London. This is a speech delivered by Sir Herlert Samuel in London on Sunday, November 2, 1919. Sir. Herbert Samuel, as I have said, is the dictator of Palestine. The statement reads, page 2:

“ The Emir Feisul was under the impression that his opinions were invited as to the attitude that he would take up toward the immediate establishment of a complete Jewish State in Palestine. That, however, we all fully recognize is an impracticable proposal. No responsible Zionist leader has suggested it. The immediate establishment of a complete and purely Jewish State in Palestine would mean placing a majority under the rule of a minority; it would therefore be contrary to the first principles of democracy, and would undoubtedly be disapproved by the public opinion of the whole world. The policy propounded before the peace conference, to which the Zionist leaders unshakably adhere, is the promotion to the fullest degree that the conditions of the country allow of Jewish immigration, of Jewish land settlement, the concession to Jewish authorities of many of the great public works of which the country stands so greatly in need, the active promotion of Jewish cultural development, and the fullest measure of local self-government, in order that with the minimum of delay the country may become a purely self-governing commonwealth under the auspices of an established Jewish majority.”

Mr. Samuel's point is this: That it would shock the conscience of the world if they were to set up a Zionist State there to-day, but that it would not shock the conscience of the world if you ordered British troops in there, if you granted concessions to the Zionists, and if Zionist immigration were promoted. believe in the control of immigration to America by the Americans? The proposition here is that if you can not take from the Palestinians their country all at once, you can take it from them gradually. You must not shock the conscience of the world by taking it all at once. Now, how long will it take to do it; or how long will it take to make such a State? Dr. Weizmann said 10 years, and in that connection I read from a letter of Israel Cohen, dated London, February 4, 1920, and published in the Maccabean, March, 1920, as follows:

If there is any specific point in regard to which their views (Nordau's and Weizmann's) do not coincide, it is perhaps in regard to the rate at which the Jewish national home will develop into a Jewish State. Even Dr. Weizmann now speaks of this as a possibility within 10 years, and he has been able to make his calculations with the aid of experts on the spot and after paying full consideration to all the manifold factors involved.”'

In other words, Doctor Weizmann says, or he said in 1920, that in 10 years Zionists could turn Palestine into a Jewish State. Do you think that the United States has not the right to control immigration into the United Statesthat is, to say how many immigrants shall come in and where they shall come from? Have the people of Palestine no right to control in migration? Do you mean to say that if immigration should come. subsidized by an organization of this kind, with the avowed purpose of establishing a majority so as to rule the country, they can not say, "No"? These people have been pillaged by the Turks and Germans; they have been reduced to poverty, and should we now say that they shall be kept down and deprived of their rights in their country in order to build up this Jewish State? I do not think that is the way to build a State.

Here is a very interesting statement from Zionist Policy, an address by Doctor Weizmann, delivered on Sunday, November 21, 1919, and published by the English Zionist Federation, London, pages 17–18:

Suppose were were to force the pace, or supposing that by some means or ways-Mr. Zangwill, for example, made a speech-and we convinced the English statesmen that we had to begin at once, and supposing that there was an outbreak, and supposing that to put down the rising the British had 5,000 casualties, it would start by shedding blood. One has to be careful not to press the screw too tight. It is slow ; it is disagreeable.”

How do you think the people of that land feel when they hear the president of the International Zionist Organization warning his followers not to press the screw too tight? It does not conduce to the happiness of those people.

Mr. COOPER. Does that one excerpt from the address, twenty or thirty words, give a fair impression of the whole tenor of Doctor Weizmann's discourse? It does not accord with what he just said, that is, if you put the sinister interpretation on those twenty words.

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 declaration 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?
Mr. REED. Everything is here; I have it here.

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.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

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;

[ocr errors]

*

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »