Page images
PDF
EPUB

ence and after the San Remo conference, and before the San Remo conference, negotiations with representatives of the Arab people with regard to the selfdetermination of the Arab people—not the self-determination of a segment of a mixed population calling itself Arab who happened to be living in Palestine. They may have been living there for 6,000 years. It has been claimed they have been living there for 1,500 years in Palestine. It might just as well be 15,000 years, because it has no relation to any important fact in this connection.

The Arabs in Palestine were entitled to what is called “individual rights." The Arabs were entitled to the protection of their civil and religious rights as communities, as individuals. But the self-determination principle certainly has no application to the self-determination of every little group of a race or of a nationality. During the war what was considered the inherent right of selfdetermination had to do not with groups of people who happened by accident to be occupying a certain territory; it had to do with races, with nationalities. And when the peace conference determined that Poland was to be free, it meant the Polish people; it had in mind a people residing in certain territory who were to be given their freedom because they represented a cultural organization, the historical continuity of a certain people; and so, too, with regard to the Arabs. The Arabs entered into the World War on the side of the Allies, to whatever extent they may have come in, with a view to obtaining liberty for their nationality. They had been oppressed in different parts of Turkey; they had been oppressed in different parts of Syria and Arabia; they had been oppressed in Palestine, in Mesopotamia, and everywhere in the Turkish Empire; and they wanted to have their nationality, the future of their race, and the future of their culture assured as the result of the war. That was given to them in Hejaz, and it was given to them in Mesopotamia,

So far as Syria is concerned, even under the French mandate, it is the Arabic people in Syria who have the predominance in Syria ; and if you want to go a little further, you will find them predominating even in Egypt. In Egypt, too, the Arabic culture and influence is predominant.

So, that instead of considering a case of a poor, feeble, oppressed handful of 600,000 members of a nationality that has not been given the right to selfdetermination, you have, in fact, this situation: The Arabic people, as a result of this war, have established one strong, independent nationality in the Hedjaz, with their own king; and they have in Mesopotamia, under English management, the Emir Feisel, as the king of Mesopotamia ; they have predominence in Syria, they have predominence in Egypt, and also in Transjordania.

How did it come about that after this promise had been made to Hussein, the representative of the Arab people, how did it come about that subsequently the Balfour declaration was issued? The Balfour declaration was issued two years later. It was issued in consideration of the problem that arose out of the war that affected the Jewish people. There was among the British people a strong desire to help in the solution of the Jewish problems, not merely in providing a place where the Jews may go if they want to go, but in providing a place where the Jewish nationality was to be given the right to establish itself under free conditions, where it could have the opportunity to come into a land and build up its own institutions without oppressing anybody living there.

Mr. COOPER (presiding). And to be safe?

Mr. LIPSKY. And to be safe for the future, because you can probably find some place where you will be safe for half a generation, but you can not so easily find a place where you would be safe to protect yourself later on against oppression. Mr. SMITH. How large a race is the Arabic people?

Mr. LIPSKY. If you will notice every one in speaking about the East has a different figure. But there are, it is assumed, about 35,000,000 Arabs.

Mr. TOTAH. Arabs in a different kind of country from Palestine. You can not compare the two. They are far apart. The Hejaz was referred to as a part of Palestine, which is a very erroneous idea.

Mr. LIPSKY. I did not say it was a part of Palestine.
Mr. COOPER. Did you say Hejaz was a part of Palestine?
Mr. LIPSKY. No.
Mr. COOPER. You misunderstood him. He did not say that.

Mr. LIPSKY. As I understand it, Hejaz was formerly what was known as Arabia. The Arabians settled in the Hejaz, they have there the cities of Mecca and Medina, which are the principal cities.

Mr. COOPER. It used to be Arabia ?

Mr. LIPSKY. It used to be Arabia, and Mecca and Medina are there. They are the holy places of the Arabic people. Damascus is strongly Arabian; Beirut is Arabian, Cairo is Arabic. You can get from that the idea of the spread of the Arabic race.

Nothing was said here by Professor Reed about Arabic imperialism and he did not bring to the notice of the committee other things that indicate a tendency on the part of the Arabs to imperialism. He said nothing of pan-Islamism. One of the difficulties with the Arabs and the Allies was the development of the " pan-Arabic movement.” At first the Arabs were humble. Their leaders were financially assisted. Then they became arrogant, aggressive, grasping. They wanted Hejaz as a center. Then they wanted a united Syria. Then they spoke of an Arabic empire, including all the Arabic countries. The unrest in regard to this matter traveled as far as India.

The difficulties that have resulted in Palestine are due, to a large extent, to the excitable pressure and psychological influence of this unrest among the Arabs and among the Moslems with regard to the pan-Arabic ambitions of Arabie leaders. This unrest in Palestine is due to the development of that psychology among the Arabs themselves. The Arabs in Palestine represent the backwash of that movement.

So that you can see how under these conditions what happens in Palestine is really not the responsibility of any individual; it is a responsibility of a ware of mass interest, a wave of mass excitement which is fomented by the propagandists who believe in the union of the entire Arabic race under one empire; the substitution of what was formerly the Turkish Empire with a strong combination of all the Arabic people of the East.

Mr. SMITH. Do they pay allegiance to the Turkish Empire?

Mr. LIPSKY. The Turkish Empire has been reduced by the allied conference to a very small radius around Constantinople.

The case of Professor Reed would be very strong, probably, if the facts were with him. Second, if there was an indication of friendliness and sympathy with regard to our oppressed people, the Jews, to give them a national home to give them a haren of refugebut from the testimony introduced here by the representatives of the Syrian people. from the admissions of Professor Reed, you see that they have a very strong feeling against the admission of Jews, small numbers or large numbers, it is immaterial. They want Jews excluded. This is their idea of liberty and justice. That is their idea of a people just freed from the oppre-sion of the Turks. It is very curious. A people who were under the heel of the Turks for hundreds of years, that has not had a chance to raise its head for centuries. The Arabs establish themselves in Hedjaz and Mesopotamia, hare the predominance of Syria and Egypt, appeal to this committee, made up of Americans, and say, “ We stand for the exclusion of the Jews from Palestine, because we fear they may outnumber us."

With our opponents it is not the question of a national home. It is not the question of whether the Hebrew language will be rerired, or whether schools will be established: nothing of the sort. Simply the fact that there would be coming into Palestine a majority to outnumber them. That fear is sufficient for them to come into a public hearing and stare without any reserve that if ther bad their way they would keep the Jeirs inom coming into Palestine for 10 re-keep them ut aliber. In de zes rern them that tens of thouseds of Jews hare le place to You would imagine the Arabs of Palestine wozid sar. - We hare ne abjections to them aning in as long as our crit so religions rich's are pretal What happens afterwaris whether ther hare the maritt er dog bare the majority, dees het concern us."

But irgeot Po Po gerts ezericanism before this erite seksa Acerist Weais des these ratitive claims to Americars with ren! 50 sting is I srihmanismerethe ministererer the Balfour Termosistemas is to be done for a

her wears in amount of

Terize tisory of the Per Te moving here TT: Carske rery founda

191 hire the site and right 1: 1-3: 133: Mersis deals and

et up that did Jaars bereike wreelres up te: 11.01ae de Sithe American Government; certain nations have been put in position where they have control of millions and millions of people, because it was felt that that was the right thing to do.

And here are 14,000,000 Jews, with the very foundations of their lives removed, who find themselves in such a predicament that they appeal to the conscience of the world for a haven of refuge. They are absolutely without the means of reviving themselves without this assistance. We speak to the enlightened nations, “ Give us this haven of refuge; we go in there with no intention of oppressing anybody or of taking away from anybody what they have, or taking away from any individual the rights, the religious liberties, or civil liberties which they have."

Mr. SMITH. That is what I would like to have you talk about.

Mr. LIPSKY. There was something said this morning to this effect: Would not the establishment of a majority of Jews in Palestine deprive the present population of certain civil and religious rights? The territory in Palestine does not belong to Palestinians as territory belongs to individuals who uwn the land. There was no nation in Palestine before the war. There was the Turkish Government that was ruling over Palestine. Now there is a provisional British Government ruling over Palestine.

That Government has given assurances to every individual, to every religious community, of the protection of the right to property, liberty, religious freedom, and religious institutions. The right to maintain municipal autonomy

Mr. SMITH (interposing). Great Britain is friendly to them, and as far as any propr'etary rights to the territory is concerned, that is in the control of Great Britain ?

Mr. LIPSKY. Exactly as before. No Arab in Palestine is being deprived of his property. Instead of having in the United States a Federal Government made up of, say, usurpers, who come along and say, “ This Government belongs to us,” we would have a federal government where every city and state within Palestine would be entitled to its own local government. To-day the mayors of a number of cities in Pa estine are Arabs and no right has been taken away from them.

Mr. SMITH. Has not Great Britain plenary power to solve this?

Mr. LIPSKY. Great Britain has taken possession of Palestine by force of arms. But this war was fought on the idea that it was not being fought for the sake of acquiring new territory.

Mr. SMITH. She, however, took a million square miles.

Mr. LIPSKY. But, in the case of Palestine, she made a promise to the Jewish people, in 1917, that in case the Allies won the war Palestine would be gov. erned provisionally by England under a mandate which would be subject to a League of Nations or association of nations that might be established for the purpose of establishing such political and economic conditions in Palestine as would enable the Jewish people to establish a national home for themselves.

Under the Balfour declaration, speaking of the civil and religious rights of the population of Palestine, you do not mean by that that Palestine Arabs are entitled as a matter of right to remain forever the majority in Palestine. Not at all. It is not an infringement of their rights to say that into Palestine a million people may come. If you say that Palestine has free immigration, all peoples can come into Palestine. That is not the infringement of the rights of any individual; that is not the infringement of civil and religious rights of the present inhabitants. The rights we are speaking of are the rights of the whole, not the individual.

This is the basis of our argument. If you look at it from that point of view, you see that most of the remarks made by Professor Reed with regard to the mandate, with regard to the Arabs in Palestine not being consulted, with regard to the Balfour declaration being something un-American--all of these arguments fall to the ground. This is what the American people have already practically approved. It would be regarded as impertinent if I would say it, but certainly it is not at all proper to say that where Senators and Congressmen have expressed their opinion, that the opinion does not represent American public opinion. The American public opinion is in favor of the establishment in Palestine of such a haven of refuge as will enable the Jewish people to establish their civilization there.

Under those provisions civil and religious rights will be protected. Whether he spoke officially or unofficially, President Wilson stated this very clearly, and at Paris was instrumental in making it clear that he personally was in favor of this declaration.

Mr. SABATH. To make it clear, the land which the Jewish people acquire, they acquire by purchase?

Mr. LIPSKY. Absolutely.
Mr. SABATH. They pay for it themselves?
Mr. LIPSKY. Every inch of it, and very heavily, too.

Mr. SABATH. And consequently the value of the land has increased. That is, the land in that section of the country has been enriched. Is not that a fact?

Mr. LIPSKY. That is a fact. The value of the land owned by the Arabs in Palestine increased in many cases from 500 to 1,000 per cent. Land there which was formerly purchased for £5 now costs £14 or £15. Prices in Palestine for the good soil of Palestine have gone up tremendously. Rents in Jerusalem, and other places are as high as in the city of New York.

Mr. TOTAH. I would like to make a statement. I would like to ask a question.

Mr. COOPER. What is the question? This gentleman is making the closing statement, being the proponent of this measure.

Mr. Totah. I would like to have certain words put in the record. I can wait until the gentleman gets through.

Mr. COOPER. I would like to explain to you the method of procedure here. When a resolution or bill is introduced and is argued before a committee, the proponents of the measure, those in favor of it, open the argument, and then the opponents make their statements, and then those in favor of the measure customarily close the discussion.

Mr. TOTAH. I would like to make the closing argument if there is no objection. Mr. COOPER. You want to make some statement, as I understand it.

Mr. SABATH. Before the gentleman proceeds, I have been handed a little memorandum to, ask you this question. Is it not true that the majority of the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine constitute only a sort of a fringe of the great Arabic world ; that despite the fact that they are a mixed race, they are to all intents and purposes a part of the Arab nation whose national aspirations have been satisfied in the manner that you have described ?

Mr. LIPSKY. That is the point that I was making. STATEMENT OF MR. SELIM TOTAH, OF NEW YORK CITY, REP

RESENTING THE PALESTINE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF AMERICA.

Mr. TOTAH. I want to make a definition of the word “ equity.” The Standard Dictionary says equity denotes the spirit and the habit of fairness, justice, and right dealing for regulating intercourse of man with man; the rule of doing to others as we desire them to do to us. It is the rule of right and justice. It obligates the ethical rather than the spiritual and belongs to the sphere of morals. It is grounded in the precepts of conscience, not in the conclusion of positive law.

Before we go ahead, I want to refer to a newspaper clipping, which is a cable gram from the Pope and Cardinal Gasparri. I would like to have that go in the record.

Mr. SABATH. What is that?

Mr. Torah. It is the opinion of the Pope in Rome, and of Cardinal Gasparri, regarding the present situation in Palestine and the Holy places.

Mr. SMITH. It appears in the Washington Post of April 9.

Mr. TOTAH. Yes; it is a cablegram from Rome, dated April 8, 1922. It shows the spirit of the present Pope and his secretary of state, Cardinal Gasparri, regarding the present situation in Palestine.

Mr. SABATH. You do not know whether he is correctly quoted, do you?
Mr. Torah. It is from one of the authorities at Rome.

Mr. LIPSKY. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman having the floor, and having interrupted my remarks, there ought to be some relevancy in his statement to what I have been saying. He is introducing entirely new testimony

Mr. TOTAH (interposing). I was granted the privilege to speak.

Mr. COOPER. You should have presented your case when you had the floor. You had a good deal of time for two days. This cablegram was published Sunday before last.

Mr. TOTAH. April 9.
Mr. COOPER. Two weeks ago.
Mr. LIPSKY. It was in his possession for days.

Mr. COOPER. That has been in your possession for two weeks, but you may go a head. The whole thing ought to go in, not what you have cut out.

on.

Mr. TOTAH. The whole thing can go in.
Mr. TOTAH. One word as to the work done during the late war.

Mr. COOPER. Did you tell the chairman of the committee you wanted to put that in?

Mr. TOTAH. Yes, sir.
Mr. COOPER. Did you show that to him?
Mr. Torah. Not that exact copy.

Mr. COOPER. Of course, there is not a quorum of the committee here, and you are offering to put something in-Mr. SABATH (interposing). Let the gentleman offer it subject to approval later

If any one raises a point of order against it, of course it can not go in. Mr. COOPER. All right.

Mr. TOTAH. Nothing has been said so far regarding what part the Palestinians played during the late war. I want to show you a few facts about what my own people in this country have done during this war. One hundred men-and I can verify that from the Government records-one hundred men of my own town people, from Palestine, joined the American forces.

Mr. LIPSKY. Where?

Mr. TOTAH. Right here in this country. My own cousin has died in France. Here is a picture of his grave. (Exhibiting picture.) My own brother fought with the British Army in Palestine with the Chief of Staff. Here is his picture. (Exhibiting picture.) My own brother was with the Y. M. C. A. in France for one year. I was in the American Army. My own cousin, my first cousin, fought for four years with the British Army, both at Gallipoli and in France. He has been wounded three times. That is only a portion of my own family history as to what we have done in the war. This can be multiplied in all other families. Let me show you what General Liman von Sanders said about the Palestinians and their share in the war. He said, “ the English are not the only enemy we have.” He said, “We also have an enemy from within; that is, the Syrians and the Palestinians. They are in sympathy with the Allies.”

Mr. LIPSKY. Who said that?

Mr. TOTAH. General Liman von Sanders. He said they are in sympathy with the Allies, and we are continually facing that situation. I can verify that statement. We can talk about the Balfour declaration from a theoretical standpoint, but that is all words. Let us go to the practical side and see what is going on, whether there is an impartial administration or not. The British Government has appointed-and I say it with all due respect-Sir Herbert Samuel as high commissioner, and yet the fact remains that he is a Jew.

Mr. COOPER. That has been pointed out by Mr. Lipsky. That is admitted. Mr. TOTAH, H's legal secretary is a Jew, and the controller of stores is a Jew. Mr. SABATH. You do not consider that a crime, do you?

Mr. Totah. No; I am just showing you what the situation is and how with only 7 per cent Jews now the present administration is in the hand of the Jews.

Mr. LIPSKY. Do you know what percentage of the civil force are Jews ?

Mr. TOTAH. The Director of Commerce and Industries is a Zionist and a Jew. There is no crime in that; but I am just giving you the facts.

Mr. SABATH. Why do you bring that out, because of his race?
Mr. TOTAH. No.
Mr. SABATH. Do you mean to charge that they are incompetent?

Mr. TOTAH. No; I am not trying to charge that. I am simply trying to show that the application of the Balfour promise in its final analysis means giving up the country to the Jews, and at the same time neglecting the wishes of the people.

Mr. LIPSKY. Will you answer a question ? Will you tell the committee what percentage of the official administration in Palestine is Jewish and what percentage is Arabic?

Mr. TOTAH. Pardon me, another important question-
Mr. SABATH (interposing). Can you answer that question?
Mr. Torah. Is he a member of the committee?

Mr. SABATH. No; I would like to know that. I will make that my question. I will ask you that question.

Mr. Totay. I can not give you the figures on that. I want to give you these facts, and I am willing to abide by them. I can not give you the facts in regard to that.

Mr. COOPER. There are some Arabic men there in civil offices?
Mr. TOTAH. There are a few.
Mr. COOPER. There are some?

« PreviousContinue »