Page images
PDF
EPUB

66

Go on, and it must consult their wishes. You can not possibly get anything else out of that but those two points. The Hedjaz, Mesopotamia, Syria, with Palestine, were the four communities involved under that. I need not ask you which were the better advanced in civilization, the Hedjaz and Mesopotamia or Palestine and Syria. There is no question; there is no comparison between Beyrut and Mecca. There is no comparison between Jerusalem and Bagdad. If there were any two of the four territories under the Turks that ought to have some voice in their government, it was Syria and Palestine; and the most backward were the Hedjaz and Mesopotamia.

You know what happened. The two that are not having one single word to say about their government are the two advanced nations—I will not say nations; I should say the two advanced communities—Syria and Palestine, while the Hedjaz and Mesopotamia have been allowed to state what they want. They are practically standing on their own feet and the two more healthful ones are not.

Gentlemen, that is an absolute violation of the mandate; and if you go inta the mandate through this resolution, the first thing you do is to break the mandate, because you take up the plan of the Zionist organization.

Now, I want to show you a curious thing. While the peace conference was going on there was a very strong Zionist delegation at Paris, which consisted of some of their very ablest men, including Professor Frankfurter and Professor Weizmann.

Mr. LIPSKY. Professor Frankfurter was not there.

Professor REED. He was not? Well, I withdraw that; but Doctor Weizmann was there; and it is a correct statement that there was a very strong Zionist delegation at Paris and Palestinians got a little bit frightened, and so they asked to be heard. They said, “Can we not be heard before you decide the matter?” and President Wilson, who had promised so much in that twelfth point I quoted, said, · Yes; you will be heard." So he selected two menhis own men. Those men were, as has been said, Charles R. Crane and Henry Churchill King. They were sent to Palestine on an American boat. They landed at Jaffa, and the Zionists had the first chance at them; they took them all around and showed them everything they had to show, and the commission went to the various towns, they went all about the country, and the people believed that they were to have a chance to be heard.

Mr. COOPER. May I ask you about Charles R. Crane?
Professor REED. He was once appointed minister to China.

Mr. COOPER. And stopped at San Francisco, and his mission was taken away from him?

Professor REED. Yes.
Mr. MOORES. He has been in diplomacy ever since.
Mr. COOPER. That does not make any difference.
Professor REED. He was appointed by President Taft, I believe.
The CHAIRMAN. That is funny; President Wilson appointed Crane, too.
Mr. MOORES. He was appointed immediately after the election.

Professor REED. These men were appointed, and the Palestinians, when that American mission came, were distinctly told from Paris that they were to be heard. I was there engaged in relief work, and it was not my business to mix into politics, and I did not. I have a letter here from the head of the Red Cross saying that my attitude was irreproachable and, if anything, I leaned over backwards to give the Zionists a chance, because I believed in Zionism when I went there, and it is only because I saw what they were doing that I am fighting it as hard as I can now. They went up and down that country, and what has happened to their report? That report has absolutely disappeared. I wrote down to the State Department, asking them if I could not get that report. That was before Mr. Wilson went out. I was told that there was no chance of seeing that report, and that it probably never would come out. I am very sorry that I have not that letter here to show you; but that is an absolute fact. I applied for that report and was told that there was no probability or possibility of the Government publishing it. Now, it is very strange that President Weizmann, of this great international organization which you are asked to indorse, can see what I can not see. He can see that report. I, an American citizen and taxpayer, can not know what is going on there, but President Weizmann can. That, Mr. Chairman, is only one of many, many episodes which make me think we want to keep absolutely clear of this international organization.

Now, let me read you, please, what President Weizmann said about that report. I have not been able to get one iota of information about it. This is from a pamphlet entitled “ Zionist Policy." an address by Dr. Charles Weizmann, Sunday, September 21, 1919. Published by the English Zionist Federation. It is a document that anybody can buy, and I have scores of similar ones. Here is what he says. I read from page 12. (Reading:)

"The American Commission has passed through Palestine. "Many of you hare worried about this."

I would not be worried if Mr. Crane and Mr. King were looking up anything I was doing. (Continuing reading):

** So was I; Dot that they would not find colonies in Palestine, but that they would not find enough."

Here is the point: "They gave a report which is divided into two parts: What the Arabs said about closing the doors against the Jews coming into Palestine, and what they therrisetres saw of the achievement of the Jews, which has opened the door to Us. They could not have found words enough to express their admiration of what the Jews have done in Palestine."

Here is President Weizmann explaining to a group of London Zionists what the Crane-King report contained, and I, Mr. Chairman, have never been able to find out. I was very much irritated at that, because I pay taxes and I consider that I hare a right to know what is going on. I consider that I have just as good a right as he has, although Doctor Weizmann is president of this great international organization which you are asked to ratify. I think I have just as good a right to know what is going on as he has.

Now. I will ask the stenographer to take this statement very carefully, and I am going to be very sure about it: I asked a rery prominent American why I could not see that report. He replied that this commission was sent out by President Wilson purely to give President Wilson information concerning the situation in the Near East; that it was not designed to publish this report. The commission was simply to gather information for the President.

Now, gentlemen that was a very great wrong. Those poor people believed they were going to be heard. They thought they would have the ear of the American public. And I ask you, before you do anything, before you indorse the Zionist organization, before you get into this mandate business, that you find out what those two Americans of standing think about the situation in Palestine. Do not take my word for it; do not take the words of my friends over there. But if President Weizmann can find out, I do not see why a committee from the American Congress can not find out. There you have your report. Find out what they say. Now, I can not find that report. Let us come down to the mandate.

I bare shown that the mandate is to guide the subject communities and to fit them to stand on their feet. Who made that mandate, and what is that mandate. Why, Mr. Chairman, that mandate, of course, is the constitution for Palestine. That mandate is the rule under which that country is going to be governed ; and, as I said before, this Zionist organization simple orerrules every idea of American liberty. I said I thought as an American citizen a man should hare something to say about his own constitution. If you are going to lay down a fundamental constitution of the land, you want more than one tenth of the population to be heard.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. May I interrupt you right there?

Professor REED. Yes; please do. I want to get my points clear, because I want you to follow me.

Jr. COOPE3 of Wiscons n. I understand that your objection is, to that constitution, that they had no voice in making it?

Professor REED. Yes.

Jr. ("OOPE3 of Wisconsin. You are aware of course that the Congress of the [nited States issued a mandate for the gorernment of the whole of the Loui. siana Territor?

Professor REED. Yes.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. And intrusted its grernment to five men and did not make any of the constitutional guaranties applicable, practically?

Professor REED. Yes.

Mr. COOPEB of Wisconsin. And you are aware that we have gorerned the Philippine Islards without making the constitution applicable, and there is practically none of the Constitution of the United States there, except that the

United States Supreme Court in one case implied that possibly the guaranties of constitutional liberty may be there?

Professor REED. Yes.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. And yet when the Congress of the United States imposed those governments upon those people—those constitutions—they had not a word to say about it. So there is nothing extraordinary in that respect about this mandate.

Professor REED. May I contradict you, if you will permit me, Mr. Cooper?
Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Yes, sir.

Professor REED. There is something very extraordinary about it. The United States Government in that instance did not consult only one-tenth of the population of those territories. It would be fair if they never consulted anybody, but they allowed the Zionists to write the mandate. There is no comparison between the two cases.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. What is the application of what you are stating? Come to the mandate.

Professor REED. All right, sir; I am coming right to the mandate.
Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Will you let me put this question to you?
Professor REED. Yes, sir.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. When two men undertake to make a contract they sometimes talk and discuss it for a month or six weeks or two months, and then they finally make a written contract, and then the law says that everything is merged in the written contract, and all their talk goes for nothing.

Professor REED. Yes, sir.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. These people talked back and forth and made suggestions and discussed policies and made propositions for some two years. Finally it was all merged in the mandate, and there is nothing in those conversations that can in anywise affect it.

Professor REED. If you will give me leave, I would like to contradict you again, if I may, sir? Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Yes; that is my view only.

Professor REED. I am not presenting to you, now, my views. Fortunately we have Doctor Weizmann's own statement about their writing a part of that contract. It was not suggesting it, but the actual writing of it. I say the objection is that in this case they did consult those of this organization and did not consult others.

Now, who wrote this? I will ask you take this, if you please, Mr. Stenographer. This is from Palestine for March 26, 1921. This is not the same as The New Palestine; it is a British biweekly. This is from the issue of March 26, 1921. (Reading :)

It had not been an easy thing for the English Government to make this appointment (of Samuel). They had 100 other candidates who might have been sent more easily. The Government might have treated Palestine as they were treating Mesopotamia and other areas."

That is, they might have given Palestine a little chance; but they did not. Why did they not? Because they had someone write that mandate.

Now, I come right to the point. It was not conversation. I will read another extract from the same biweekly, Palestine, for March 26, 1921. This is from the publication of a speech made that same week at Great Assembly Hall, London, by Doctor Weizmann. (Reading:)

“Speaking of the mandate, Doctor Weizmann said that it was difficult for one who had participated and collaborated in the construction of the mandate to defend it before them.”

The president of this international Zionist organization, on his own word, participated and collaborated in the construction of the mandate, and therefore it was difficult, he said, for him to defend it before them. I want to show you how the mandate changes the Balfour declaration. It is one step after the other. In a sense, it is very easy. If you take the first step, you go down, down, down. I will read this again. (Reading :)

Speaking of the mandate, Doctor Weizmann said that it was difficult for one who had participated and collaborated in the construction of the mandate to defend it before them. He could not say everything in the mandate was satisfactory.

However weak in its text, it was morally the greatest victory which any people could achieve. There were not a million Jews in Palestine, but the British Government had negotiated with the Jews in Warsaw and the Ukraine, in London and New York.”

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? So; 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 Bri ish Gov. ernment 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 consul.ed. They consulted many others about the mandate, but not one single non-Jewish Palestinian.

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.'

“ SR: 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 Te 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),

“ SHIBLY JAMAL,

Honorable Secretary. “ HOTEL CECIL,

"London, February 21, 1922." 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 secona 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.

« PreviousContinue »