66

ancy of the unspeakable Turk not more than 500 troops were needed there to preserve order. In those days they did not have airplanes and they did not have field artillery. They had none of that, for there was no trouble in the country. Now, suddenly there appears the Balfour declaration, which struck those people like a bolt from the blue. President Wilson had promised all people in subjection to Turkish rule an absolutely unmolested opportunity for autonomous development." This "unmolested opportunity for autonomous development" is promised in the twelfth of the fourteen points; and if that phrase means anything at all, it means that people in a country such as Palestine should have an unmolested chance to develop themselves. They really believed that opportunity would be theirs; they believed that this was true; and then suddenly came the Balfour declaration.

I wish now to speak on just one point of that declaration, which you are asked to indorse. I want to show you how truly un-American the Balfour declaration is, and what a tremendous check you are signing if you indorse it. If you will allow me, I shall take everything I say from Zionist sources.

Mr. COLE. Would this proposed development of Palestine by the Jews come within the meaning of President Wilson's twelfth point?

Mr. REED. I wish to show what that involves, and I shall come to that in a moment. You will see that in this resolution you are asked to indorse the Balfour declaration, and I wish now to show you how that declaration was made. Let me read this short statement about the Balfour declaration, showing how it originated, because I think it is well to know what it is that you are asked to indorse. The president of the Zionist organization is Dr. Weizmann. I take this statement from "A Guide to Zionism," published by the Zionist Organization of America, 55 Fifth Avenue, New York City, 1920, pages 85-86: "Weizmann is a Russian Jew, a British subject, who became professor of chemistry at the University of Manchester. During the war he perfected a certain chemical that was essential to Britain in the making of munitions

* * *"

Mr. COOPER. Have you given the name of the Zionist document from which you are reading?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; I have given it.

Mr. COOPER. The title of the document is stated in your manuscript?

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; everything is stated here, including the pages from which it is taken.

Mr. COOPER. What I want is the date of the publication.

Mr. REED. It is 1920. Everything is stated here, including the page. This article continues:

"Mr. Arthur James Balfour liked him. And the war came. And Chaim Weizmann served Britain-and served Israel-with his chemistry. Weizmann asked no reward for his chemical discovery. But the reward came on November 2, 1917."

Mr. COOPER. This was in 1917?

66

Mr. REED. Yes, sir; November 2, 1917. Now, may I comment on this? . This declaration was sent from the foreign office to Lord Rothschild as representative of the English Zionist organization."

Mr. COOPER. May I suggest, since you are making a comment upon it, that those were the very dark days of the war, when he made that promise. Mr. REED. Yes, sir; if I may go on with the statement

"Arthur James Balfour, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, wrote his famous letter to Lord Walter Rothschild, embodying the following declaration:

"His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.'

"This declaration was sent from the foreign office to Lord Walter Rothschild as representatitve of the English Zionist organization. It came, perhaps, as a surprise to large sections of the Jewish people and notably to those who had either opposed or not interested themselves in Zionism.

"But to those who were active in Zionist circles the declaration was no surprise. Among the leaders it had been expected for many months. The wording of it came from the British foreign office, but the text had been revised in the Zionist offices in America as well as in England. The British

declaration was made in the form in which the Zionists desired it, and the last clauses were added in order to appease a certain section of timid antiZionist opinion."

Now, here is a country of 700,000 people, and the Zionists compose just about one-tenth of the country, and here is a declaration that is going to change absolutely the whole status of the people of that country. Have they one word to say about it? Are they consulted about it in any way? Are they asked about it, or do they know anything about it? They did not even know it was coming, or from where it was coming. Where does it come from? It comes from the Zionist offices in America as well as in England.

Mr. SMITH. What are the other 90 per cent of the population of that country? Mr. REED. I think the best figures I can give, and, indeed, the only figures are those given by Sir Herbert Samuel. They go back to August 30, 1921. The figures given at that time by Sir Herbert Samuel are: Sixty-four thousand Christians, 76,000 Jews, and 560,000 Mohammedans. Mr. Lipsky, has raised

those figures, for he says there are 80,000 Jews. Sir Herbert Samuel is practically the dictator of Palestine, and it has been said that he is an ardent Zionist.

Now, according to this statement, the wording of the declaration came from the British foreign office, but the text was revised in Zionist offices in America as well as in England.

This next statement I am about to read is from Dr. Weizmann's Reply to his Critics, an address delivered at the Cleveland convention on Wednesday afternoon during the fifth session, printed in the New Palestine, published weekly by the Zionist Organization of America, New York, June 17, 1921, page 5:

66

'Perhaps you will let me get rid of a legend, one of the hundreds of legends. It is said that the Balfour declaration was framed here, was made here, and the text of it was really drafted here. In that statement there is only this amount of truth, that after the formula had been drafted in London a modification was suggested in one clause by our American friends and was accepted. I do not underrate the value of the American suggestion. It did not affect the essence of the declaration, and it was helpful so far as it went. That is all there is in it. Except for this one amendment, the declaration was framed in London. It was drafted by Lord Milner and his secretary, and the original text of the Balfour declaration, as it is, is at present in the archives of the British Government."

That is a little different version-Lord Milner drafted it.

Now, I come to another strange thing in connection with the Balfour declaration, which also tends to show that the document really came from the Zion st organization, and that the text was accepted or approved by the British Government. This statement is taken from The New Palestine, New York, September 9, 1921:

"The Zionist executive proposed to the British Government a draft of the Balfour declaration, which the executive submitted to Sir Mark Sykes, Baron Rothschild, and President Wilson. All of them approved of the statement. On July 18. Lord Rothschild forwarded it to Mr. Balfour. The Cabinet submitted their own version to representatives of both sides with a covering letter, in which was stated that 'in view of the divergence of opinion expressed on the subject by the Jews themselves, they would like to receive in writing the views of representative Jewish leaders, both Zionist and non-Zionists.' The letter was sent to the following gentlemen: Sir Stuart M. Samuel, Mr. Leonard M. Cohen, Mr. C. G. Montefiore, Sir Philip Magnus, Dr. Hertz, Mr. N. Sokolow, and Dr. Weizmann.

"To strengthen the hands of the friends of Zionism in the Government, it was thought advisable to obtain support from America. Accordingly, Mr. Justice Brandeis approached President Wilson. The latter sent a personal message to the British Government, intimating his agreement with the ideas of the pro-Zionist pronouncement. Finally, on November 2, 1917, Mr. Arthur James Balfour, the then foreign secretary, sent to Lord Walter Rothschild the now famous Balfour declaration."

One thing is certain, it was submitted to President Wilson through Justice Brandeis, and it was submitted to the Zionist organization in New York. However, one other thing is certain, it was not submitted to the people of the country that it affects. If you believe that the people of that country had any right at all in their own country, or were entitled to any consideration at all in its disposition, it is certain that you can have nothing to do with Mr. Fish's resolution.

I wish to say one other thing in that connection. I want to show you that there is a little inaccuracy in this. It is hard to argue this case, because there are so many inaccuracies in the Zionist statements. I have read to you a statement from the official Zionist publication, in which it was said that the declaration was made "in the form in which the Zionists desired it." Now comes something very interesting. This is taken from the translator's introduction to Ten Essays on Zionism and Judaism, by Achad Ha-Am, translated from the Hebrew by Leon Simon, London, George Rutledge & Sons (Ltd.), 1922, pp. 15 and 16:

"All the details of the diplomatic conversations in London which led to the declaration have not yet been made public; but the time has come to reveal one 'secret.''

I can assure you that all the details have not yet been made public, and I am certain you do not wish to commit this country to an agreement, all of the details of which have not been made public. This statement continues:

"All the details of the diplomatic conversations in London which led to the declaration have not yet been made public, but the time has come to reveal one secret,' because knowledge of it will make it easier to understand the true meaning of the declaration.

"To facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people '-that is the text of the promise given to us by the British Government. But that is not the text suggested to the Government by the Zionist spokesmen. They wished it to read: The reconstitution of Palestine as the national home of the Jewish people'; but when the happy day arrived on which the declaration was signed and sealed by the Government it was found to contain the first formula and not the second. That is to say, the allusion to the fact that we were about to rebuild our old national home was dropped, and at the same time the words 'constitution of Palestine as the national home,' were replaced by Establishment of a national home in Palestine * *

"Had the British Government accepted the version suggested to it-that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people— its promise might have been interpreted as meaning that Palestine, inhabited as it now is, was restored to the Jewish people on the ground of its historic right; that the Jewish people was to rebuild its waste places and was destined to rule over it and to manage all its affairs in its own way, without regard to the consent or nonconsent of its present inhabitants."

There is one very interesting thing there, the Zionists could not force the British Government to adopt all of the Zionist declaration, but they went to work and secured it in the mandate. I shall not have time to discuss the mandate. The last sentence in this statement reads:

"That the Jewish people was destined to rule over it and manage all its affairs in its own way, without regard to the consent or nonconsent of its present inhabitants."

That is exactly what they are trying to do, without any regard to the right of the people of that country to any sort of self-determination.

There is another most in eresting statement, and it is taken from the New Palestine, September 9, 1921, page 12:

"Mr. Sokolow and Dr. Weizmann accepted the draft, though they would have preferred' reconstitution of Palestine as the national home' to 'the estab lishment in Palestine of a national home,' and regarded the provisos as unnecessary, because self-evident."

They are not self-evident. If we take the Balfour declaration we can not find out what it means. If you ask. What is "a national home," Mr. Balfour I will not tell you. There is a delegation from Palestine in London, and they have been there for five months. The head of the delegation said the other day that they had tried to find out at the Colonial Office what "national home meant, but they could not find out. When Mr. Balfour was over here he was interviewed on the subject. A Palestine Christian tried to see him, but he would not see her until he learned that she was a journalist. When she said she was a journalist he consented to see her.

Mr. COOPER. You say that the people of Palestine were not consulted. Upon the face of it the proposition was to give them their rights, but they were not consulted as to whether they would have them or not. Now, how does that differ in principle from what was done by England, by the King and the rest of them, in the open, expressed written promise to Egypt. that if Egypt would use her troops to help the Allied cause Egypt should be free. The Egyptians were not consulted at all; and, not only that, but when the Egyptians came

up to Versailles the delegates were not permitted to be heard at all. Yet England has observed her promise, and they have a king now in Egypt for the first time since Cleopatra. The Egyptians were promised liberty, but they were not consulted. They were not consulted, but they were granted liberty. According to the Balfour declaration, certain promises are made in regard to Palestine, but they were not consulted. They were granted certain things without having been consulted.

Mr. REED. What I was going to say is not on that point at all. I was discussing what was meant by "a national home," and, as I said, Mr. Balfour would not state what it meant. He was asked what "national home" meant, but he would not say. When this Palestine Christian asked him what he understood by the words "a Jewish home in Palestine," he answered sharply, "Everything, but not pogroms," and then he continued. "Tell your fanatic patriots that they bring shame upon Islam and upon civilization." That statement is contained in the New Palestine, official organ of the Zionist organization of America, New York, November 18, 1921, page 10.

Mr. LIPSKY. That has been denied.

66

66

Mr. REED. Then I withdraw it; but that does not alter the fact that Mr. Balfour has not defined a national home." I will tell you what the Zionists think "a national home" is, and I give you their own statements. Mr. Fish has the same word in his resolution, homeland." Last year one of the greatest living Zlonists, Prof. Einstein, came here, and Mr. Max Nordau, who has been called the grand old man of Zionism, was also invited to come. Mr. Max Nordau, in the Maccabean, which was published monthly by the Zionist organization of America, on page 82 of the number for March, 1920, said: "The formula 'a national home' has been subject to manifold and widely divergent interpretations. I read it as meaning an autonomous Jewish State, and so does every political Zionist.",

They are now having a great Keren Ha-Yesod drive in New York, and I think that is one of the reasons for pushing this resolution. Here is a statement from the Keren Ha-Yesod Book, London, Leonard Parsons (Ltd.), 1921, page 11:

"This is the purpose of the Keren Ha-Yesod, to make every Jew throughout the world realize that the Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine can only be rebuilt if he shares in the national burden and to collect his share of the national tax."

Here is another statement from the same book, page 14:

"The task confronting us is much more complex and exacting than the problems with which the ordinarily constituted state has usually to deal; it is the creation of a state."

Now, gentlemen, that is what they are trying to do-to create a state-and that is what the Zionists mean by a national home."

66

I shall go a step further and read you what Doctor Weizmann said in an interview. This statement appears on pages 99-100 in A Guide to Zionism: "In an interview Doctor Weizmann gave to the press after the appearance of the Zionist delegation before the council of ten,' he stated: We have obtained full recognition of the historic title of the Jewish people in Palestine and of the Jewish right to constitute a national home there.'"

"The claims of the Zionist delegates, as they are briefly communicated in the official communication to the London Zionist Conference, contain everything that may now be demanded-full recognition of our historic claims in Palestine; the assurance of an independent Jewish Commonwealth as soon as the Jews in Palestine will constitute a majority of the population and will be able to dispense with their mandatory; the creation of such conditions under the trusteeship of England as will fulfill the desire of Jewish development in Palestine as soon as possible; the recognition, as one of the principal conditions, of a Jewish council, which is to have from the beginning a voice in the administration of the country and to receive all necessary concessions to further the development of Jewish immigration on a large scale."

These claims were brought before the Peace Conference; there can be no doubt about that at all. There can be no doubt that political Zionism means the creation of a Zionist State in a country in which Zionists are outnumbered nearly ten to one.

Mr. KENNEDY. If they should have a majority, they would have a right to do that, would they not?

Mr. REED. That depends on how they get their majority. Why did they say at the peace conference " a Jewish Commonwealth," and why did they not say that in the Balfour declaration?

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 Herbert 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 Lot the right to control immigration into the United States— that is, to say how many immigrants shall come in and where they shall come from? Have the people of Palestine no right to ecntrol 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 Doetor Weizmann, delivered on Sunday, November 21, 1919, and published by the English Zionist Federation. London, pages 17-18:

Suprise 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 EngEsh 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 right. 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.