Repatriation of this uprooted humanity to their own homelands, with the status and dignity of men endowed by God with inalienable rights, is one of the primary objectives being sought for the peace which will follow this war.

The problem of the Jew is part of the total human problem. It must be solved as such, and it must be solved in those places where it exists. In attempting to reach a solution of these problems it is likely that many people of all faiths may not be repatriated. Many, through necessity, or from their own choice, will seek to locate in other lands. It will be imperative to find adequate areas in the less densely populated portions of the globe where men can start life anew, under conditions where they can carve out their own destinies as free men, with the assurance that their new homelands will provide for them "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.' In fact, this has been contemplated in the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms.

Unquestionably Palestine has contributed in a tangible way to the alleviation of the present catastrophe in Jewish life by providing refuge for some of Europe's Jews. It has been clearly demonstrated that practical colonizing can be done, schools and universities built, scientific agriculture intensified, and culture developed. These achievements have been wrought by the hard-working settlers, who have been aided in their endeavors by Jews all over the world, Zionists and nonZionists alike. This development has occurred largely under the British Mandate, and has proven beneficial both to Jewish settlers and to the Arabs. Under proper auspices Palestine is capable of absorbing even more settlers, to the advantage of themselves and their Mohammedan neighbors.

In discussing the settlement of Jews in Palestine the term "Jewish Homeland" is frequently used. This phraseology has been a bone of contention since its inception. The official Zionist platform demands that a Jewish body "be vested with control of immigration into Palestine, and with the necessary authority for upbuilding the country, including the development of unoccupied and uncultivated lands, and that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth integrated in the structure of the new democratic world." A "homeland" does not necessarily carry with it the implication of independent statehood. Certainly there is no historical or organic relationship between Judaism as a world religion and national statehood. Palestine has been, and still is, a "homeland" for those who have settled there in the real sense that, comparatively, the settlers have been enjoying the security, and the contentment that one properly associates with the word "home." The demands for a National Jewish State today exceed by far anything that was contemplated under the Balfour Declaration of 26 years ago. The success which has attended the efforts of the settlers under British Mandate does not necessarily indicate that such results would have been secured in the past, or are they likely to accrue in the future under a "Jewish Commonwealth." It must be recognized that the number of settlers that Palestine can accommodate is limited, and that this limitation will prevent Palestine alone from offering any adequate relief when the whole resettlement problem is conidered.

For centuries Palestine has been a Holy Land to three great religions-Mohammedan, Christian, and Jewish. Shrines sacred to each of them are located there. It appears obvious that any arrangement which sets up a National State under any one of the three religions is bound to create turmoil and strife between it and the other two. How is it possible to set up an autonomous religious state under the conditions that prevail? The setting up of a National Jewish State in Palestine may be extremely hazardous to the present Jewish population, might undo the splendid accomplishments of generations of Jewish settlers and probably would hinder proper Jewish settlement in the future, when it is most needed.

A National Jewish State carries with it, also, dangers to Jews now living outside of Palestine and particularly to those located in central European countries. Should such a State ever prevail, both Palestine and Jewish residents of these European countries would be between the upper and nether millstones. Migration pressures would militate against both. On the one hand, Palestine may be called upon to accept more Jews and at a faster rate than the land can possibly accommodate. Confusion and suffering would inevitably result, with the probability that such a Jewish State itself would be forced to stop or limit immigration. On the other hand, pressures may be placed upon these Central European Jews to force them, against their will, to migrate to Palestine. Being unable to do so, they would be left in a deplorable condition, without status, without assistance and without hope.

Many Americans of Jewish faith oppose the establishment of a National Jewish State upon still another consideration. Such a State would always be a small nation and could never hope to be a decisive force in the diplomacies of the world.

It would forever be in one bloc or another. Jewish citizens of other nations of the world would forever be embarrassed either by its decisions or by its neutrality upon issues of world politics. Men of Jewish faith in some nation or group of nations of the world would be, of a necessity, either opposed to or called upon to defend secular, political action. The result must inevitably be that here in America, or for Jews elsewhere, the question of dual allegiances will be raised by men who, in critical times, lack discrimination and understanding. This would be particularly unfortunate in America, where the Jew has found a security greater than has ever been known in all the long history of Israel. The only sure way to avoid such a misunderstanding is to avoid the creation of a National Jewish State. Palestine has made a great record. Palestine's achievement should not be wasted. Palestine should be one of the countries selected for resettlement. But a National Jewish State not only is not essential to such a purpose; it will be a detriment to such a service. In all probability, little if any difference of opinion exists regarding the desirability of considering Palestine as a place of settlement. It is very likely that it is the demand for a National Jewish State in Palestine that engenders the opposition of King Ibn Saud and many others.

It is hoped that Palestine can look forward to the ultimate establishment of a democratic, autonomous government wherein Jews, Moslems and Christians shall be justly represented; every man enjoying equal rights and sharing equal responsibilities; a democratic government in which Jews will be free Palestinians whose religion is Judaism, even as we in this country are Americans whose religion is Judaism. It is further hoped that such a program, embodying the spirit of the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms, would be one to which Moslem and Christian would subscribe together with the Jew, and that Palestine might be another demonstration to the world that men of all faiths can live together in mutual respect for one another, and that such high regard of man for man is the cornerstone of lasting peace.

(Copyright 1943 by Time Inc.)

Chairman BLOOM. Mr. Johnson, have you any questions?

Mr. JOHNSON. As I understand, Mr. Rosenwald, the resolution. quoted in the preamble of the pending resolution was a resolution adopted by the Sixty-seventh Congress, and which as set out in the preamble eliminates and. does not have the feature you have pointed out as objectionable.

Do you think that perhaps the present resolution should either be in the language of the resolution of the Sixty-seventh Congress, or if the present language is retained it should be changed to conforin to the suggestion you have made? Is that right?

Mr. ROSENWALD. If you gave me any alternative I should say I should like the present resolution with the elimination I mentioned in the body of my report, leaving out

* * * so that the Jewish people may ultimately reconstitute Palestine as a free and democratic Jewish commonwealth.

Mr. JOHNSON. What about that clause in the resolution by the Sixty-seventh Congress which says

It is clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine.

That, I assume, was inserted in order that it might not give offense to other people living in that country. It was done, I suppose, with that purpose in mind. I was not a member of the committee when that resolution was passed but I assume that was the purpose for which it was incorporated in the resolution. Do you think some similar language might be necessary now?

Mr. ROSENWALD. Sir, I think that was taken from the Balfour Declaration, if I am not mistaken; and it was included for that reason. I see no reason for leaving it out.

95149-44-10

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; it just occurred to me in order not to give offense to others, I was just wondering about the wisdom of incorporating it now. In the statement you made you quoted quite extensively from the resolution in the Crane-King report.

Mr. ROSENWALD. That was the King-Crane report.

Mr. JOHNSON. What was the King-Crane report?

Mr. ROSENWALD. In 1919 President Woodrow Wilson established a Commission headed up by Mr. King and Mr. Crane, who went to Palestine, and it is my understanding, but I am not sure about this, that this was a commission which was to report back to him primarily. Mr. JOHNSON. To President Wilson?

Mr. ROSENWALD. Yes, sir, to President Wilson. The Commission went to Palestine and other places in the Near East and made quite an extensive report on the situation in Palestine. The Commission returned to this country, and it returned just prior to President Woodrow Wilson's departure on a trip. So consequently he never saw that report in full, although he had seen part of it. On that trip President Wilson died, so that it is questionable whether he ever saw the KingCrane report in detail, or not.

Chairman BLOOM. I would like to call your attention, Mr. Rosenwald, to a statement made by President Wilson. It is found on page 43 of the committee print, entitled "Jewish National Home in Palestine." It is near the end of the page. President Wilson, stating the case for America, said:

I am persuaded that the Allied Nations, with the fullest concurrence of our Government and our people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish commonwealth.

Those are President Wilson's own words.

Now, if I may be permitted, I will have the clerk read from the memorandum of the Jewish Agency for Palestine on the legal aspects of the British White Paper on Palestine. It is found on page 88 of the report. The Royal Commission first quotes Mr. Lloyd George, whose evidence is reproduced as follows:

The CLERK (reading). The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish state was not to be set up immediately by the peace treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then Palestine would thus become a Jewish commonwealth.

The report then proceeds:

His Majesty's Government evidently realized that a Jewish state might in course of time be established, but it was not in a position to say that this would happen, still less to bring it about of its own motion. The Zionist leaders, for their part, recognized that an ultimate Jewish state was not precluded by the terms of the declaration, and so it was understood elsewhere. "I am persuaded," said President Wilson on March 3, 1919, "that the Allied Nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish commonwealth.'

Chairman BLOOм. I just called that to your attention, Mr. Rosenwald, because that is the record.

Mr. ROSENWALD. This Commission, Mr. Chairman, I understood was the official Commission of the United States Government.

Chairman BLOOM. The clerk has been instructed to get copies of that report so we will have it available for the meeting tomorrow. Mr. ROSENWALD. I have it in a book here.

Chairman BLOOм. If you will give it to us I will have copies made. Dr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement?

Chairman BLOOм. If Mr. Rosenwald will yield. He has the floor at this time.

Mr. ROSENWALD. I have no objection.

Dr. BURTON. A full and complete copy of the King-Crane report does not appear in the book that the gentleman refers to.

Mr. ROSENWALD. The confidential part is there.

Dr. BURTON. That part was just put out for the use of the Americans only and that is quite an insight into the whole character of the report. It was published in December 1922, in the New York Times. I believe it was in July.

Chairman BLOOM. It was published in July 1922?

Dr. BURTON. It was published in July in the magazine called Editor and Publisher, December 2, 1922, and that has a complete report of the King-Crane committee. There were also two minority reports by Dr. William Yale and Dr. Montgomery, who differed considerably with the recommendations. The Commission was a part of an international commission, the statement of which was never clear. It was never acted upon. The report was filed, as a routine matter, in the State Department. The recommendations were never accepted and they did not have to do particularly with Palestine, but with Syria and Iran as a Near East problem.

Chairman BLOOм. Thank you. The Chair wishes to state this, that Mr. Rosenwald has asked the committee's permission to insert in the record certain material and that permission was granted. Other witnesses are privileged to submit any data that they may have for the record, and that applies to Rabbi Goldstein or anyone else who would like to insert in the record any part of any other commission report. If they ask permission the committee will take it under consideration. However, Mr. Rosenwald has received permission to put in the record any part of that report that he wishes.

Mr. SCHIFFLER. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that Mr. Rosenwald's testimony differs greatly from that of other witnesses, I would like to interrogate him.

Chairman BLOOM. It is up to Mr. Rosenwald. We will stay here as long as you want. If you take this report that I have had read from and what we have put in the record I am sure it will answer your question.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot remain any longer today, as I have to attend other matters.

Mr. MCMURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I regret I cannot stay and hear all of this today, but I must leave to attend another meeting.

Chairman BLOOм. Mr. Rosenwald, do you mind coming back in the morning?

Mr. ROSENWALD. No. I will be glad to, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BLOOM. All right. The committee will recess until 10:30 tomorrow morning.

(Thereupon the committee recessed at 5:10 p. m., until Wednesday, February 9, 1944, at 10:30 a. m.)

(Excerpts from King-Crane Report, taken from pages 448 and 449 of The Arab Awakening by George Antonius:)

E. We recommend, in the fifth place, serious modification of the extreme Zionist programme for Palestine of unlimited immigration of Jews, looking finally to making Palestine distinctly a Jewish State.

(1) The Commissioners began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in its favour, but the actual facts in Palestine, coupled with the force of the general principles proclaimed by the Allies and accepted by the Syrians have driven them to the recommendation here made.

(2) The Commission was abundantly supplied with literature on the Zionist programme by the Zionist Commission to Palestine; heard in conferences much concerning the Zionist colonies and their claims; and personally saw something of what had been accomplished. They found much to approve in the aspirations and plans of the Zionists, and had warm appreciation for the devotion of many of the colonists, and for their success, by modern methods, in overcoming great natural obstacles.

(3) The Commission recognised also that definite encouragement had been given to the Zionists by the Allies in Mr. Balfour's often-quoted statement, in its approval by other representatives of the Allies. If, however, the strict terms of the Balfour Statement are adhered to-favouring "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people", "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing nonJewish communities in Palestine'-it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist programme must be greatly modified.

For a national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conferences with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.

It is to be noted also that the feeling against the Zionist programme is not confined to Palestine, but shared very generally by the people throughout Syria, as our conferences clearly showed. More than seventy-two per cent-1,350 in all-of all the petitions in the whole of Syria were directed against the Zionist programme. Only two requests-those for a united Syria and for independencehad a larger support. This general feeling was duly voiced by the General Syrian Congress in the seventh, eighth, and tenth resolutions of the statement.

The Peace Conference should not shut its eyes to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and not lightly to be flouted. No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist programme could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the programme. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist programme, on the part of the non-Jewish populations of Palestine and Syria. Decisions requiring armies to carry out are sometimes necessary, but they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interests of serious injustice. For the initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a "right" to Palestine, based on an occupation of 2,000 years ago, can hardly be seriously considered.

(Statement submitted by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein:)

WEST SIDE INSTITUTIONAL SYNAGOGUE,
New York City, February 7, 1944.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, D. C.

(Att.: Hon. Sol Bloom.)

GENTLEMEN: Allow me to take this means to present the following to your Committee in reference to House Resolutions 418 and 419:

Certainly this is the time to reaffirm the Balfour Declaration declaring Palestine as a Homeland for the Jewish people. Palestine cannot be a Homeland to the