Mr. WRIGHT. Government for the national home or the Nation of Palestine.

Mr. WOLSEY. I am afraid that you do not answer my question. [Laughter.]

I believe on a democratic basis the country should be ruled by all the people who live in that country, and I do not believe in uniting church and State and simply reserve government to the power of the Jews. I do not believe that to be democratic.

Mr. WRIGHT. Let us get on just a moment from there. Under the present minority status of the Jews and the majority status of the Arabs with the record of terrorism which you have at the present time, do you feel if they did constitute a government there with the Arabs in the majority that the Jews would be permitted to migrate to Palestine? Mr. WOLSEY. I believe if the situation is relieved of this commonwealth and state pressure that undoubtedly the British Government might be persuaded to open the doors of Palestine and that the Arabs would be conciliated.

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, but I am talking about a government establishment.

Chairman BLOOM. Pardon me. The committee will kindly be in order and remain in order so the witness can hear the question and the committee can hear the answer.

Mr. WRIGHT. If you will pardon me, I think this is the crux of the differences between the two witnesses.

Chairman BLOOM. I want to get order for you, Mr. Wright.
Mr. WRIGHT. All right.

Do you feel if a government is established after the war with the Jewish population frozen, as it is now, and an Arab majority, do you think that the Arabs will permit further migration of Jews into Palestine?

Mr. WOLSEY. I do not know.

Mr. WRIGHT. Are you willing to take that chance? That seems to be the difference between your position and that of the other witnesses who have testified here. They feel it would be absolutely fatal to a commonwealth in Palestine if the Jews were not permitted to migrate there until they attain a majority, and then in the words of the Balfour declaration accord Arabs and Christians equal political status and rights. They feel the converse is true, and that if a government were established by the Arabs, a more or less medieval and feudal type of government, that the situation would be frozen and the Arabs would forbid any further migration to Palestine and defeat the purpose of the Balfour declaration. What do you have to say about that? Mr. WOLSEY. You ask me to speak for the Arabs?

Mr. WRIGHT. Neither am I doing so. Do you not think what I said is likely to happen?

Mr. WOLSEY. I still adhere to the original answer that if you had a democratic organization it might definitely persuade the British Government to open the doors into Palestine. Then after the doors are open you have another answer as to the majority of Arabs.

Mr. WRIGHT. Rabbi, you spoke of an Arab majority. I am talking about taking away the authority of the British mandate and allowing the majority to govern, as we do here and in other democracies, but then do you not think the Arabs would not permit further migration of Jews and thus defeat the purpose of the Balfour Declaration?

Mr. WOLSEY. I do know in the days of the Sultan the Jews and the Arabs got along in Palestine very well together. It was only after the question of state or commonwealth was created that there was also created a counter-insistence upon Arab nationalism. If they once. got along together, it is highly possible they could again. We know of a movement of Miss Henrietta Szold and Dr. Magnes in favor of trying to create peace between Jews and Arabs. Whether they succeed or not I cannot say, but I do know that has been proposed. Mr. WRIGHT. Rabbi, if I follow you, you say under the Sultan the Jews and Arabs got along. Then, when the Balfour Declaration was made and this Palestine homeland was created, trouble started and perhaps it would have been better if the Balfour Declaration had never been passed?

Mr. WOLSEY. I have not said that.

Mr. WRIGHT. Which would be a fair inference?
Mr. WOLSEY. No, it would not in my judgment.

Mr. WRIGHT. I have several more questions. I do not want to hold up the committee, but I think this is important.

I do want to call your attention to the last provision of the Balfour Declaration:

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours 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 existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by the Jews in any other country.

Now, in America all people are considered equal regardless of religion. In America probably the national character of the Jewish people is not as prominent as it is in Europe, but in Europe where Jewish people have suffered persecutions from time to time do you not feel that those persecutions have banded them together not only religiously but also nationally? Do you not feel the love of a Jew for America might be one thing, the love of a Jew for Germany might be an entirely different thing, and that the aspirations of such a Jew might be to go to this homeland and this haven where they might be wanted, whereas it would be different with the American Jew and the British Jew?

Mr. WOLSEY. If you ask me the question on the basis of the third article of the Balfour declaration let me say my objection is that it quite definitely identifies the Jew as a member of a specific nation not alone in Palestine but all over the world.

In

I have tried to say I believe Jews represent a religious community, and their contribution to the world is a religious contribution. other words, on the basis of nationalistic identity, I am looked upon as a member of a nation whose headquarters is in Palestine, and then I am subject to suspicion, alienism, and perhaps worse. Of course, I do not like to identify myself as a member of a Jewish nation because in my reading of Jewish history our nationality, if you call it that I call it a theocracy which existed twice-during that time between the first and second commonwealth, the Jews were tributary to surrounding nations. Then the Jews never revolted and never insisted upon

May I not finish my sentence?

Chairman BLOOM (interposing). The Chair would like to state we have gone on here for 2 days without any interruption, and the

witness is entitled to be heard and respected. Please do not do that again. We do not allow any applause or demonstration of any kind one way or the other, so the Chair hopes it will not happen again.

Mr. WOLSEY. Congressman, what I tried to say was that from 536 B. C. E. to about 160 B. C. E., they did not revolt against those nations because their religious liberty was protected. It was only in 165 that Syria interfered with their religious integrity and their religious prerogatives and the Jews definitely revolted against them. In other words, religion was paramount in the consciousness of those Jews, and not nationhood.

That is what I ask for now, that we shall have the right of our religious identity and that we shall be distinguished purely by considerations of religion.

I do not believe in the Jewish nationality, or that the Jew as a Jew is a member of that nation.

That represents my school of thought.

Mr. WRIGHT. May I just ask you one more question? Do you not think when you speak about the Jew, if this resolution is passed, being suspected as having a double nationality, that the American Jew will still be an American and that the British Jew will be a Briton, and that if any Jew goes to Palestine and becomes part of that commonwealth only then will he become a Palestine national? This "double citizenship" status will therefore never be present.

Mr. WOLSEY. No.

Mr. WRIGHT. Do you not think the resolution is aimed at helping people, not like the people in this country but people who have been very cruelly treated, not only in past years but, as you know better than myself, periodically during the history of the last hundred years? Mr. WOLSEY. Yes; I would agree, but I prefer there be accentuated the fact that what we need to do now is colonize Palestine and provide a home for our persecuted brethern there. In other words, it is a philanthropic situation we are confronted with. There is serious difficulty for Jews in various parts of the world. If Palestine can be a refuge, I believe in encouraging it. But I do not believe in the question of nationality, or, of course, my position in America becomes equivocal.

Mr. WRIGHT. I think it is a thing you are looking too closely at to properly consider but I respect your point of view naturally.

May I ask if most Jews in America do not hold views different to your own and views that have been more or less given here today by Rabbi Silver and several other witnesses? Would you not say the greater majority of the Jews in this country differ from you in your ideas as to what should be done with this resolution?

Mr. WOLSEY. I have not taken the statistics of public Jewish opinion and neither has anyone else. No one can answer that question as to whether it is for or against.

Mr. WRIGHT. Neither have I. I am taking the conference figures which recently met in New York representing 90 percent of the Jewish societies. They represented the members of their congregations. I took that for granted.

Mr. WOLSEY. No one can say where the majority opinion lays. I am the rabbi of a congregation in Philadelphia with something like 3,500 people, and I do not imagine there are 25 people in the entire congregation who believe as you have suggested-not 20.

Mr. WRIGHT. I should not attempt to be the spokesman of the Jewish people. I am not a Jew myself, but I am merely stating what I have reason to believe which is that the overwhelming majority of the Jews do want a Jewish home and they want their own government so they can be assured of safety against terrorism.

Mr. WOLSEY. I am not so sure that is correct. That is a subjective opinion.

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you very much.

Chairman BLOOм. Mr. Vorys.

Mr. VORYS. Rabbi, I wonder about this: You say that in Judaism the Jews are a religious community rather than a nation; is that correct?

Mr. WOLSEY. Yes.

Mr. VORYS. And I think you would agree with those who would say that the Jews are not a race, that is, the Arabs are of the same racial stock as the Jews; is not that correct?

Mr. WOLSEY. I have studied some of the statements of anthropologists and I cannot find anyone in the universities of the country who concede there is any such thing as a race in civilization, not one. The word "race" is, in my judgment, purely a social term. It does not correspond to any biological reality at all. There is no such thing as race. At all times you have had interbreedings and intermarriages of the various stocks of the world regardless of the identity of the race. And the Jew, let me say to you, from the sources of our Jewish literature, never considered himself a member of a race until the nineteenth century when he borrowed the idea of race, and may I also say of nationalism, from his environment.

Mr. VORYS. We both agree then that the Jews are not a separate race, you and I, do we not?

Mr. WOLSEY. Definitely we do not agree that they are a race.
Mr. VORYS. You say there are not any races?

Mr. WOLSEY. No; there are no races.

Mr. VORYS. I read, for instance, that the Arabs and the Jews are

Semitic people, whatever that means.

So that there is no racial

distinction involved in this Palestine question?

Mr. WOLSEY. I do not think there is.

Mr. VORYS. Now, therefore, it seems to be a religious matter, and what I wanted to ask you is whether Judaism is set up in such a way that there is a council of rabbis or a hierarchy of some kind that speaks for the Jews?

Mr. WOLSEY. You mean here in America?

Mr. VORYS. Yes; now among us here in America. Do I make myself clear?

Mr. WOLSEY. I do not quite understand; no. Are you asking whether there is such a thing as a hierarchy in the Jewish communion in America?

Mr. VORYS. Yes.

Mr. WOLSEY. Oh, definitely not.

Mr. VORYS. Definitely not?

Mr. WOLSEY. Definitely not.

Mr. VORYS. That is, you are of the so-called reform or orthodox? Mr. WOLSEY. Correct. No; I belong to the Reform school. Mr. VORYS. But among both the reformed and the orthodox group you feel sure there would be none who would say that there

is a council or hierarchy that can interpret with authority what the religion means; is that correct?

Mr. WOLSEY. No; they cannot interpret with the authority which becomes binding upon all Jews. Each man may think for himself and study for himself and give his conclusions. But those conclusions are not binding in our organizations. And there are three schools of Jewish thought and they are entirely advisory in character. They have no legislative ability of any kind whatsoever which is binding even upon themselves.

Mr. VORYS. The statement was made here yesterday by a distinguished rabbi that on such matters as whether the Jews were a race, nationality, or religion, rabbis should be consulted because they could speak with authority, and they interpreted the law, the Jewish law, to their people.

Mr. WOLSEY. That is only because they happen to be specialists in a study of the religious traditions.

Mr. VORYS. So far as you know there is not in this communion or group or in the other groups anything in the Jewish faith that would require a Jew as part of his faith and his prayers to be for a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine?

Mr. WOLSEY. There is no religious authority or any institution in Judaism that can require a Jew to believe in it or disbelieve in it. The Jew after all is an individualist upon the principles of freedom. Each Jew entertains the views which seem to him to be the true views. No one can dictate to him religiously.

Mr. VORYS. I think now that the connection between theology and the church and state is cleared up. I will yield.

Chairman BLOOM. I would like to say to you, Rabbi, of the thousands of telegrams and letters that this committee has received through the chairman there have only been several opposed to the idea of this resolution.

Mr. VORYS. In view of that and the turn the discussion has taken I would like to ask the rabbi whether, discussing this thing on a democratic basis, the consideration of this committee should be what the greatest number of Jews want or what the greatest number of Americans of all faiths want, and what is the wise thing for our country? What would you say is the test we should be applying?

Mr. WOLSEY. If you can find out their opinions of course I believe that would be valuable statistically. It has never been done.

My own experience has been, and this is entirely a personal opinion, that something like 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 Jews have not expressed themselves either one way or the other, and probably do not care to do it for reasons satisfactory to themselves.

Mr. VORYS. Have you any idea how many Jews there are in the United States?

Mr. WOLSEY. I would say 5,000,000.

Mr. VORYS. Thank you.

Chairman BLOOM. Mr. Mundt.

Mr. MUNDT. I understand in your talk with Brother Vorys over here, because it has been a bit confusing to me to hear two equally persuasive and eloquent rabbis, 'one from Cleveland and one from Philadelphia

Mr. WOLSEY (interposing). Remember I came from Cleveland, too, in a day when most of the reform congregations there believed as I do.