divided between the British and the Americans, with the latter having somewhat the advantage.34

However, disregarding the petitions which are in any case worthless from the scientific point of view, and granting that the King-Crane recommendations truly reflected the opinion of the greater part of politically minded Syrians and Palestinians, and furthermore assuming that the general attitude of the large masses in Palestine, illiterate and inarticulate, was in harmony with the views of their self-appointed leaders, the question still remains whether in the circumstances in the Near East the wishes of the majority of the population could at the time be taken as the sole and determining factor. In all of the discussions at Paris, even in accordance with the view of President Wilson, the wishes of the peoples concerned were regarded as one factor, not the only factor. In their first memorandum to President Wilson in Paris the King-Crane Commission, then acting unanimously, recognized that there were other considerations, and it is clear that when Wilson agreed to send the commission, he assumed that the Balfour declaration would be honored.

The main fault of that part of the King-Crane report which deals with Palestine does not lie in its much criticized procedures, however inadequate these may have been. It is their whole approach ot the problem of Zionism that is open to question. Since the commission was acting as an international agency, an impartial and objective approach would have required their looking at Palestine in its international framework, giving consideration to the Jewish interest, along with the other claims. The Commissioners responsible for the report seemed to forget that the Allied Nations, whom they supposedly represented, had, after much discussion over a period of years, undertaken definite commitments with reference to the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine which could not in honor and in justice be evaded. The report was a partial report in the literal sense, that it gave due consideration to only one part of the issue,

Furthermore-and this is really the main point-The King-Crane Commission's proposals were unworkable and self-contradictory in the light of the practical situation at the time. The preferred solution was that the United States should undertake the mandate for Syria and Palestine. This was a fruitless recommendation since the United States was not ready to accept the mandate as was fairly well established at the time that the Commission made its report. But even if the United States had been prepared to undertake the mandate, the problem of reconciling the Arab demand for complete self-determination with the promise of the Balfour Declaration would have stood with its difficulties. Only a few weeks prior to the appointment of the Commission, Wilson had made his famous statement saying, "I am persuaded that the Allied Nations, with the fullest concurrence of our Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of the Jewish Commonwealth." Indeed the American under

standing of the Balfour Declaration at this time was, if anything, more favorable to the Zionist interpretation than that of cautious British opinion. The British on their part, who were the second choice, certainly could not accept the mandate without the Balfour Declaration, since it was the issuance of the Balfour Declaration which had given them a claim to the mandate for Palestine.

The recommendations of the King-Crane Commission were essentially irresponsible since they made recommendations that no one would, or could, carry out. The major effect was calculated to weaken the French position and to strengthen the hand of Great Britain, but could not lead to any constructive solution. This is well brought out in the comment made by Prof. William Earnest Hocking. He says: 35

"But in Syria, the effect was not nil. Such an enquiry has a logic which works in spite of itself. If men are offered a choice of supervisors, it becomes evident that they are to have supervisors. They may express their preference for independence; and do so in dominant numbers. But they are prepared for something less. But again, if they are offered a choice of supervisors, it is certainly implied that they have a choice, that the possibilities set before them are not mythical. If it is already determined that France is to govern here, and Britain there,

34 With reference to this advantage, Sir Ronald Storrs (Orientations, p. 417) says as follows: "When it is remembered that to the anticipating Eastern mind the nationality of the Commission (apart from the known wealth and rumored liberalism of America) predetermined that of the Mandatory, it will be understood that these findings were more favorable to Great Britain than would be gathered from a literal reading of their text."

35 William Earnest Hocking, The Spirit of World Politics, The MacMillan Company, New York, 1932, p. 255. Professor Hocking's comment is all the more interesting in view of his sympathy with the Arab point of view.

it is misleading to ask people to choose between them, or between them and others. It it is not certain that the United States will accept a mandate in those regions, it is misleading to present the United States as one of the possible advisers. Unless there is some possibility that those choices shall count, the work of such an enquiry as that of the King-Crane Commission can hardly be other than mischievous.

"In the event, the work of the Commission, not discovering that France was the spontaneous choice of inner Syria, added materially to the difficulties of France in Syria. It was, so far, mischievous.

"Whether the blame must rest on Wilson for sending the bootless Commission, or on France for insisting on the obtaining which her professions had discountenanced, may remain open."

That the late George Antonius-outstanding Arab protagonist, whose book is affectionately dedicated to Mr. Crane, "aptly nicknamed Harun-al-Rashid"should have characterized the report as a "wholly objective analysis" 36 is altogether understandable. It is, however, surprising in the light of the facts which he presents that Professor Howard should come to the conclusion that by appointing the King-Crane Commission "President Wilson made a genuinely challenging contribution to the technique of peace making," 37 which should serve as a precedent for the future. In support of his view as to the value of commissions which examine situations on the spot, Professor Howard points to the British commissions which had been sent out to various regions in the Empire.

It would appear, however, that the differences between the type of commission represented by the King-Crane investigation and the British commissions are more striking than are the similarities. When the British intended to appoint their section of the Inter-Allied Commission they chose as the responsible heads Sir Henry McMahon and Captain Hogarth who were not only experts in Near Eastern affairs, but who had been principals in previous negotiations with the Arabs. They were, moreover, officers responsible to the British Government. How different is this from Wilson's notion of sending "men with no previous contact with Syria." There is, of course, much to be said for the approach of the layman who may view the situation with a fresh outlook, but obviously where the opinion is not mingled with the knowledge of the expert, it is the more likely to be influenced by pressure groups and propaganda. Nor in other respects was there any resemblance between the methods of the King-Crane Commission and those usually followed in appointing British commissions. The British commissions are appointed by well worked out procedures under legal authority. The KingCrane Commission was a personal appointment by the President as a result of pressure from the Arab side-despite strong differences of opinion concerning the value of such a commission. The main point, however, is that no one regards the British commissions as being purely scientific investigations, even though they frequently develop a considerable amount of objective data. The commissions do not pretend to be concerned only or mainly with the welfare of native inhabitants; their purpose is to solve problems that have arisen and their main purpose is to enable His Majesty's Government to administer territories under their control with the least amount of friction. Their purpose is practical, and they do not indulge in recommendations which are obviously unworkable in the first instance. A commission appointed to study the social, economic, and political conditions of the Near East could certainly make a contribution to the solution of the postwar problems, if it were conducted in a scientific spirit, under clear terms of political reference. It is obvious that whatever of science and expert knowledge the KingCrane Commission had at its disposal was made secondary to political wishful thinking. It cannot be seriously maintained that the hasty tour of the KingCrane Commission through Palestine during the summer of 1919 constituted an objective analysis of the situation which confronted the peace conference at the time, or that the procedure followed in its appointment and its method of investigation could possibly do anything but harm in the future consideration of the problem.

Mr. HELLER. The King-Crane Commission reported to Mr. Wilson, as I recall, in 1919. It was after the report was made that Mr. Wilson went to Paris and helped in the incorporation of the Balfour Federation into the policy of 52 nations. Therefore, the King-Crane report, was

36 The Arab Awakening, p. 296.

17 Op. cit., p. 146.

95149-441R

only one expression of people who had a special point of view and is in contrast to all the other material on this subject that is available. It is very difficult to find anything in which no factors have to be differentiated from the rest.

One of the things which I think troubles my friends is the establishment of a commonwealth in Palestine which will not somehow impair rights in this country. I think the assurance ought to be given to our friends, that no one proposes citizenship or political fealty on the part of any one else who lives anywhere else in the world.

There was an attempt in 1918 and 1919 to restore Czechoslovakia as a free state in which many sections participated in Chicago and other parts of the country.

There is simply a belief on the part of a great number of Jews that this will be for those who want a new free life. There is no political aspiration in it for themselves. They will have a share in its future attainment, but it does not signify their political position will be impaired.

Equally, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen, I feel to call this a philosophy of defeatism is an inversion of the facts. As I shall try to explain in a moment this is quite the contrary to the fact.

We favor this resolution because of the great human project which is behind it.

I would like to call once more to the attention of the committee what these gentlemen favor is not merely the limitation of the resolution which is now before this committee but also the cancelation of the promises that have been made to the Jewish people. The discussion by Mr. Wright here was straight to the point.

The Balfour Declaration, as interpreted by Mr. Lloyd George, by Mr. Churchill at the time before he became Foreign Secretary, and numerous other Great Britons like Lord Robert Cecil will prove it was intended to set up in Palestine a majority of Jews by the facilitation of immigration until a point when they could constitute a self-governing community. This is a reaffirmation of that hope. It does involve making explicit what was not before. Its original meaning seems to be quite clear as to national ambitions so that we should like to see whatever documents come out of this war much clearer in their significance in regard to Palestine.

I think one of the most important questions raised before this committee is the contention as to transporting Jews to Palestine that the gates be opened to them of that country, holding out the hope when the proper moment arrives they shall become self-governing as every other people on earth wish to become. Our friends contend that Jews in lands of persecution should stay where they are after the war. I should like to deal with that for a moment because I think that is important. First of all, if we accepted that principle as a generalization then there would be no United States of America. Our forefathers should have stayed where they were in England, Holland, or in France, and continued to fight for the time when there should have been full democratic principles there.

Every thoughtful person distinguishes between short-time and long-time objectives. Some day there will be complete democracy and equality all over the world. I regret to say that is not going to be in our time. I do not believe it is even going to be after the war, because, Mr. Chairman, we have before us the example of the last war, as I think has been said, when clauses were written into the treaties

to achieve precisely the same objective. Unfortunately, it proved futile. In the case of some countries like Poland the ink was hardly dry before pogroms were in progress, taking out from under the Jewish community the very basis for its very precarious existence. We are afraid, and in fact we feel confident, this is a fear which cannot be overlooked with the long experience that is behind it.

There is going to be a tremendous pressure to insist that this problem has to be solved in these countries, which is fearfully inhuman, as it would have been to say to the Pilgrim Fathers: Stay in England rather than to seek a refuge on the rock-bound coast of New England. We want the chance for a new life for these people. If we could have gotten them out in Palestine, if the gates had been wide open from 1922 to 1939 I think there would have been a million or two Jews there now who would be alive, whereas now they lie in graves into which they have been thrown from starvation, gas, and machinegun bullets.

I trust, therefore, ladies and gentlemen and Mr. Chairman, that the committee will face the facts, and that it will not let itself be confused by ideological discussions. It will bear in mind the overwhelming majority of Jews of this country I think, those who sympathize with their brothers abroad, feel that this is one thing that already stands upon the statutes of the world, and one which must be a part of any democratic charter that will come out of this.

Last of all, I have with me a book compiled from the addresses of Mr. Justice Louis D. Brandeis, who, I think it may be admitted, was one of the foremost Americans of our day, and who gave great service to his country and his people. Mr. Brandeis wrote repeatedly some of the very things to which you have been listening and spoke of the fear of some American Jews and the distinction made between Americanism and Jewish nationalism. If I may have the right, Mr. Chairman, I should like to put into the record also these addresses of Mr. Brandeis in the sections which I have marked.

Chairman BLOOм. How much is it?

Mr. HELLER. There are not more than about 10 paragraphs included in here.

Mrs. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question at that point? Chairman BLOOM. Without objection it is so ordered.

(The excerpts above referred to in the book entitled "Brandeis on Zionism, by Louis D. Brandeis," are as follows:)

(P. 24-25:) Zionism seeks to establish in Palestine, for such Jews as choose to go and remain there, and for their descendents, a legally secured home, where they may live together and lead a Jewish life, where they may expect ultimately to constitute a majority of the population, and may look forward to what we should call home rule. The Zionists seek to establish this home in Palestine because they are convinced that the undying longing of Jews for Palestine is a fact of deepest significance; that it is a manifestation in the struggle for existence by an ancient people which has established its right to live, a people whose 3,000 years of civilization has produced a faith, culture, and individuality which enable it to contribute largely in the future, as it has in the past, to the advance of civilization; and that it is a right not merely but a duty of the Jewish nationality to survive and develop. They believe that only in Palestine can Jewish life be fully protected from the forces of distintegration; that there alone can the Jewish spirit reach its full and natural development; and that by securing for those Jews who wish to settle there the opportunity to do so, not only those Jews, but all other Jews will be benefited, and that the long-perplexing Jewism problem will, at last, find solution.

(P. 28:) Let no American imagine that Zionism is inconsistent with patriotism. Multiple loyalties are objectionable only if they are inconsistent. A man is a

better citizen of the United States for being also a loyal citizen of his State and of his city; for being loyal to his family, and to his profession or trade; for being loyal to his college or his lodge. Every Irish American who contributed toward advancing home rule was a better American for the sacrifice he made. Every American Jew who aids in advancing the Jewish settlement in Palestine, though he feels that neither he nor his descendants will ever live there, will likewise be a better man and a better American for doing so.

(P. 29:) Indeed, loyalty to America demands rather that each American Jew become a Zionist. For only through the ennobling effect of its strivings can we develop the best that is in us and give to this country the full benefit of our great inheritance. The Jewish spirit, so long preserved, the character developed by so many centuries of sacrifice, should be preserved and developed further, so that in America, as elsewhere, the sons of the race may in future live lives and do deeds worthy of their ancestors.

(P. 33-34:) Our fellow Americans are infused with a high and generous spirit, which insures approval of our struggle to ennoble, liberate, and otherwise improve the condition of an important part of the human race, and their innate manliness makes them sympathize particularly with our efforts at self-help. America's detachment from the old world problem relieves us from suspicions and embarrassments frequently attending the activities of Jews of rival European countries. And a conflict between American interests or ambitions and Jewish aims is not conceivable. Our loyalty to America can never be questioned.

Chairman BLOOM. Go ahead, Mrs. Rogers.

Mrs. ROGERS. Did Mr. Justice Brandeis speak of a Jewish commonwealth?

Mr. HELLER. Yes, repeatedly. He was strongly of the opinion that no project could succeed unless it moved toward this goal. Chairman BLOOM. Continue, Rabbi. Is that all?

Mr. HELLER. Mr. Chairman, only this: I just want to thank the committee for the splendid friendliness and open-mindedness which characterize them, and thank them for the opportunity of speaking what is in my heart, which is a part of my religion as a Jew and a part of my belief for that justice and that helpfulness which is part of the justice of America.

Chairman BLOOм. Mr. McMurray.

Mr. MCMURRAY. No questions. I would like to thank Rabbi Heller for giving us a very clear picture of this situation and clearing up in my mind a good many questions that have been raised.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BLOOM. Mrs. Rogers.

Mrs. ROGERS. Rabbi, I am very much interested in your very able statement. At the Zionists' meetings you have taken up always the advisability of having this resolution passed at this time during the war?

Mr. HELLER. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. You analyzed that?

Mr. HELLER. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. And went into that very fully?

Mr. HELLER. This will be of very great value when the House and Senate come to consider the treaties to be made and when the policy of the United Nations comes to be made. It will be quite a step toward the establishment of world peace.

Mrs. ROGERS. Did you work upon the provisions of your resolution in your conferences to be exact?

Mr. HELLER. The resolution as read is an expression in more concise form than many of the resolutions adopted by many groups. Mrs. ROGERS. But you did not pass upon it?

Mr. HELLER. No.