STATEMENT OF HON. GUY M. GILLETTE, FORMER UNITED STATES SENATOR, STATE OF IOWA

Senator GILLETTE. My name is Guy M. Gillette. I reside in Cherokee, Iowa. I am at present president of the American League for Free Palestine.

I am, however, appearing in my individual capacity, and not speaking on behalf of the organization, except relatively. In that connection, I want to thank the gentlemen of the committee for their great courtesy in permitting me to appear.

I well realize that the committee cannot hear 140,000,000 individuals who might wish to come.

I have followed as best I could, from 1,500 miles distance, the searching investigation that this committee has made in connection with this proposed legislation. And I know that the record, when it is reported embodied in your report to your full committee, and in course of time to the House, will be a document of real value to the country. I have been concerned, gentlemen, because of the fact that it seemed to me there was one phase of the matter that had not been emphasized, and it might be well a part of your report, in order to present a complete picture. And for the purpose of emphasizing that, I have presumed on your kindness in allowing me to appear and have prepared a formal statement, which you have. And because you have been considerate of me, I will abide by your wishes. I shall read it or let you include it in your record as you see fit.

Mr. GRAHAM. May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that inasmuch as all the other witnesses have read their statements, the same courtesy? Mr. FELLOWS. It is all right with us, Senator.

Mr. CHELF. Yes, Senator Gillette.

Senator GILLETTE. I am appearing before this subcommittee at a rather late stage in its hearings and after much evidence, most of it very brilliant and very cogent, has been submitted. There are, however, some aspects which have not been brought to your attention up to this moment and which I feel are important enough to justify my testifying for H. R. 2910.

I have been for the past couple of years intimately connected with the work of an American organization whose efforts have been directed, among other things, toward the repatriation of displaced Hebrews from Europe and other countries where they are subjected to discrimination and oppression, to their homeland-Palestine. I have acquired in the course of this association a considerable experience and knowledge of matters concerning the displaced Hebrews, their needs and aspirations.

Today, however, I am appearing before you as a private citizen and the opinions expressed by me will be my own and do not commit any organization or group with whom I am associated.

There are two problems which to my mind should be carefully analyzed in considering H. R. 2910:

1. The fact that some Jewish organizations in this country and individual Americans of the Jewish faith have testified or declared in favor of the bill may lead to confusion. It may create the impression that the bill is intended to offer, or would in fact offer, a solution to the problem of displaced Hebrews in Europe and in other regions

where they are subjected to discrimination and oppression. I wish to restate most emphatically what was stated before by some witnesses, Gen. John H. Hilldring among others, that (a) the displaced Hebrews in Europe constitute only 20 percent of the total number of unrepatriable displaced persons; and (b) that the overwhelming majority-I might even say, all of them with a very few exceptions-do not wish to emigrate to the United States and have expressly stated so on several occasions when polls were conducted among them and the question asked was to what country would they choose to emigrate. Ninety-five percent of the displaced Hebrews in the camps of Europe declared that the only country to which they wanted to be repatriated was Palestine, which they consider their only homeland and which was recognized as the homeland of the Hebrew people by the League of Nations mandate given to Great Britain, and to which the United States became a party through the Anglo-American Convention approved by Congress in 1924.

It is, therefore, of paramount importance that the consideration of this bill should not be taken to mean that admission to the United States of a certain number of displaced persons could even in part substitute for the only solution to the problem of displaced Hebrews in Europe; their repatriation to their homeland, Palestine.

2. Secretary of State Marshall in his statement on the policy of the United States on the repatriation of displaced persons said:

It is the fixed policy of the United States Government to oppose any forced repatriation of displaced persons. It is also the policy of our Government to facilitate the repatriation of those displaced persons who desire of themselves to return to their homelands. This is in conformity with the principles approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

The current repatriation program sponsored jointly by UNRRA and the armies of occupation was approved by the United States Government prior to its initiation, based on the voluntary desire of the individual to return to his home. Any coercion of displaced persons under our jurisdiction would not be tolerated. No instances of coercion have been brought to our attention, although one-half of the program has already been completed.

It is my opinion that the solution for this tragic situation demands that the democratic countries of the world join in offering sanctuary to these displaced individuals. Further, it is my opinion that the United States should take the lead in this matter.

I wish respectfully to draw your attention to the situation of the displaced Hebrews in the light of Secretary Marshall's statement. Here is a group of people who desire to be repatriated to their homeland and who are being kept by coercion in concentration camps and forcibly prevented from repatriating themselves to their homelandPalestine. This heartless treatment is being inflicted on the Hebrews by sheer force of arms, with the British Navy and Air Force patrolling the Mediterranean Sea and the approaches to the shores of Palestine, intercepting any vessel carrying Hebrew repatriates to Palestine and brutally herding them onto prison ships. They are then interned on the island of Cyprus in concentration camps where conditions are even more appalling than those prevailing in the concentration camps of Europe. Thus they are prevented by force from exercising the legal option to dwell in their historic homeland, Palestine.

Not only are those displaced Hebrews denied all help in their efforts to repatriate themselves under the program referred to by the Secretary of State, but their repatriation, sponsored and initiated by the

efforts of humanitarian and charitable organizations in this country and in other countries, is being thwarted by the worst kind of coercion which our Secretary of State so rightly disclaimed on behalf of the Government of the United States.

It is, therefore, my opinion that your committee should draw the attention of our Government to this violation of our stated policy, and submit to it instances of flagrant coercion now being exercised against the Hebrews. Such coercion has the effect of forcing upon the Hebrew survivors the status of displaced persons in violation of all consideration of international law and humanity. Also, your committee must suggest to our Government steps to put an end to this inhuman and cruel treatment of displaced Hebrews who, by their own efforts and heroism, seek to repatriate themselves to Palestine and strive for a normal peaceful status. The crime which Hitler committed against these people is equalled by the crime now being committed in deliberately withholding from the Hebrew people their right of self-determination.

I further suggest that while considering this bill your committee should prevail upon our Government, in accordance with the policy stated by the Secretary of State, to instruct the army of occupation and our military government in the United States zones of occupation to facilitate the repatriation of displaced Hebrews to Palestine in the same manner and to the same extent in which other "displaced persons who desire of themselves to return to their homelands" are being helped under the current repatriation program.

In summing up, I should like to state: It is impossible, indeed, to solve the problem of displaced persons, on one hand, and to assist those who are sabotaging the solution, on the other hand.

The problem of the displaced Hebrews in Europe is an organic and integral part of the Palestine issue. The Government of the United States, by its failure to oppose the coercive measures by which the British Government prevents the repatriation of Hebrews to their homeland, is condoning violations of its own stated policy with regard to displaced persons. Further, it is assuming moral and financial responsibility for the consequences of British policy with regard to the Hebrews.

Had we implemented our statements of sympathy and lofty avowals of the principle by assisting the repatriation of the Hebrews to Palestine, this problem would be well on its way to solution at present, instead of a continuing burden to the American taxpayer.

We must stop trying to ride with the hunter and run with the fox. We have a clear-cut obligation to the citizens of America as well as to the embattled Hebrew people to adopt an honest and courageous solution to the problem of displaced persons. It is getting very late. Only swift, bold action can avert a complete tragedy, and permit us to live in peace with our own conscience.

Mr. Chairman, may I very briefly supplement the statement?
Mr. FELLOWs. Yes, sir.

Senator GILLETTE. Mr. Chairman, recently, quite recently, I was in London and talked with the members of the Government, both the Government and the opposition. I have been in Lebanon and talked with the President of Lebanon, and with leaders in Palestine.

And almost invariably, when this question is discussed, the admission of this proportion of displaced persons to Palestine, the question is asked:

Well, why doesn't America open her doors? You want us to change the policy we have adopted with reference to Palestine. But why don't you open your doors and let the people in?

Mr. FELLOWS. May I interrupt you there?
Senator GILLETTE. Yes.

Mr. FELLOWS. What people are you referring to?

Senator GILLETTE. The displaced people, the Hebrews, particularly, that are specifically prevented from entering Palestine, the country of their choice.

Mr. FELLOWs. You do not have reference to the 850,000?

Senator GILLETTE. No, sir. I am speaking specifically of the Hebrew element of that population, who, on the report of Mr. Earl Harrison, who was sent to Europe to investigate, some 90 or 93 percent, expressed the desire to go to Palestine, but are prevented by the restrictive policy.

Mr. FELLOWS. Do you think we their wishes?

should bring them here against

Senator GILLETTE. Certainly not. And to me that is the vital question, the right of self-determination. Here is a segment of people who are denied the fundamental foundation of things that we have gone on record as being willing to accord everywhere in the world.

With respect to this legislation, were I still a Member of Congress, I should vote for it, I believe, but I am afraid that this legislation is the result of this continual pressure, "Why don't you change your immigration laws and allow some of these people to come to your country?" again referring to the Hebrews.

Mr. GRAHAM. Senator Gillette, may I interrupt you at that point? Senator GILLETTE. Of course.

Mr. GRAHAM. Do you, in your knowledge of conditions that you have found by these personal visits and conversations, believe that this problem can be solved within the framework of the United Nations? Senator GILLETTE. I certainly do.

Mr. GRAHAM. You do?

Senator GILLETTE. I do, if the United Nations will use the power that it has. I do not believe that it will be solved merely by appointing commissions of inquiry and paying no attention to their report.

Mr. FELLOWS. Now, yesterday the House passed a bill whereby we are to join the International Refugee Organization.

Senator GILLETTE, Yes.

Mr. FELLOWS. That is a step in the right direction?

Senator GILLETTE. Definitely; definitely so. The thing that I wanted in the record, and perhaps am presumptuous in so doing, is this: I wanted your record to show, comprehensive as it is, that even if this legislation is passed in the form in which it has been introduced, or with such amendments as you gentlemen choose to recommend, it will not meet the situation that now obtains, whereby these people are denied

Mr. ROBSION. You mean, as far as the Jewish people are concerned? Senator GILLETTE. As far as the Hebrew element is concerned. Mr. ROBSION. Now, the distinguished Senator served many years ably in the United States Senate.

Senator GILLETTE. Not ably, but many years.

Mr. ROBSION. Well, you are regarded as being an able Senator and a distinguished Senator.

Now, will the gentleman suggest in what way this bill could be amended to meet his suggestions?

Senator GILLETTE. I do not believe, Mr. Robsion, that this bill could be amended to meet that situation.

Mr. ROBSION. Now, the next question, then, is this:

What power have we under the Constitution or under our form of government to force Great Britain or other countries to accept the Hebrew people in Palestine? Could it be done short of force? Senator GILLETTE. Oh, yes. I do not want to burden your record, but in answer to that question, may I state clearly what I believe? In 1924 we entered into a bilateral treaty with Great Britain, setting out the terms of the mandate, as agent of the 52 nations of the world, that Great Britain is operating in Palestine.

Mr. CELLER. And before that, we accepted the mandate.

Senator GILLETTE. We accepted the mandate before that; that is right, Mr. Celler. But in 1924 this mandate, or this agency, of Great Britain enjoined her, as the agent of the 52 powers of the world, to facilitate the immigration of Hebrews into Palestine and their settlement on the land, with the added injunction that there should be no change in that policy without prior consultation and approval of the council of the League of Nations.

In 1924, we, not having ratified the covenant of the League of Nations, entered into this bilateral treaty with Great Britain setting out the mandate word for word with its policy, endorsing it and underwriting it as a treaty agreement, with the added provision that no change should be made in that policy without the prior approval of the United States.

Great Britain, for reasons of her own, changed the policy, and slammed the doors of Palestine in the face of further immigration of Jews.

Mr. GRAHAM. May I interrupt at that point?

Senator GILLETTE. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Do you feel there was any justification on the part of Great Britain to change the policy, in view of the Arab situation? Senator GILLETTE. From my personal investigation over there, and conversations with the Arabs, I feel there was none. But whether there was or not, she did not consult with the United States as she was required to do under our treaty.

Mr. CELLER. Senator, will you yield there?

Senator GILLETTE. Yes; of course.

Mr. CELLER. In answer to the question propounded by our distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, is it not a fact, when you speak of the white paper of 1939 which closed the doors to Jewish immigration into Palestine, that that white paper was condemned as illegal by the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations?

Senator GILLETTE. If she had attempted to secure the approval of the mandate of the League of Nations, as she was required to do and did not do it, she never, as she was required to do by the treaty provisions, sought the approval of the United States.

And in answer to Mr. Robsion's question as to what can be done, in my humble opinion, as a former Member of Congress, there is