Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):

Mr. Speaker, during the time at my disposal this afternoon I intend to discuss external affairs, first, because I happen to be a member of the committee on external affairs; second, because the house seldom, if ever, has the opportunity of discussing external affairs; third, because of certain developments which are taking place in the world today, and last, because of a statement that was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) just before this house met after the Christmas adjournment. According to the press report on January 20, the Prime Minister is reported as follows:

The world was in an "appallingly dangerous condition" today. "Let us not speak of having entered upon an era of peace," Mr. King warned, "where all about us are evidences of strife."

Then the day before yesterday the leader of the C.C.F. party directed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) in these words, as reported at page 1282 of Hansard:

In view of the grave warning by the Palestine commission to the security council yesterday that " tragic and dangerous precedent" will be established if force or the threat of force is allowed to thwart the decision of the united nations, is the government prepared to accept its share of responsibility in such action as may be taken by the security council wi th the view to averting further bloodshed in Palestine and implementing the assembly decision?

I do not intend to read the answer made by the minister; neither shall I attempt to interpret it. But apparently it has caused speculation in the press. If, as some people seem to think, it means that Canada is to be committed to armed intervention in Palestine, I wish to put on record at this time the fact that I am absolutely opposed to it. May I 5849-89i

refer to a speech that I made in this house two years ago last December. On December 17, 1945, speaking on external affairs, I said, as reported at page 3706 of Hansard:

I have no brief for either Arabs or Jews-

I should have said "Zionists" there.

-but it seems to me that the public hears only the Zionist arguments, never the Arab side of the question. As I have said, I have no brief for either side; my sole concern is to establish the truth, for just as truth and freedom are indivisible, so mutual faith in the given word is the basis of friendship, individual and international. Once that faith is destroyed or even impaired, trust and friendship turn to suspicion and hatred. But instead of historic fact, the Zionists base their case on racial, cultural and commercial superiority. These claims on behalf of a favoured nation and a chosen people are upheld especially by leftists and internationalists, by the very pe iple who denounce racism and nationalism. They also are the people who claim especially to be the world's peacemakers but who, in the face of continued and fatal rioting in Palestine, are going out of their way to embarrass Great Britain in her efforts to maintain peace by encouraging tolerance by both Arab and Jew.

Then a little later on in my speech I said:

Quite recently it was reported that the national leader of the C.C.F. at a public meeting in Washington, "urged the immediate opening of Palestine for Jewish immigration to the fullest possible extent so as to provide a refuge from the terror of their persecutors." In the light of the present critical conditions in Palestine, I would ask the leader of the C.C.F.: Can he assure us in making those demands that he is promoting the interests of world peace? Does he realize that such demands are calculated to embarrass Great Britain and if insisted on may lead to a clash of interests between the British empire, the United States of America and the U.S.S.R.? In the event of war in Palestine and the near east, is he prepared to commit Canadians to active service in such a war? If not, whom would he expect to fight it?

Those are the words I spoke here two years ago last December, I think subsequent events have justified what I then said. The question of partition is the one question which has come before the UNO upon which Russia is in agreement.

Mr. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):

That is not so.

Mr. JAQUES:

I think that is a significant fact. On the other hand the British government-and I am not going to quote the exact words-made it plain enough that they are against partition. They are against the use of force and they are not in agreement with any settlement which involves the use of force. I cannot help wondering why it was that this government should have taken sides against the British government.

Mr. HARTT:

Thirty-three other nations did so.

The Address-Mr. Jaques

Mr. JAQUES:

Well, I may come to that later on. I am making the statement that the British government-who have in all probability forgotten more about Palestine and the near east than all the rest of the nations put together-have refused to be a party to this partition.

Mr. HARTT:

Certainly. They wanted Arab oil. It is oil, not Arabs. That is what it means. It is not the principle; it is the oil.

Mr. BROOKS:

The United States wants votes.

Mr. JAQUES:

I do not want to be personal, and I am not making a political speech. I do not even know that I have the agreement of everyone in this corner of the house. I was going to say that it does strike me as odd that the leaders of the C.C.F. were prompt enough to hail the labour victory in Great Britain as a victory for the C.C.F., but why is it that after two years or so of labour government in Great Britain the C.C.F. now are backing the policies of capitalist United States and are opposed to the foreign policies of the labour government of Great Britain? I think that is a good question.

Mr. KNOWLES:

Would the hon. member permit a question?

Mr. JAQUES:

Well, I have quite a lot to get through, but all right.

Mr. KNOWLES:

It is a very short question. Is the hon. member aware of the fact that there is now before the world a decision taken by the united nations, and that it was in support of this decision that the leader of this group asked his question the other day?

Mr. JAQUES:

Yes, but my point is that before the decision was taken the British had no support, as far as I know, from either the government of this country or the C.C.F. party; and as far as Canadians themselves are concerned, according to a recent Gallup poll, while some fifty per cent of the people expressed no opinion, only nineteen per cent expressed sympathy with the Zionist cause. It was stated in the press that when the minister gave his answer yesterday there was applause from all corners of the house. Well, I wish it to be understood that I did not add to the applause; and I must say it was about the loudest silence I have heard for a long time. It must have been in a comer, because I heard very little of it. I do not wish to pose as an expert on this question, but I intend to put on record opinions which have been published by eminent Jews in the United States. I have been accused of anti-semitism and racial extremism because of my stand

on this Palestine question. So I am going to put on record the statements of two American Zionists one of whom, Albert Kahn, visited this country a year ago and addressed a series of meetings. I take this short quotation from the press of that time. He said "the British in Palestine were worse than the nazis and should be driven into the sea". "Antisemitism and fascism were raging in North America", and "the Jews must look to the Soviet Union for protection through the labour unions". I should say that is a libel on the majority of Jews.

I have here a copy of PM which I bought when I was in New York a year ago, containing an advertisement written by Ben Hecht, who is certainly a nationally known Zionist. I am not going to read it all, but it contains these words:

Every time you blow up a British arsenal, or wreck a British jail, or send a British railroad train sky high, or rob a British bank or let go with your guns and bombs at the British betrayers' and invaders of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts.

I say that is another libel on the majority of Jews; but certainly Mr. Hecht is a Zionist and a very strong one. That, I should say, is an example of racial extremism. Now I have a page out of National Affairs; I have not the date, but it was some time last summer. It bears a photograph, under which there is the title "U.S. Zionist in action." This Zionist is busy writing on the wall of the British consulate in New York the words "British following the nazis" and then painting the swastika on the building, and this occurred in other cities as well. That is another example, I would say, of racial extremism.

Let me now quote the words of one who was highly respected and eminent among the Jews in the United States, though he is dead now. I refer to the late Henry Morgenthau, senior. In his autobiography "All in a Lifetime", Mr. Morgenthau devoted a chapter to this question of political Zionism. He said:

Zionism is the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history. I assert that it is wrong in principle and impossible of realization; that it is unsound in its economics, fantastical in its politics, and sterile in its spiritual ideals. . , . The very fervour of my feeling for the oppressed of every race and every land, especially for the Jews, those of my own blood and faith, to whom I am bound by every tender tie, impels me to fight with all the greater force against this scheme, which my intelligence tells me can only lead them deeper into the mire of the past, while it professes to be leading them to the heights. Zionism is a surrender, not a solution. It is a retrogression into the blackest error, and not progress toward the light. I will go further, and say that it is a betrayal; it is an eastern European proposal, fathered in this

The Address-Mr. Jaques

country by American Jews, which, if it were to succeed, would cost the Jews of America most that they have gained in liberty,, equality and fraternity.

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Would the hon. member say what he is quoting from?

Mr. JAQUES:

I thought I had done so. It was from Mr. Morgenthau's autobiography "All in a Lifetime." I tried to get it in the library but apparently they do not have it, though they promised to get a copy.

Now I come to the opinion of Mr. Benjamin Freedman, who is still living, of course, and who is an eminent Jew in the United States. He wrote an article which was published by the national economic council, incorporated, 350 Fifth avenue, New York; and this letter is dated October 15, 1947. This is what Mr. Freedman says on this question:

The threat of political Zionism to the welfare and security of America is little realized. It is a dangerous mistake to think of it as a localized, Arab-Jewish struggle. There may soon take place in Palestine an explosion that will set off another world war. Every American citizen, every head of a family, all members of Christian churches, every non-Zionist Jew, should be brought to understand that the consequences can be fatally disastrous.

The influence of the Zionist organization reaches into the inner policy-making groups of nearly every government in the world-particularly into the Christian west. This influence causes these groups to adopt pro-Zionist policies which are often in conflict with the reai interests of the peoples they govern.

And further:

This utterly immoral and unjust policy is producing an unanticipated result. An explosion is brewing and, as it approaches. Christian supporters of Zionism in our government

That was the United States government, of course-

-are almost panic-stricken. Yet they fear to reverse their position lest the democratic party be stigmatized by Zionists as "anti-semitic".

Then he adds that the next election is only a year away. Mr. Freedman then goes on to say:

The ability of Zionists to have things their way stems from the organized pressure they can bring upon people who do not agree with them. By holding the threat of being called "anti-semitic" over men engaged in public or business life, they have been able to stifle opposition-even among American Jews such as the writer, who have no interest in forming a Jewish state and wish only to live and die as good Americans. It will take courage for Americans of whatever origin to think these facts through and take public positions upon them. They will be smeared. They will be slandered. Already, Zionists have been able to bring about the economic ruin of many Christians and Jews who have dared challenge

their right to claim Palestine for a national Jewish state. But America and American Christianity stand at a crossroad. The majority must decide whether it will longer submit to being the tool of a small but ruthless and unscrupulous minority of a minority people. The great majority of American Jews also must choose. Will we all acquiesce in the program of political Zionism? Will we follow it out to its inescapable consequences?

If we do, we shall be walking the road to ruin.

I could speak with sympathy and from personal experience as to the truth of what Mr. Freedman says about the smear of antisemitism raised against those who are opposed to the policy of political Zionism. One reason I am speaking here this afternoon is that I have been refused space in the press. Only last week I wrote a broadcast which consisted chiefly of the quotations I have just placed on record. That broadcast was to have been given last Sunday in Edmonton. However I received a letter yesterday to say that the station refused to broadcast it.

Mr. SINCLAIR:

Is that from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?

Mr. JAQUES:

I do not know (he inner workings of radio. This was station CJCA in Edmonton, a private station. However, I should think the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would be even less tolerant,

Mr. SINCLAIR:

Oh, no.

Mr. JAQUES:

That is my opinion of the C.B.C.

Mr. HARTT:

They have a little bit of sanity; they are not all insane.

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Maybe that is why they will not let it go over the air.