Слике страница

Mr. President, to me, this is a matter of the gravest character. Congress is trying to enact a program that will provide for every citizen the full enjoyment of his constitutional rights, no more, no less. From my own standpoint, I have fought for the provision of constitutional rights for every minority group since the first day I entered public office. Men who are now speaking on this issue were silent when I was one of the vigorous proponents of the fact that our country cannot survive if the opportunity of having a full enjoyment of those rights written into the Declaration of Independence and into the Constitution of the United States by the forefathers and creators of this Nation is not given to every citizen.

I will not attempt to enumerate the fights which I made. I was the first Governor of Ohio to appoint a Negro judge. I was the first to appoint a second Negro judge. I was the first to assist vigorously in the appointment of a third Negro judge.

As mayor of Cleveland, I broke the barrier that prohibited and made it impossible for a Negro to become a fireman. The whites argued that they would not live in the same building with the Negroes. The Civil Service Commission did not have the audacity to challenge that claim. I ordered the Commission

to give the Negro the appointment because he was at the top of the list.

As mayor, I broke the barrier in the electric light and water departments against hiring Negroes to occupy the position of watermeter readers. It was argued that white families would not permit Negroes to enter their houses to read the watermeters and the electric meters. I did not believe the argument was sound. I issued the order that the hirings should be made, and they were made.

I was primarily responsible for the hiring of numerous Negroes in the government-operated transportation system in Cleveland. If one goes to Cleveland now, he will see buses operated by Negro men and women bus operators.

During the war, from 1942 to 1944, while I was mayor, I went into plant after plant, arguing for the equal rights of the Negro to have work.

So when I speak on the subject, I do not do so with a background that is not favorable and friendly to the achievement of the ultimate position that there shall not be discrimination against anyone in our country.

The question arises: "How should I feel in the face of this claim by Mr. Robinson that rifle clubs are being organized in Cleveland and in my State?" What does it mean? It means that there are leaders who are advocating the use of deadly weapons in the solution of this problem, which if tranquillity and reason would prevail, could be achieved completely devoid of that course.

I am firmly of the conviction that proposals of this type are harming the cause of the Negro. Moreover, I am firmly convinced that arguments made in the Senate, stating that violence will de

velop unless something is done are not in velop unless something is done are not in the interest of the security of our counthe interest of the security of our country.

Those who are proposing the wearing of fatigues and high boots and the carrying of guns do not understand the true character and psychology of the people of our country. Does Robinson feel that if a gun is put on the people of the United States that they will be more likely to support his proposal? In effect that is what he is saying.

This matter is grave. It cannot be disregarded. Before I entered the Chamber, I pondered whether I should speak on the subject. The devil within me said "Keep silent. You will be hurt politically if you speak." The easiest course to follow would have been not to say anything. say anything. But that would have been a coward's course. Not more than 3 hours ago I spoke about the great courage and heroism of General MacArthur. Should I now, 3 hours later, fail to speak on this subject merely because it might harm me politically?

Muslim, but who now characterizes himself a "rebel Black Muslim," was preaching the same sort of racial strife and racial hatred in the streets of Harlem, a few nights ago. Will the Senator from Ohio allow me to read that dispatch into the RECORD?

Mr. LAUSCHE. Yes, I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. The article reads as follows:


NEW YORK.-Malcolm X, rebel Black Muslim leader, told 1,000 cheering Negroes Sunday night that "it's time for you and me to let the Government know it's ballots-or bullets."

Speaking at a Harlem rally, he added:

"No more turning the other cheek. No more jive like that. There will be nonviolence only with those who are not violent with us."

It was Malcolm's first public rally since he bolted March 8 from Elijah Muhammad's Nation of Islam to organize Negroes into a new civil rights movement emphasizing "self-defense."

His first effort, he said, will be a voter registration drive.

Negro voters, Malcolm asserted, have the "power to determine who will sit in the

The time is at hand when we must speak the truth. We cannot hide our judgments and our thoughts solely be- White House and who will sit in the dogcause we feel we will be defeated at the polls at the next election.

I shall repeat the sentences I read from the newspaper:

Robinson said members will wear Army fatigues, helmet liners, heavy boots, and use two-way radios:

Each member must purchase his own rifle within 6 months.

I hope that our guests in the gallery hear what I am saying. This is a critical hour. I regret that there are not others present, whom I have heard speak in the Chamber about acting in fear. I will act, but it will not be in fear. It will be in furtherance of justice and decency.

If I were to act otherwise, it would be better to drop my head in shame and run for cover, so that the eyes of decency would not look upon me.

Mr. President, I regret that this has happened in my city. I hope that sereneminded citizens will not be provoked into what could be a natural consequence of this threat and challenge. I feel quite certain that that will not be their reaction, and that they will not allow these enemies of our Nation to begin to institute this type of policy.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Ohio yield?

Mr. LAUSCHE. I am glad to yield to I am glad to yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. I appreciate the Senator's yielding. First, I congratulate him upon his forthrightness and courage. No one has ever accused the Senator from Ohio of being devoid of the quality of courage. I never expect to hear anyone charge him with such delinquency.

Mr. President, I, too, regret that he has found this tendency toward violence and encouragement of strife in his good city of Cleveland.

I wonder whether he will permit me to request the printing at this point in the RECORD of an Associated Press dispatch from New York City. The dispatch shows that Malcolm X, formerly a Black


I think the Senator from Ohio is so right in calling the attention of the Na

tion to this tendency, and in reminding those who are moving in that dangerous direction that just as they, the colored people, have shown themselves, on the field of battle and otherwise, to be not fearful and to have plenty of physical courage, so will the white people be found; and I remind them that the white people outnumber them 10 to 1. I would also remind them that vast numbers of us are trying to move-some, more hastily than others toward solutions which will bring an end to this troubled time

of sore trial for our Nation.

But surely it is not American or in the best interests of our country to preach violence and to threaten in the way that this man, who has been quoted by the distinguished Senator from Ohio, has, in effect, been threatening the peace and dignity of the great city of Cleve


[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

ORDER OF BUSINESS Mr. HOLLAND obtained the floor. Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield to me, without in any way prejudicing his rights to the floor?

Mr. HOLLAND. Under such an agreement, I am happy to yield.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I wanted to announce, while many Senators are present in the Chamber, that following the address of the Senator from Florida there will be another quorum call and there will be further activity in the Senate this evening. That should be a fair warning to Senators. I hope Senators will respond to the next quorum call as quickly as they did to the one just had. May I inquire of the Senator from Florida if he has any guidelines for us to indicate how long his address will take?

Mr. HOLLAND. In reply to my distinguished acting leader, it will take at least 2 hours. As to whether it will extend beyond that time, that will depend on whether any questions are addressed to me or whether any interruptions are made. I shall be happy to yield to any Senator who has legitimate business before the Senate, provided I do not lose my right to the floor.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so that I may ask a question of the Senator from Minnesota?

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator from Iowa without losing my right to the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I ask the Senator from Minnesota, the acting majority leader, if he can give us an indication as to what hour this evening he hopes the Senate may recess.

Mr. HUMPHREY. About 10 o'clock. In light of what the Senator from Florida has said, it is hoped to have a quorum call somewhere between 8 and 8:30 p.m.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Following the quorum call, there will be one or two speeches, but probably no further quorum calls after that.

Will the Senator from Florida yield further, without jeopardizing his right to the floor?

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield under the same arrangement.


Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I agreed to yield to the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] provided I did not lose the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield with that understanding.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the sessions of the American Jewish Confer

ence on the Soviet Jewry held Sunday and today at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., were participated in by leading members of 24 Jewish organizaleading members of 24 Jewish organizations throughout the United States, who protested the anti-Jewish activities of protested the anti-Jewish activities of the Soviet Union.

My colleague from Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF] made an eloquent speech last night, as did Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Arthur Goldberg.

I ask unanimous consent that three addresses, one by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. RIBICOFF], one by Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, and my own, together with sundry newspaper stories referring to the conference, and stories referring to the conference, and a newspaper report on the repudiation by the Ideological Commission of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of a shameful and scandalous antiSemitic publication in the Ukraine, under the auspices of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, be printed in the REC


There being no objection, the addresses and material were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

JEWISH IDENTITY IN THE SOVIET UNION (Address by Senator ABRAHAM RIBICOFF) We have just concluded our celebration of the joyous festival of Passover. Our celebration was incomplete, our joy marred, by our knowledge that for our fellow Jews in Russia this was not a happy holiday but a sad and deprived one. For weeks before the Passover, and every day during it, we were aware of the tragedy which the Soviet authorities have made of the observance of the holiday by Soviet Jews.

First, there was the ban, for the third year running, on the public baking and distribution of matzoth. Next, they ostensibly permit some communities to provide token amounts to their members, while pretending to the world that they have enough matzoth. Then they officially encourage Jewish communities in the West to send in large shipments of matzoth-which would, however, still be grossly insufficient to the need. But as soon as the parcels arrive from abroad, Soviet customs offices hold up delivery until it is too late to be used for the holiday. And at the same time, the authorities initiate a vicious nationwide propaganda campaign labeling the dispatch of matzoth from abroad as "ideological sabotage" and "ideological subversion."

This assault on Passover is not new. It is a recurring feature of all Soviet propaganda against the Jewish religion. It was recently brought to world attention in that beastly anti-Semitic volume, "Judaism Without Embellishment."

Why this persistent and virulent assault on the Passover? The answer to this question brings us to the heart of the predicament of Soviet Jewry. For Passover uniquely represents Jewish historical continuity, Jewish

consciousness, Jewish identity. And it is that continuity, that consciousness, that Identity, which the Soviets are intent upon destroying.

Passover reminds Soviet Jews-even nonreligious ones of a glorious Jewish past and a living Jewish present. It reminds them of Jewish freedom, of Jewish unity, of the Jewish family, of Jewish kinship, of Jewish peoplehood past and present. These are precisely the values, ideas and sentiments which Passover is Soviet policy seeks to eradicate. the symbol of Jewish identity, and so it bears the brunt of the assault.

meaning of persecution. The last chapter in We Jews are expert in the history and that tragic role of ours cost the Jewish people one-third of its total number-victims of Nazi extermination. Now in the Soviet Union, 3 million Jews-one-quarter of our number, the second largest Jewish community in the world-are subjected to a vicious

policy of attrition that is crushing their


If I were to sum up the situation in three words, they would be deprivation, discrimination, de-Judaization. These three words go to the heart of the problem of Jewish identity in the Soviet Union.

Jewish identity throughout history was always defined and molded by the interaction of the two facets of their group life-religion and peoplehood, by their consciousness of themselves as a religious people in history, by their shared memory of their historical continuity, by their awareness of being bound to each other-and to their past, present and future as a group-by the felt doctrines of covenant, revelation and law.

Many groups, subjected to oppression, have in the course of history succumbed to it and disappeared. disappeared. The Jews have not been so obliging-because they found the inner resources to withstand external pressure. These resources the Jews found in their identity and in their consciousness of it.

What has kept the Jews vital and creative as a people has been their constant awareness of their identity, their historical consciousness of a special commitment to a millenial tradition of law, learning and justice, within the context of their religious faith.

I am not suggesting that we Jews are, or have ever been, a perfect people. The prophets and rabbis who have persistently castigated us throughout our history have attested to the contrary. But for all that, the Jews have been a God-intoxicated people, which is but another way of describing the Jewish commitment to law, learning, and justice.

It is that proud, passionate, historic commitment, which has made it possible for the Jewish people to maintain its identity and to perpetuate its vital tradition in the face of the most unlikely odds.

Now, the crux of Soviet policy is tragically simple. Its objective has been for at least a decade and a half the ultimate obliteration of the spirit of the Jewish people within the domain of the U.S.S.R.

That policy aims at destroying the wellsprings of vitality and creativity that have immemorially nourished the Jewish spirit. It intends to atomize the Soviet Jewish community, to estrange it from its past, to pulverize its Jewish identity, to stifle its aware. ness of that identity, to crush the Jewish historical consciousness of commitment to a millenial tradition of law and learning. In short, that policy aims at destroying and preventing every possibility of Jewish group survival in any form.

At the root of Soviet policy is the false assumption that the Jews are alien; that they are not indigenous; that they don't quite belong; that there is something peculiar about them. With that grounding in deep-seated,

traditional, irrational prejudice, the meaning of real facts and events is falsely distorted out of all relation to reality and given a false meaning that has significance only in terms of that prejudice. Soviet reasoning then proceeds as follows:

Since masses of Soviet Jews, heir to the traditional Russian Jewish love of Zion, are eager to learn of life in Israel, their loyalties are falsely assumed to be in Tel Aviv and not in Moscow.

Since they wish to have contact with American Jews, there is falsely assumed to be something sinister going on between the CIA and the Jews of, say, Kiev.

Since the Jewish religious liturgy contains many passages of prayer for Jerusalem, Judaism is falsely assumed to be subversive.

Since so many Jews demonstrate their eagerness for Jewish cultural facilities and educational institutions, they are falsely assumed to be peculiar.

Since many Soviet Jews, lone remnants of families shattered by the Nazi holocaust, wish to be reunited with their kin in Israel, the United States, or elsewhere, they are falsely assumed to be disloyal.

It all starts with that first false assumption; all the distorted conclusions follow from that.

As you may know, the Jews have a dual official status in the U.S.S.R.: they are both a nationality and a religious group. This very duality-which is the natural outgrowth of their traditional evolution-makes them a unique social entity there. And this very uniqueness causes suspicion. The very terms for his nationality and his religion are readily interchangeable-and in the social chemistry of Soviet life, these words for "Jew" and "Jewish" carry negative charges of suspicion and shame. Hostile words about the Jewish religion inevitably carry over negatively about the Jewish nationality-even for the nonreligious Jew.

The Soviet Union is ideologically committed and constitutionally organized to recognize the full right of every one of its 108 nationalities to perpetuate their identity and to maintain cultural institutions toward that end. Small wonder: Though 50 percent of the Soviet population is made up of the Great Russian nationality, the remaining 50 percent is composed of the 107 other nationalities, whose group needs and aspirations can hardly be denied.

The crucial importance of the concept of nationality in Soviet society cannot be overemphasized. One's nationality is one of the two or three most decisive components of citizenship in the U.S.S.R. It largely determines the language one speaks, the literature and press one reads, the national history one identifies with, the customs one grows up with, the national heroes one cherishes.

One's nationality is thus of profound psychological, as well as cultural and political, significance. It might almost be said that nationality defines the man as well as the citizen-it molds his mind and heart and soul, gives him status, and provides him with a heritage of which he can be justly and publicly proud.

Now just imagine, in these terms, the real meaning of the Soviet Jewish tragedy. The Jews are very much a cultural-ethnic group-a nationality, in Soviet terms. They are officially recognized as such. And yet they are the only Soviet nationality deprived of all the rights and institutions by which they might live out their lives as a nationalcultural group.

Try to imagine what this means to the Jew in the U.S.S.R. It means that the Jews are uniquely discriminated against-they know it and their non-Jewish neighbors know it. It means that the Jews have no opportunity to maintain and perpetuate their identity, their existence as a distinct group.

It means that they are being forced to disappear. It means that, in their singular disability, they are deprived of their human pride, in Soviet terms, and are thus subjected to unique humiliation.

It has now been nearly a quarter of a century that no Jewish school has existed in which a Jewish child might learn something of Jewish language, literature, and history-a quarter of a century in which a whole generation of Jewish youth is confronted with a past that is a blank.

There is not a school, not a class, not a textbook, to fill that Jewish void. There is no institution through which the Jew can learn either Yiddish or Hebrew. There is no way for the Jew to perpetuate his heritage, for there is no way for him even to learn it.

True, the history, literature, and traditions of all Soviet nationalities are taught in a distorted and falsified way, judged by Communist canons of "progressive" and "reactionary." But at least they are taught. At least the Uzbek and the Armenian and the Georgian and the Ukrainian and all the others, can learn their language, can have something of their past to look to with pride.

The Jews are deprived even of the privilege of learning, for example, whether Maimonides or the Gaon of Vilna or Yehuda Halevi were "progressive" or "reactionary." Jewish history is nonhistory; Jewish culture, non


The psychological and spiritual destructiveness of this condition is shattering.

Add to this, now, the fact that the synagogues-the last remaining Jewish institution where Jews may still gather as Jewsare being subjected to a policy of forcible slow death. A process of attrition is gradually sapping the vitals of the whole of Jewish religion in the Soviet Union-for Judaism is the last residue, the final stronghold, of Jewishness in that land.

What conceivable danger is it to the Soviet Union if the Jews were to have enough matzoh, or prayer books, or Bibles, or phylacteries, or tallesim, or religious calendars?

What threat is it to the Soviet regime if synagogues remain open, or if Jews make a minyan at home?

What incalculable harm can come to the country if Jewish infants are circumcised, or if the Jewish dead are buried according to the ancient Jewish rite?

The answer is obvious; it is all too tragically clear. There is no danger, no threat, no harm, to the Soviet state in all of these. But the regime recognizes that Judaism might still provide resistance to forcible Jewish disappearance, might still spark a revival of a sense of Jewishness and might still set Jewish hearts afire.

And so all these institutions are closed down; all these sacred rites and religious articles taken away.

And so the pathetic yeshiva in Moscow is left with two or three rabbinical studentswhile scores seek admission and hundreds would come if allowed.

And so congregations are allowed no official or formal contact with each other throughout the country, or with Jewish religious bodies abroad.

And so fright stalks the synagogues, in the form of informers and police agents.

And so synagogue Jews are intimidated and fear to have anything to do with a foreign Jew who comes to pray with them, to say sholom aleichem to them.

All these deprivations and discriminations, this policy of de-Judaization, this whole pattern of forcible assimilation, are set against the background of a virulent press campaign in which the Jews are portrayed in the worst light.

On the one hand, the Jew is forbidden to learn anything positive about his history and heritage. On the other hand, he is confronted, in the daily press, in the special atheist journals and publications, and in university courses-with a massive propaganda assault which can only baffle, humiliate, and crush his spirit.

This propaganda teaches that the Bible is one of the most viciously reactionary and benighted books in the world-that the Jewish patriarchs were immoralists and plunderers that the ancient Hebrews were nothing but slaveholders and imperialiststhat the spirit of Judaism is commercial and exploitative-that money is the god of the Jewish religion-and that the Jews are "worshipers of the golden calf."

The Jew knows that, though Yiddish is considered the language of his nationality, he cannot learn it, and he has precious little to read in it. He knows that Hebrew is an unlanguage, proscribed as the language of both "clerical reaction" and "bourgeois Jewish nationalism." And he learns, from all the sources available to him, that the traditional and millenial Jewish religious attachment to Zion and to the Holy Land, and his natural affection for Israel, is considered politically suspect, potentially or actually subversive.

And for the past 3 years, the daily press has dinned into the minds of the Soviet population and of the Jews the belief that the Jews play a sinister role in the country's economy. The traditional antiSemitic doctrine that the Jews are money worshipers, consumed with greed and singlemindedly dedicated to the pursuit of the ruble, is constantly purveyed to the public.

This is done in no merely abstract way. It is tied to the massive nationwide campaign against economic crimes, such as embezzlement, bribery, corruption, and currency speculation, for which capital punishment was reinstated 3 years ago.

So far as we can tell from the Soviet press, 198 death sentences have been handed down in that period-of which at least 102, and probably more, were meted out to Jews.

Here, then, is the concrete way in which the Soviet regime reinforces the anti-Semitic stereotypes with which its press is full. Though the Jews constitute little more than 1 percent of the population, the country is led to believe that they are guilty of the kinds of economic crimes which warrant death-to the extent of 50 to 55 percent (and in the areas like the Ukraine, 80 to 90 percent).

Can you imagine how this vicious official incitation is greeted by large segments of the Soviet population in which anti-Semitic prejudices are still deep rooted and virulent? And can you imagine how all this affects the spirit of the Jews?

Why, even a young Soviet Jew-atheist, Communist, ignorant of and indifferent to Jewishness-will be agitated and insulted by the deprivations and discriminations, and by the public stereotyping of the Jews.

That young Jew will somehow also feel himself affected by the incessant propaganda that Jewish history is a history of reaction and slavery, that the spirit of the Jewish tradition is money, that the Jews are responsible for the country's shortages and economic ills.

That young Jew will feel offended for his father, who has no Jewish newspaper to read and no Jewish theater to attend; for his mother, who cannot have matzoth; for his grandfather, who cannot go to the synagogue in peace; for his uncle, who yearns for some news of Israel, and is afraid to seek it. And he will be offended for himselffor he must realize that as his Jewishness is reviled, his humanity is degraded.

So, the wholesale brutal assault on Judaism and Jewishness not only deprives Soviet Jews of their rights-but affronts their self-respect, besmirches their honor, and lowers their dignity among their nonJewish neighbors.

Thus is an ancient and illustrious community ground down, its spirit and consciousness pulverized.

The objective of this policy is of course to make Jews-as Jews disappear. This is what I mean by de-Judaization. They are

not to be made to disappear as human beings. But they must be forcibly assimilated, by the simple means of depriving them of their cultural and religious rights and institutions. In time, after two or three generations have lived out their lives with not the slightest opportunity to learn or know anything at all about Jewishness-Jewish consciousness and Jewish identity will grow faint and quietly expire.

By then, there will no longer be a Jewish nationality requiring cultural rights; no longer a Jewish religious entity requiring religious rights. There will no longer be a Jewish problem. The Jews will fade softly into the night of full-scale assimilation.

Thus will the unbroken millenial chain of Jewish history be shattered on Soviet soil. Thus will the Soviet Jewish community— heir to a great and ancient civilization, secular and religious, in Yiddish, Hebrew, and Russian-become a dead end of history.

For the time being, the policy of deJudaization is not succeeding. For the deprivations and discriminations are having the effect of throwing many Jews, especially young Jews, back on themselves.

Like all Jews everywhere-only more so, since it happened to them-they were traumatized by the Nazi devastation, and later by Stalin's anti-Semitic deprivations.

Like most Jews everywhere, they were inspired by the creation of the State of Israel.

This continuing policy of deprivation and discrimination is having the effect, for many of them, of stiffening their backs.

So, they go to a performance of Yiddish folksongs and dramatic readings-even though they don't know a word of Yiddish.

So, they try to find some matzoth for the Passover-even though they don't really know what Passover is all about.

So, they throng to the synagogues on certain joyous holidays, to sing and dance and just chat with fellow Jews-even though they aren't the least bit religious.

So they resist in response to the oppression.

But, oh what a wrong is being done them. And how long can they continue to resist, with nothing substantial to sustain their religious and cultural growth?

Can it be that this great Jewish community will be no more? Can it be that this rich soil of Jewish vitality is doomed to disappear? Will the world remain silent in the face of this spiritual atrocity? And are we to remain silent?

In the face of the miracle of creative Jewish survival after 2,000 years of dispersion and persecution, it would be a foolish prophet who would dare to predict the spiritual end of Soviet Jewry. But it would be even more foolish and dangerous to rely on miracles.

If there is hope for their future, it lies in their own courageous resistance-and in our determination to do everything we can to bolster their resistance and their spirit. It is for us here to speak out for reason and justice. We must bring comfort and hope to that last great remnant of East European Jewry. It is a community with a special claim on the conscience of all mankind.

For let us face the historical truth: Neither we, nor the rest of the world did enough to

save the Jews of Europe from devastation. We all of us in the West, Jews, and Gentiles alike owe a debt of shame.

It is a debt we cannot repay the dead. But their heirs and survivors in the U.S.S.R. bear their claim on the conscience of us all.

We owe it to the dead to save the living


We must break through the pall of bland indifference, of polite acquiescence, that prevails about the plight of Soviet Jewry. If it is thought of at all in the world at large, it is only as an afterthought. Governments are not agitated by it: Leaders do not speak up about it. Humanitarian movements do not make of it a rallying cry, as they do of other deserving causes. It has not been made a priority problem at the United Nations, one of the forums where it belongs.

In short, it has not become what it must be a major item on the agenda of the world's conscience.

In this country it is essential that private and public voices be raised in protest. Within our Government the Senate of the United States has historically been one of the most effective forums for expressing officially the aroused conscience of our country. On several occasions during the past 15 years, the Senate has by formal resolution denounced Soviet transgressions against human rights. Now it must meet this solemn responsibility again by condemning religious persecution behind the Iron Curtain.

In September, I introduced Senate Resolution 204 for this purpose. Sixty-three Senators-from all parts of the country and representing different points of view in both political parties-quickly and firmly joined in its sponsorship. They shared my belief that it is time for the Senate to take an official stand on the Soviet Government's systematic policy of Jewish persecution.

The Senate's voice, when raised in official protest, can have forceful impact. The Soviets are stung by vigorous and sustained criticism. The recent protests of individual Senators have already irritated a sensitive Soviet nerve. The recent commutation of a death sentence was a small but significant reaction to a protest that is only now beginning.

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, has assured me the hearings will be held on my resolution. I am hopeful they will take place at an early date and be followed by prompt passage of the resolution.

The Soviet Government will feel the force of public opinion aroused in this Nation and throughout the world.

Since Soviet Jews are utterly helpless, defenseless and without voice, we must do for them what they cannot do for themselves: We must give them voice. We must rise to their defense.

We must cry out for justice, justice. We cannot keep silent so long as justice is not done.

We must give the world no surceaseuntil the world pays attention.

We dare not rest until we have aroused the conscience of humanity.

To the suffering Soviet Jews we must say with a strong, constant, unyielding voice"We have not forgotten or forsaken you, nor will we ever."


We are gathered in this important conference to consider the question of discrimination against Jews in the Soviet Union. The denial of human rights by the Soviet Union to Jews is properly a matter of deep concern to all Americans of every religious persua

sion. It is similarly a proper matter of deep concern to all Americans of the Jewish faith that the Soviet Union, while professing in theory to permit the free exercise of religion to all people and groups, in fact and practice is hostile to all religious faiths. The Soviet Union is avowedly a materialistic nation. Its Government is not neutral in religious matters. Its policies and influence are directed against religious beliefs and practices. Therefore, in a conference of this kind we are not and cannot be unmindful of the plight of the great body of people in the Soviet Union whose human right to freedom of religious exercise is substantially curtailed. The discrimination against Jews by the Government of the Soviet Union is an aspect of overall discrimination against all religious groups. It is, however, something more than a manifestation of religious repression by an atheistic state. The evidence is overwhelming that the religious and cultural freedom of Soviet Jewry is more severely limited than any other religious group and that discrimination against Soviet Jews has reached alarming proportions. The tragic experience of mankind with the cancer of anti-Semitism so fresh in the minds of all makes it imperative that those who believe in the dignity of man and in human rights speak out in vigorous protest.

I want to commend the sponsors of this conference for convening it. The meeting itself is a virtually unprecedented testimonial to the unity of Jewish opinion on this vital and important subject. I hope and trust that you will continue to protest against the virus of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union until no vestige of it remains.

The 22 to 3 million Jews of the Soviet Union, though classified by the Soviet Constitution and laws as a national group, are deprived of their national culture and the means of expressing it. Every other Soviet nationality is permitted the use of its national language and is granted support for its cultural institutions. But the teaching of Hebrew, the Biblical language, is banned in the Soviet Union; Yiddish, the tongue of 450,000 Soviet citizens, is discouraged; Jewish schools virtually prohibited and nonexistent; the once flourishing Yiddish theater scarcely tolerated; and Jewish literature and publications sharply curtailed.

The religious freedom of Soviet Jews is severely limited, more so than any other religious group; increasingly synagogues are closed and private worship restricted; both Bible and prayer books are denied printing; other necessary religious articles are made unavailable; the last kosher butcher shop in Moscow closed down, the ancient Jewish cemetery in Kiev condemned; the state baking of matzoh discontinued, private baking discouraged by prosecutions, the training of seminarians hampered, and religious exchanges discouraged.

Jews are vilified in the Soviet press and other mass media which reflect hostility to the Jewish people as such. This has reached such proportions that western Communist parties which generally slavishly follow the Kremlin line have been moved to protest the publication of a blatantly anti-Semitic book published late last year in Kiev, copies of which have just come to light in this country and in the Western World. This book, "Judaism Without Embellishment," is not Just a privately printed tract. It was officially issued by the Ukrainian Academy of Science and had a substantial press run in the Ukrainian language. I have seen this book, and its cartoons are sharply reminiscent of Julius Streicher's "Der Stuermer," that notorious Nazi publication.

I note in today's newspapers that the hierarchy of the ideological commission of the Soviet Communist Party has issued what appears to be a partial repudiation of this book.

[blocks in formation]

This is welcome, if somewhat belated, but in itself demonstrates the value of forthright worldwide protest against manifestations of anti-Semitism.

Jewish emigration even for the limited purpose of reuniting families torn asunder by war and Nazi persecution is permitted only on the insignificant scale.

There is increasing evidence of discrimination against Jews in employment and areas of public life.

Finally, there is also evidence that an undue proportion of Jews is being prosecuted and executed for economic crimes.

No law-abiding citizen of any nation and particularly no judge can urge that any person or group is immune from the equal application of any nation's laws. But when 60 percent of those executed in the Soviet Union for economic crimes are Jews who comprise only a little more than 1 percent of its population then the belief naturally is fostered that Jews are receiving unequal treatment under Soviet law. Particularly is this so, in the setting of other discriminations against the Jews both historical and current in old Russia and in the Soviet Union.

Discrimination against Soviet Jews is not solely an internal matter for the Soviet Union. It is a proper concern for all in this country and elsewhere who believe in human values. Soviet mistreatment of the Jews violates worldwide concepts of human rights and human dignity; transgresses the United Nations Charter to which the Soviet Union is a party and violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is morally binding upon all member states of the United Nations.

It is not sufficient answer to reply, as Soviet officials are wont to do, that some of my best in-laws are Jewish. Nor is it an answer to assert that those charging discrimination are motivated by hostility to the Soviet people. The philosopher Bertrand Russell is a self-proclaimed friend of the Soviet Union and even he has found it necessary to write profound and serious letters to Mr. Khrushchev expressing deep concern about Soviet treatment of its Jewish citizens in terms similar to those I have expressed this evening. In stating my views, I do so as an American citizen who supports the effort of our Government, with due regard for our own security as a nation, to seek ways for better understanding between our country and the Soviet Union; one who shares with the great majority of our people the desire for an end to the cold war and for a just and lasting peace.

In appealing for an end to governmental discrimination against Jews in the Soviet Union, I am mindful that as a Nation our record is not perfect-we all too often fall short of realizing the great ideals of human liberty and equality embodied in our great Declaration of Human Rights. I am also mindful, however, that our Government policy is directed to ending rather than extending discrimination.

But one need never apologize for speaking out for human rights of all peoples everywhere. For as the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights asserts, "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world."

I am one who having read the full text of Rolf Hochhuth's controversial play "The Deputy" and who having lived through those terrible days, believes that the dramatist did not do justice to that great and good Pontiff, Pope Pius XII. Jews are and ever should be grateful for what the Pope and the Catholic Church did to rescue innocent Jewish victims of Nazi insanity and barbarism. But whatever one's views about the play's characterization of the Pope, all men of good

will must agree with the ancient Biblical teaching echoed in the play, that we are indeed our brother's keeper and that it is the duty of all men at all times and under all circumstances to speak out against the denial of human rights whenever and wherever such denial occurs. In matters of conscience there can be no missing voices.


(By Senator JACOB K. JAVITS) Events over the Passover holiday demonstrate the relentless character of the Soviet Union's campaign of repression against the Jewish minority in the U.S.S.R. But they also show that the regime in the U.S.S.R. is not impervious to the protests of the world on this issue. Both are vitally important conclusions.

That anti-Jewish repression continues was shown when on the eve of the Passover holiday the Kremlin went out of its way to prevent Jews from obtaining matzoth in time by impounding 2,000 10-pound packages of matzoth paid for and sent with full import clearances prepaid by Americans in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles to relatives and friends in the Soviet Union.

In response to representations by the U.S. Embassy in Moscow made at my request, the Soviets explained that packages from individuals to individuals were delivered and only those sent by organizations were returned; it was also claimed that matzoth were available in the U.S.S.R. to all who wanted them. But this explanation was contradicted by reports in the Soviet press itself before the beginning of the Passover festival on March 27 on the nondelivery of the parcels and the advice of Moscow's Chief Rabbi allowing Jews to use peas and beans in place of matzoth.

It is hard to believe that in this decade, a major world power like the Soviet Union with its nuclear capability and space exploration achievements would stoop to this kind of petty but cruel and repressive official harassment of a helpless minority. Against such calculated disrespect for elementary human rights as well as for world opinion, there must be general and universal protest.

The fact that the Soviet regime listens was shown when the Soviet official news agency Tass reported a partial recantation of the scandalous and libelous anti-Semitic book published in Kiev under the title "Judaism Without Embellishment." It was denounced in even stronger terms by the Ideological Commission of the Communist Party as a result of the uproar created by the book. The Kremlin's leaders should be made aware that a great wave of indignation from all parts of the world is rising up over the Soviet Union's continued campaign of anti-Jewish repression.

All of us must here resolve that we will not remain silent or permit the world to remain silent while the scope and intensity of Soviet actions against the Jewish minority grows and becomes more deliberate.

In the name of humanity not only our voices but the voices of free men and women everywhere as well must be raised above the Iron Curtain in protest.

This conference must demand that the Soviet Union halt these oppressive acts forthwith and restore to Jews the elementary human rights to practice their religion, to be free of discrimination, and to rejoin their families in other lands.

There is no doubt that the Soviet Union is very sensitive to charges of anti-Semitism. The Communists pride themselves on the law which makes anti-Semitism a criminal offense. Indeed, they tried to deny its existence when the poet Yevtushenko published his famous poem "Babi Yar" as a protest against Russian anti-Semitism. But when 89 out of 163 sentenced to death by Soviet

courts between July 1961 and October 1963 for alleged economic crimes-almost 60 percent are publicly reported to be Jews and their names are held up for ridicule and contempt in the official Soviet press; when the Soviet regime closes down synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, crushes every vestige of Jewish culture and deports Jews to Kazakhstan while simultaneously telling the outside world that Jews enjoy religious freedom; and when there is distributed an officially published edition of 12,000 copies of the blatantly anti-Semitic book by Trofim Kichko, entitled "Judaism Without Embellishment," under the auspices of the Ukrainian Academy mask from the Soviet claim that there is of Sciences-then it is time to rip off the false no "Jewish question" under communism and to expose the hypocrisy behind official denials of anti-Jewish actions. The Kremlin would like us to believe that anti-Jewish repressive acts are cold war lies spread by capitalists and imperialists, but the facts give this explanation the lie.

I have asked the Soviet authorities to explain why there is such a sharp difference between the way Jews are described in Soviet publications for external distribution and the way they are vilified and made objects of suspicion in books and periodicals distributed inside the U.SS.R. The crude racist hatemongering of the Kichko book has brought forth protests even from Communists themselves in France, Italy, and the United States who have condemned its Hitlerite propaganda and called for its suppression.

In the Soviet press for the first time, the Jewish nationality of the accused in the show trials is openly flaunted. This was not done even under Stalin with his "Doctors' Plot" when Jews were identified only through euphemisms like "cosmopolitans," and the shock and significance of this departure from Communist ideological practice has not been lost on Jews. Add to all this the fact that propaganda against Israel has been stepped up, and you can readily appreciate the mounting fears of Jews the world over for the safety of our coreligionists in the U.S.S.R.

Khrushchev and other Soviet leaders from time to time have tried to insist that Soviet treatment of religious minorities is an internal matter and that protests constitute interference in the Soviet Union's domestic affairs. Over a century ago, the U.S. Government provided an answer to this kind of rebuttal, and formulated a policy that remains valid to this day.

Since 1840, the United States while recognizing the principle of nonintervention in the internal affairs of another state, nevertheless has protested the persecution of oppressed minorities by foreign governments and justified these protests in the name of our moral duty duty toward humanity. The United States has done so alone and also in concert with other nations. Our country has never been silent in the face of persecution.

We have lodged these protests and registered our disapproval in a variety of ways, among them, through direct communication to the governments concerned, by recalling the U.S. diplomatic representative for consultation, by direct references in the President's annual message to the Congress, by the termination of a commercial treaty, and by the use of indirect acts such as joining in multilateral acts of disapproval as a means of protest.

The list of such protests on behalf of Jews is long and honorable. In 1840 the United States condemned the persecution of Jews in Damascus.

In 1870 we urged the Ottoman government to halt the killing of Jews in Rumania.

In 1877 the United States granted protection to Russian Jews settled in or near Jerusalem, and emphasized that "the sym

« ПретходнаНастави »