A Centennial Assessment
In 1917, the British government approved the public declaration of its sympathy for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” at the time an Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population. British Foreign Secretary (previously Prime Minister), Arthur James Balfour conveyed this in a letter to Lionel W. Rothschild, a senior leader of British Jewry, which has come to be known as the Balfour Declaration. In fact, this was the second such declaration.
After losing hope that Sultan Abdul Hameed would favorably consider his proposals for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, in 1902, Dr. Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionist movement (Zion, originally a specific hill in Jerusalem, now refers to modern Jerusalem), approached Joseph Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary under Salisbury and Balfour Cabinets, who agreed to consider the possibilities of giving Jews a homeland either in Cyprus or Al Arish, at the border of Palestine and Sinai Peninsula. The Foreign Office rejected the idea. Chamberlain then offered a place in Uganda in East Africa that was under his administration.
David Lloyd George, who until then was a lawyer for Dr. Herzl, drafted the Charter for Jewish Settlement. In 1903 the British Foreign Office gave a guarded affirmation saying that based on the positive results of certain studies, His Majesty’s Government would consider favorably proposals for the creation of a Jewish colony in Uganda. Zionists agreed for the moment, as guided by their minds, but their hearts refused the deal.
In British Non-conformist and Evangelical circles, there was an old tradition of Christian Zionists who believed that Jews should be restored to their ancient Land promised by their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Their Scriptures told them that the advent of the Messiah would only take place when Jews would inhabit Palestine. Although there is disagreement to this day on whether this is an obligation on the Jews or to be awaited as an act of God, British conservatives were deeply influenced by the former position and its most influential voice, Benjamin Disraeli (who was born a Jew but was later baptized) wrote a novel Tancred or the New Crusade aimed at a synthesis of Christianity and Judaism. He too believed the Jews had a natural right to return to Palestine. Contemporary politicians, Chamberlain, Asquith, Balfour and Lloyd George all held similar religious beliefs. One is awestruck to note the role religious beliefs and prejudices played in making this idea a reality.
Lloyd George, who later entered politics and rose to become Prime Minister (1916-1922) was not a popular politician. He had other peculiarities too. Unlike many of his peers who went to public schools that stressed Greek and Latin classics, he studied the Bible at an Anglican school, and developed a religious affinity toward Jews. He was heading a coalition government at the time of war. From the outset, his eyes were set on the Eastern front. His coterie drew plans to secure Palestine for Britain by all means – military or otherwise. His generals would not take him seriously, and, on his part, he would not mind doing anything to undermine them. He and his minions painted Palestine as the most strategic outpost that would connect East and West and secure the British Empire.
He detested the Turks. As he wrote afterward “nothing and nobody could have saved the Turks from complete collapse in 1915 and 1916 except our General Staff”. He was scornful of all those who would restrain him from his enthusiasm for war on the Eastern front. He had ideas of his own regarding the war strategy and was audacious enough to pursue them no matter how precarious the enterprise. Not deterred by his generals’ refusal to provide troops and supplies deployed on the Western front, he established an Imperial War Cabinet inducting staff from British Dominions and mobilized as many as 500,000 troops that lifted sagging British fortunes on the Eastern front.
He was determined to edge out France from Palestine despite an assurance to this effect given in the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement, on the plea that God-less French have nothing to do with the Holy land. This would change as Zionists worked hard, alongside Sykes, to elicit a subtle commitment, supporting a Jewish settlement, from the French also.
What principle of international or customary law could justify such an act, except that a powerful nation which then had the physical force to enforce its will, executed it in complete disregard of any legal, moral and human justification
After French Commitment, British Zionists impressed on Lloyd George and Balfour to issue a public commitment from Britain as part of Allied agenda. In June 1917, Balfour invited the leader of British Zionist Federation, Chaim Weizmann and Mark Sykes to make a draft for this purpose, precisely what these two men had been looking for. The idea encountered opposition from a Cabinet Member, Montagu, Minister for India Office, who was a Jew but refused to believe in Jewish national identity as he had worked hard to win his British nationality. In fact, it was thought at the time that a vast majority of world Jewish population viewed Zionism with disfavor. Montagu was supported by Lord Curzon and Bonar Law, both highly influential ministers. Soon, U.S. President Wilson also sided with Montagu, not because of his opposition for Jewish Palestine but for British motives, which he deeply suspected.
This impasse was broken, as word leaked to a German newspaper, and subsequently in London The Time wrote an editorial demanding an immediate issuance of the statement saying it would have a valuable effect on Allied cause by eliciting the goodwill of world Jewry. On 2 November, 1917, Balfour wrote the following letter, published on 9 November, addressed to Lord Rothschild:
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. [Emphasis in italics added]
These 117 words changed the course of history. It gave Zionists legitimacy that could not be dreamed of. No matter how small in number, or what measure of influence they could bring on the direction of the war, they were recognized as a player, a partner, whose siding with the Allies was considered prodigious.
Leaving aside the justification for Jewish settlement on Palestinian lands, and taking the Balfour declaration on its face value, the unequivocal qualification ‘it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine’ was not sincerely observed to this day, as Palestinians either live in ghettos, on the lands they once owned, or displaced in other countries: not just their civil and religious rights were usurped but also their lands and belongings.
In 1987, while celebrating 70 years of Balfour Declaration, Israel invited Margaret Thatcher, then British Prime Minister, to address their Knesset. Even though she was a staunch supporter of Israel, she refused for fear of upsetting Arab States, realizing Britain’s partisan role and poor record of broken promises with Palestinians.
Well, things have changed since then. Theresa May joined Israeli Prime Minister for a 100th year celebration of Balfour Declaration in a dinner hosted by Lord Rothschild in central London. She remarked ‘I was proud of Britain’s pioneering role in creation of State of Israel. There was no excuse tolerable for anti-Semitism’. She attacked the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement as the ‘new and pernicious form of anti-Semitism which uses criticism of the actions of the Israeli government as a despicable justification for questioning the very right of Israel to exist’. (Trump’s decision to move American Embassy to Jerusalem should also be seen in this perspective.)
Many commentators think that Theresa May believes to this day that opposition to Balfour Declaration amounts to anti-Semitism, notwithstanding gross violations of international law in forcibly dispossessing a hapless people from their lands. What principle of international or customary law could justify such an act, except that a powerful nation which then had the physical force to enforce its will, executed it in complete disregard of any legal, moral and human justification. Legists believe that this sets a dangerous precedence that not law but physical force determines the truth.
