The Balfour Decloration ... ??

[timetraveller]

Firstly Hello Everyone ,,

Was watching a programme on BBC4 last week which in the Programme
About the British Goverments failures in the Middle East from pre WW1 to the Suez crisis ..In which that Document was mentioned ..and the Document is discussed/taught in the Schools in Palestine ..from what was shown in the programme

My Question is .. If Gordon Brown was to tear up the Decloration would it hold any Political weight or has the years that has passed It wouldn't hold any value ?

[fortuneteller]

Balfour declaration is too old to have any political meaning. And it was anyway surpassed by the UN partition plan of 1947.

But from a moral point of view he could off course still give the palestinians an apology for the declarations and the british administration of the area that eventually lead to the palestinians loosing most of their native land. But then he would have to face being called an anti-semite, jew hater and a new Hitler. So why bother with such old stuff?

[JJC]

But from a moral point of view he could off course still give the palestinians an apology for the declarations and the british administration of the area that eventually lead to the palestinians loosing most of their native land. But then he would have to face being called an anti-semite, jew hater and a new Hitler. So why bother with such old stuff?

Or he could actually apologize to the Jewish people for not keeping the promise and serving British interests by hacking away 80% of historic Israel and creating Trans-Jordan out of it. :)

[LRPV]

Balfour declaration is too old to have any political meaning. And it was anyway surpassed by the UN partition plan of 1947.

But from a moral point of view he could off course still give the palestinians an apology for the declarations and the british administration of the area that eventually lead to the palestinians loosing most of their native land. But then he would have to face being called an anti-semite, jew hater and a new Hitler. So why bother with such old stuff?


Are you aware of the post-war British Mandate? Seemingly not, the Brits have been accused of undermining the intent by giving the bulk of territory to the Arabs. Do you really think contemporary British politicians would touch this issue with the proverbial barge-pole?

[non]

Are you aware of the post-war British Mandate? Seemingly not, the Brits have been accused of undermining the intent by giving the bulk of territory to the Arabs. Do you really think contemporary British politicians would touch this issue with the proverbial barge-pole?

Are you aware that he said essentially the same thing?

[non]

Nevermind...believe I've mistaken who you were actually adressing.

[fortuneteller]

Or he could actually apologize to the Jewish people for not keeping the promise and serving British interests by hacking away 80% of historic Israel and creating Trans-Jordan out of it. :)What are you talking about? :roll:

In 1917 Palestine belonged to the people that lived there and had lived there for centuries and centuries and very few of them were jews. And I think that the part of the population in Jordan that was jews was even smaller if at all existing. So bringing Jordan into the debate is way off.

And the Balfour declaration talks about a jewish home and not a state. And im pretty sure that it also talks about the jewish national home not being at the expense of the people that already lived there. So ofcourse it's the palestinians that deserve a british apolygy not the jews.

[Snoshi]

What are you talking about? :roll:

In 1917 Palestine belonged to the people that lived there and had lived there for centuries and centuries and very few of them were jews. And I think that the part of the population in Jordan that was jews was even smaller if at all existing. So bringing Jordan into the debate is way off.

And the Balfour declaration talks about a jewish home and not a state. And im pretty sure that it also talks about the jewish national home not being at the expense of the people that already lived there. So ofcourse it's the palestinians that deserve a british apolygy not the jews.

Palestine belonged to the British at the time not Palestinians.. There are Palestinian people..

Jewish home means Israel...

[Moledet]

What are you talking about? :roll:

In 1917 Palestine belonged to the people that lived there and had lived there for centuries and centuries and very few of them were jews. And I think that the part of the population in Jordan that was jews was even smaller if at all existing. So bringing Jordan into the debate is way off.

And the Balfour declaration talks about a jewish home and not a state. And im pretty sure that it also talks about the jewish national home not being at the expense of the people that already lived there. So ofcourse it's the palestinians that deserve a british apolygy not the jews.
In 1917 the Jews were helping the British empire to take over the land, many were caught due to this by the Ottomans and killed-the Arabs were doing the exact opposite. This area didn't just have historical meanings but in a time of no commercial jets had great importance connecting 3 continents. Not to mention Weizmann's contribution to the victory in WW1.

In Jordan the population wasn't and isn't Hasemite, yet the Brits gave it to Hussein Ali son AKA king Abdallah from the Arabian Peninsula.

You are correct that most of the declaration is written in a very manipulative way so that the Brits could interpret it as they wish.

P.S. king Abdallah was murdered by a Palestinian assassin in 1951.

[oldsoak]

If the Balfour declaration were re-visited, the British would not be shown in a good light no matter which way they turned. If pro-Jewish, then it would be argued they took no interest in the Palestinian Arabs, if pro-Palestinian, then they lied to the Jews.
LRPV is right, no-one in the UK wants to go back there, certainly not if we want to stay cuddly with our Arab friends.

[Kaplanr]

Palestine belonged to the British at the time not Palestinians.. There are Palestinian people..

Jewish home means Israel...

Actually at the time of the declaration it belonged to the Ottoman Turks. Like most things political, the declaration has its origins in several pots. Not in any particular order they were:

1. Reward to Weizmann for Acetone.
2. Effort to rally world Jewry to the Allied cause. Obviously not going to work with loyal Jews in Germany, but the established and connected Jewish population in neutral US were of German background and had pro-German sympathies.
3. Effort to mobilize Jewish population in Palestine to revolt against Turks, or at the least provide assistance to the Allied cause. (See NILI and Aarohnsons)
4. Influence of prominent Christian Zionists like David Lloyd George who believed in a return of the Jew to Holy Land (for all the Evangelical reasons.)

All this in parallel to the "revolt" (cough cough) led by Lawrence. THe British proved pretty adept (in the short term) of getting anyone and everyone to do what they wanted. And damn the consequences.

If the Brtish owe people an apology, it isn't for the Balfour Declaration, but rather for the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

[oldsoak]

@Kaplanr - the moral cost of empire I'm afraid. Especially if that Empire has feet of clay - not that its any consolation.

[Kaplanr]

@Kaplanr - the moral cost of empire I'm afraid. Especially if that Empire has feet of clay - not that its any consolation.

No quibbles from me, provided my English critics don't take too moral a high road in these arguments. (BTW, in no way directed at you.)

To me at least that's why the "Historical" arguments don't carry a whole lot of weight with me. If they do, then let's not arbitrarily start with Israel and the Palestinians, but rather maybe the US and the Indians, or the white settlement in Australia and New Zealand. I'm sure there are scads of others.

As an aside, in the book: Aaronsohn's maps : the untold story of the man who might have created peace in the Middle East by Patricia Goldstone, she maintains that a large part of Britain's ME policy during WWI was a result of Kitchner and the Army seeing the ME as more important to the empire than India, which is where the Colonial Office put its eggs. According to her premise, the overriding concern wasn't petroleum (which was a Persian asset) but rather the course of competing railroad, commodity and trading interests (the Cape to Cairo v. Berlin to Baghdad rail lines). During the course of her books she has the Turks seemingly ready to turn on the Germans for just the right amount of gold and concessions.

[George Winston]

Interesting stuff. In the Midst of a World War, why did Balfour feel compelled to make this promise? Further, as the victors in the War, why did Britain have to create a homeland or nation/state for anybody but their own people? Lastly, why were the Brits terrorized out of Palestine by the very Jews that they orginally helped into Palestine? Seems like a lot of trouble. What did Britian get out of the agreement?

[Palmach]

Interesting stuff. In the Midst of a World War, why did Balfour feel compelled to make this promise? Further, as the victors in the War, why did Britain have to create a homeland or nation/state for anybody but their own people? Lastly, why were the Brits terrorized out of Palestine by the very Jews that they orginally helped into Palestine? Seems like a lot of trouble. What did Britian get out of the agreement?

1. Because he want to do everything possible to get (and keep) the US in WWI. Since richest and most influential Jews in the US at the time were German immigrants or of German origin, the conventional wisdom in London had it that they should be thrown a bone. Furthermore, Arabs have been questionable allies at the time, British didn't mind the help from the anti-turkish Jews in Palestine.

2. Why did British/French/Americans have to create any countries other then their own? Why did they have to take over other peoples domains and then slice them up against all logic and reason? Such is history...

3. They were bombed out for the same reason they were forces out of India, Kenya, etc - a local population has developed a sense of nationhood and political asporations for independence which British either refused to recognize or where too slow to accomodate. There was also a small issue of closing the borders right then people destined for gas-chambers most needed the asylum.

[Kaplanr]

Interesting stuff. In the Midst of a World War, why did Balfour feel compelled to make this promise? Further, as the victors in the War, why did Britain have to create a homeland or nation/state for anybody but their own people? Lastly, why were the Brits terrorized out of Palestine by the very Jews that they orginally helped into Palestine? Seems like a lot of trouble. What did Britian get out of the agreement?

THere's actually a parallel conversation to this that grew out of another thread here. The British did it for the reasons Palmach stated as well as some others. In no particular order.
1. Secure the eastern approaches to the Suez Canal. Think India as Jewel in the crown.
2. THere were still plans for a European Asian and African set of railroads to be built either by the English or the Germans.
3. RN saw Persia as the future source of fuel for the fleet, Palestine and Mesopotamia (Iraq) secure that from the landside.
4. Christian Zionism was a force in the C of E, though not for altrusitic "save the Jews" reasons. Well, save them, but in the Christian sense.
5. Move the fighting from the stalemated Western Front, especially as we saw how poorly the Russians were doing.
6. Turn "Johnny Turk" from the Central Powers.