The Balfour Declaration: the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict
By Jonathan Schneer
Reviewed by Geoffrey Wheatcroft Published 23 August 2010
Has any short letter ever been so fateful? On 2 November 1917, Arthur James Balfour, the former Conservative prime minister who was now foreign secretary in David Lloyd George's wartime coalition government, wrote to Lord Rothschild conveying with "much pleasure" a declaration of sympathy, approved by the cabinet, to be passed to the Zionist Federation:
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.
Admirably as The Balfour Declaration relates how that letter came to be written, we scarcely need Jonathan Schneer to tell us that it changed history. Nearly a century later, the legacy of those 67 words is with us every day.
For 2,000 years, most of the Jews had lived in dispersion outside the Holy Land, praying for their return, though as a pious aspiration that the Almighty would bring about as and when He chose. But in the late 19th century a new movement advocated a Jewish state, as in the title of Theodor Herzl's book, published in 1896. Some enthusiasts took up this Zionist cause, though most Jews at the time did not. There was an existing, ancient Jewish community in Palestine, but it was tiny in numbers, perhaps no more than 7,000 when Herzl was born, before it was augmented by a few score thousand Zionist pioneers. Even then, by 1914, the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine accounted for little more than 10 per cent of the population.
The First World War changed everything: without it, there would have been no Russian Revolution, no Third Reich, almost certainly no Jewish state. Palestine was part of the Ottoman empire, which would not have survived much longer anyway, but sealed its fate by entering the war on the losing side. Desperate to find some escape from the bloody stalemate on the Western Front, the British looked east, fighting Turkey in the disastrous Gallipoli expedition, then launching the botched invasion of Mesopotamia (yes, Iraq), and then mounting a campaign to drive the Turks out of Palestine.
At this point, as Schneer vividly explains, British imperial interests began to engage with Zionism, but also with incipient Arab nationalism. What the dubious T E Lawrence called the "Arab Revolt" began in the belief that London favoured a national Arab state or states. Double-dealing was thus implicit from the start, as this little territory became, in the painfully apt title of another good recent book, by the former US state department negotiator Aaron David Miller, The Much Too Promised Land.
A plausible Arab leader had emerged in the form of Faisal Ibn Hussein, son of Hussein Ibn Ali, sharif of Mecca. Faisal was working with nationalists in Damascus by the spring of 1915 when they drew a map of a new kingdom, embracing all Arab lands; it would be recognised and protected by Britain in return for economic favours, as they hoped. But some Englishmen had quite other ideas, notably Sir Mark Sykes, Yorkshire landowner, Tory MP and amateur diplomatist. In November 1915, he and François Georges-Picot, a French official who had served in Beirut and was now at the embassy in London, drew up another secret map. Araby was carved into portions directly ruled by Britain or France, with client states adjacent, and the Holy Land under international control. By 1917, Sykes was also intriguing with the Zionists in London - but they, like the Arabs, knew nothing of the Sykes-Picot plan. Even now the duplicity is breathtaking. Never has Albion been more perfidious.
The Russian-born Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann had lived in England for some years and had already formed valuable alliances, with Winston Churchill, among others. He and his colleagues quietly and persistently worked to persuade London politicians of the value of their cause, not least for the British empire. And so, "the Arab and Jewish nationalist movements pushed relentlessly forward, oblivious to each other", Schneer writes, "like two ships headed for collision in the dark". All of this is grippingly told, with a firm grasp of original and secondary sources.
While everyone knows about the conflict between Arab and Jew, which is still all too much with us, there was another and much less well-remembered conflict, to which some of the most fascinating pages here are devoted. It is now almost forgotten that a century ago many proud and pious Jews were passionately opposed to Zionism, notably in the higher realms of Anglo-Jewry. As Weizmann and his colleagues worked tirelessly to obtain Balfour's statement, the conjoint committee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association, in the persons of Claude Montefiore, David Lindo Alexander and Lucien Wolf, worked just as hard to forestall it, supported by Edwin Montagu, the only Jew in the cabinet.
They were outplayed by the London Zionists, as Schneer describes, but not before they had published a declaration of their own in the Times some months before Balfour's letter. "The establishment of a Jewish nationality in Palestine, founded on this theory of homelessness, must have the effect throughout the world of stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands," they wrote. And "the proposal to invest the Jewish settlers in Palestine with certain special rights in excess of those enjoyed by the rest of the population . . . would prove a veritable calamity for the whole Jewish people".
Today we can see that the declaration was deeply hypocritical, not in its opening words up to "this object", but in that nervous qualification. How could this enterprise possibly fail to "prejudice the rights" of the majority who then lived in Palestine? But just as interesting are the words that come next. The "rights and political status" of Jews in the west may not quite have been prejudiced by a Jewish state, but their position has been complicated and, in some painful ways, today more than ever. Might not Montefiore and Alexander have had a point?
The Balfour Declaration: the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Jonathan Schneer
Bloomsbury, 464pp, £25
Geoffrey Wheatcroft's books include "The Strange Death of Tory England" (Penguin, £8.99) and "Yo, Blair!" (Politico's, £9.99)
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


11 comments
This is not the way it was told to us as school children during the 1930s. At that time, we learned that in 1917 Britain had large numbers of men in the armed forces and they were running out of money. The cabinet talked to Lord Rothschild and asked if the House of Rothschild could provide them with money. Lord Rothchild said he would see what he could do. When he came back to them he said it would be possible if the British Government would declare Palestine as a homeland for the Jews since it would probably mean that Britain would get Palestine as a protectorate after the war when they won. The British Cabinet agreed. Lord Rothschild asked for a letter in this regard and Lord Balfour gave him one. The British got the money and within 12 months the war was over.
The problem with all of this is that Lord Rothchild was part of the House of Rothschild and the head office for the House of Rothchild was in Berlin, Germany. If the German Jews gave money to Britain during a war they were aiding and abbetting the enemy and that is treason.
After the war, the British did indeed get Palestine and, since there were only about 30,000 Jews in Palestine, they started importing Jews. In 1925 and 1926 the Palestinians rioted. The immigration stopped and for a few years, nothing was done because there were still not enough Jews in Palestine. The Rothschilds became unhappy and eventually they released the letter given to Lord Rothschild.
Hitler came to power at the end of 1932 and in the new year he sent auditors into the House of Rothschild. They foulnd that money had certainly gone to Britain from the House of Rothschild and the money had been obtained by certain bonds that were purchased by the Jews on the basis that Palestine was to be declared their homeland. This proved beyond a doubt that the Jews were, indeed, traitors.
Hitler was furious. He demanded that all the Jew in Germany be deported to Palestine and the exodus began.
In 1935 and 1936 there were terrible riots in Palestine. I remember this as a child. The deportaions had to stop. Then he asked the United Nations if he could send them to Madagascar. The United Nations said no. There seemed no way out.
Germany had lost the war because they had lafked money; Britain won the war because the had the Berman money. But now the money had all been returned to Germany. Why not finish World War 1 as it should have been finished? To Hitler, WW1 was not yet over; he started preparing for war. But first, he had to get rid of the Jews so the first country that he invaded was Poland. And he could deport the Jews there. Germany had only just been invented in 1870. Before that it was Prussia which included a large part of Poland so he felt that he had a right to invade Poland and take that territory back. Besides, all the Jews of Europe had contributed to that bond issue.
The next was Austria, which had also been part of Prussia, then Holland, and next into France. The trouble was, that the German people also knew what the Jews had done and the whole nation was incensed. Some were rabid and once you get something started, other people have different ideas; some went to extremes.That was when they started to kill Jews and that was not just during the war. Not only that, but because it was Jewish money that started the whole thing they removed personal money and property from all the Jews. The whole nation was mad, mad, mad and they simply went too far. they killed Jews wherever they were and they killed Jews that had not done anything such as women and children, or men who would not buy those bonds and were really good citizens. Some had fought in WW1 for their country. Although, it must be admitted that they began by just trying to emmigrate them.
The mistake that Hitler made was that he underestimated the United States. The U.S. was a lot bigger nation than Hitler ever imagined.
It shows how brits and frogs are low life and selfish
they really want to getred of the jews out of Europ because they are not really in love with them, ( the merchant of vinice) . and the creminal minds of the jews and christian europians. will Hitler is an example of an elligitemate off spring from a jewish father ( rothchild) and a christian austerin woman who was a maid or a secrtary. then how the Zionest jewery helped helped Hitler to kill there own to have them leav Europ to palistine. not forgetting how the brits double crossed the arabs after they helped them against the Ottomans. will but did not work .Zionists still controling most of Europ and US economy and policy, eather by cry wolf ( anti sematism cry) or even now by threats or if it did not happen yet( i mean threats to who made them , it will happen soon. and arabs and most of the jews are victims to the greed of brits and lies of zionizm.
must respond. You say:
"Zionis[m] is not consistent with the surrounding area (such as language, customs, traditions and religion. The only solution to end the Arab-Israeli conflict is the expulsion of Jews from Palestine."
By this line of reasoning, all Arab Muslims should be expelled from all Western countries.
Shalom
There is no state called Israel.
State of thieves called Israel a
basis of the displacement
and killing of Innocent nation of thieves
basis bloodshed and war
And the arrest of people
for tens of years to
prevent him from claiming
The right to life .
basis steal the land of the
Palestinian people
And then steal
the land of the Arab-Muslim
the entire .State of the
thieves do not know the law .....
Does not recognize the
law of the United Nations,
a state that considers itself above the
law . the law is the siege of Gaza
And the bloodshed and
destruction of houses and
killing innocent people
and occupying the country
This is a country named Israel thieves
They had a better point before the Holocaust.
"The First World War changed everything: without it, there would have been no Russian Revolution, no Third Reich, almost certainly no Jewish state. Palestine was part of the Ottoman empire, which would not have survived much longer anyway, but sealed its fate by entering the war on the losing side."
"but sealed its fate by entering the war on the losing side",may be we should all apologise for winning two world wars that we did not start!
If only history had been different.....a different kind of Palestine one in which Grand Mufti Mohammad Amin al-Husayni was planning to build his very own gas chambers.
13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar and Grand Mufti Mohammad Amin al-Husayni
The 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) was one of the thirty-eight divisions fielded as part of the Waffen-SS during World War II.
Its recruits were composed of Bosnian Muslims and Croats. The Handschar[1] division was a mountain infantry formation, the equivalent of the German "Gebirgsjäger" (Mountain troops) units. It was used to conduct operations against Yugoslav Partisans in the Independent State of Croatia from February to September 1944.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_o...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni
The Muslim SS...hhmmmm.
The existence of the Zionist entity in the heart of the Arab-Muslim is in itself a strange
Because the Zionist entity is not shared with the Arab world, anything that characteristics such as religion, customs
Traditions and language. The existence of Israel within the Arab world is a big mistake, and constant tension
In the Middle East also note since 1948. Such as the entry of foreign objects inside the human body begins
Body fever, tension and fatigue and to ensure even go out foreign objects.
To all Arab and Islamic countries to form the Ministry of Defence and one common to all States and the expulsion of the Jews
From the Middle East. This is the best choice for Arabs and Jews in that one because he Bjrdasiraiil within the Arab world
Will feel the Arab world would not be true of the world would not be true of the Jewish people will never feel the stability and comfort, but if
Came out of Palestine, all Palestine greetings to all
ABU ARAB
could someone provide a translation ?
Posted by
JORDAN
May 24. 2010
http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArchiveDetails.aspx?ID=159390
posted on 34 other web sites!
the only thing that is clear is that he doesn't like Jews.
perfidious albion