The Balfour Declaration

Shusha

Gold Member
Dec 14, 2015
13,079
2,205
290
Since this is going to come up in the next few weeks with the 100th anniversary, I figured we should start a thread on it.

The relevant text, for reference:

"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'm going to contrast that declaration with Article 2 of the UNGA 1514 of 14 December 1960

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
 
Since this is going to come up in the next few weeks with the 100th anniversary, I figured we should start a thread on it.

The relevant text, for reference:

"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'm going to contrast that declaration with Article 2 of the UNGA 1514 of 14 December 1960

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Unless they happen to live in Gaza, where israel enforces a blockade
 
What part of "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" is so difficult to understand and how could it have been written any more clearly?
 
What part of "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" is so difficult to understand and how could it have been written any more clearly?
Well, when the zionist plan is fulfilled there will be no "non-Jewish communities" existing
 
The people with the bigger army and better weapons are the ones who get to say their God mandated them that land, as has always been the case over there.
 
What part of "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" is so difficult to understand and how could it have been written any more clearly?

For clarification, then, you support the concepts articulated in the Balfour Declaration, you just don't think it was implemented correctly.
 
For clarification, then, you support the concepts articulated in the Balfour Declaration, you just don't think it was implemented correctly.
Answer my questions first as this is your thread. What part of the direct quote is so difficult to understand and how could it have been written any more clearly?
 
And to this end Declares that:

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.
The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
 
Rather than see the Balfour Declaration as a commitment to Jewish self-determination, Black frames it as the origin of a conflict and the end of Palestinian aspirations.

In reality, it was not the Balfour Declaration that brought about the situation of today’s Palestinians or even those from 1948. Palestinian and Arab rejectionism has thwarted all attempts over the years to reach an amicable arrangement that could have seen a Palestinian state co-existing side by side with a Jewish one.

(full article online)

Balfour Declaration: Haters Declare War | HonestReporting
 
So where's the contrast, and um, you do realize a condition of war still exists between Israel and much of the Arab population both inside and surrounding Isreal ?

Thats why the Geneva Conventions apply and why there is still martial law in certain areas of Israel.

Since its the 100th anniversary; why don't we ask a few relevant questions. Like, why hasn't the UN segregated combatants and the descendants of combatants as well as those who assist combatants from the legitimate refugee population ????

Now there's a good place to begin the end of this mess
 
Balfour explicitly said that a Jewish national home should not be used as an excuse for other states to revoke the rights of Jews in their countries. Yet that is exactly what happened in very single Arab nation. Could that be the other half that the diplomats are referring to?

The tweet cannot possibly be referring to the establishment of another Arab state, since Balfour says nothing about an "Arab homeland in Palestine." And at the time it was written, Palestine included Transjordan, and the initial partition of Palestine into two parts would have taken care of that even if Balfour declared another Arab state.

So what can this tweet possibly be referring to?

(full article online)

UK, in bizarre tweet, says there's another "half" to Balfour. Huh? ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News
 
A s Jews in England and around the world prepare to mark the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, let us pause to ponder the respective legacies of Edwin Montagu and Lewis Dembitz. The names of these two Jews are largely unknown today, but they were, each in his own way, central players in the saga of the declaration, and therefore in one of the seminal moments in Jewish history. The former, a dedicated anti-Zionist, did everything he could to prevent this moment from occurring; the latter made his home thousands of miles from Britain and went to his grave surely unaware that the honorable way he lived his life, every day, would one day help bring the Balfour Declaration, and thereby the Jewish State, into existence.

Edwin Montagu was born into the one of the wealthiest Jewish families in England. He was the son of Samuel Montagu, who had been raised to British peerage but was known first and foremost for his zealous observance of Jewish law and for his sympathies to Zionism. Edwin’s life was lived in rebellion against his patrimony; like many members of the Jewish aristocracy known as “The Cousinhood,” he hated Zionism and its notion that Jews all around the world were one people and bound to one another. This, he believed, was not only false, but also raised the specter of dual loyalty for Jews seeking assimilation and aristocratic elevation in Britain. To Britain’s prime minister, David Lloyd George, Montagu complained, “All my life I have been trying to get out of the ghetto; you want to force me back there.”

In 1917, Montagu received the India portfolio in George’s cabinet; he was known for his sympathy for the nationalist aspirations of the Indians but not for those of other Jews. As the only Jewish member of George’s cabinet, Montagu participated in a public anti-Zionist statement asserting that Zionism “regards all the Jewish communities of the world as constituting one homeless nationality,” a notion that the statement “strongly and energetically protests.” Zionism, argued the statement, “must have the effect of stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands.”

There were prominent British Jews favorable to the Zionist project, including Montagu’s cousin Herbert Samuel. Yet as the British writer Chaim Bermant notes, Montagu was a “particularly formidable opponent, arguing both from the standpoint of the assimilated Jew and as Secretary of State for India.” If the efforts of Montagu were ultimately in vain, it was because the most politically powerful Jew in England was foiled by the most politically powerful Jew in America: Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

Brandeis had been raised with no Judaism at all and for much of his life approached Zionism in the same manner as Montagu. In 1905, he informed a Jewish audience that there was no place in the United States for “hyphenated Americans,” adding as late as 1910 that “habits of living or of thought which tend to keep alive differences of origin or classify men according to the religious beliefs are inconsistent with the American ideal of brotherhood, and are disloyal.” Yet he did know of one Jew who clearly saw no contradiction between public Jewishness and patriotic Americanism. That was his mother’s brother, a lawyer by the name of Lewis Dembitz.

The Zionist Uncle Who Changed the World - Commentary Magazine
 
A Muslim friend recently asked, "How can we discuss Zionism away from Judaism?" I offered to meet with her and explain it.

The offer has not thus far been taken up, and so I've decided to put my response to the question in writing.

There is a great deal of innocent misunderstanding about what Judaism and Zionism are, and the connection between them. There is also much deliberate obfuscation and misrepresentation in the service of a range of political agendas.

The standard mantra of anti-Israel activists is that Judaism and Zionism are entirely separate from one another. This is a convenient, but entirely false and artificial, rhetorical device for overcoming the widespread perception that many anti-Zionists are antisemites in disguise.

(full article online)

Zionism, Explained to a Muslim Friend – Opinion – ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
 
Which States or countries were under Balfour's control at the time?
Which countries or states were under the Ottoman Empire during its 500 year conquest of the area until 1917?
Were any of them countries? Any States?

Name them.
Not israel,
Name one Nation built by the Muslims or Christians on the Land of Israel.

And YES, there was that little kingdom/Nation which existed since 3000 years ago, and what was left of it after the Assyrian invasion called Judea.

So, again, YES - even if there was not a sovereign Israel or Judea during the Ottoman Empire invasion and conquest, it is the ONLY Nation one can name, which ever existed in the past 3000 years.

And, the only people who were actually indigenous to the area of the Land of Israel. The Jewish People/Nation.

And that is who the Balfour Declaration granted the right to rebuild their sovereignty over their own ancient homeland.

No one else's ancient homeland, as the Muslims wanted to do post WWI. As they continued to do over all of North Africa, and all other areas outside their own Arabian Peninsula, as in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. No sovereignty for the Kurds, Yazidis, Assyrians or any other indigenous people of all of those areas.
They must remain under Islamic rule.

Muslims will fight each other for territorial sovereignty, but will try to destroy the Jews for getting any sovereignty over their own ancient homeland. Because their mastery over the Jews must continue beyond the 1300 years when they treated the Jews as they wished and NOT in a honorable way.

It is well documented.

Hurray for Balfour, and all others who know how to respect the Jewish people as human beings, and not people who should suffer whatever their conquerors decide what want to do with them, and always in a bad way.
 
RE: Balfour Declaration (LINK)
※→ Boston1, et al,

There are a couple of points for which I need clarification (school me if you will please).

So where's the contrast, and um, you do realize a condition of war still exists between Israel and much of the Arab population both inside and surrounding Isreal ?

Thats why the Geneva Conventions apply and why there is still martial law in certain areas of Israel.

Since its the 100th anniversary; why don't we ask a few relevant questions. Like, why hasn't the UN segregated combatants and the descendants of combatants as well as those who assist combatants from the legitimate refugee population ????

Now there's a good place to begin the end of this mess
(QUESTIONS)

I was under the impression (probably wrong) that martial law was completely lifted in Israel sometime in 1966 when the Military Administration was lifted. That was a trigger marker in the tactical strategy for the planned Arab League assault in 1967.

The application of the Fourth Geneva Convention was imposed on the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; see S/RES/466.

The UN cannot impose the application of any international law (criminal or humanitarian) on any domestic matter.

Article 2(7) UN Charter:
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.​

AM I WRONG?

Most Respectfully,
R
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top