The Balfour Declaration

[Sixties Fan]

Had Chaim Weizmann, Nahum Sokolow and other Zionist leaders pressing the matter at the time adopted A SIMILAR line of thinking, it is likely THE Balfour Declaration would never have emerged. The Balfour Declaration shows just how instrumental evangelical support has been for the Zionist cause.

And, secondly, Jewish voices against Zionism and Israel are not something new or invented by Jewish Voices for Peace, IfNotNow or the two Jewish Google employees behind a recent effort to get Google and Amazon to back out of a $1.2 billion contract with Israel.

The loudest voice raised against The Balfour Declaration when it circulated among Lloyd George’s cabinet in July 1917 came from a Jew, Edwin Montagu, an ardent anti-Zionist who was the Secretary of State for India.

Montagu’s vehement opposition led the draft to be changed from His Majesty’s government viewing with favor the establishment of Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people and calling for free Jewish immigration there, to the final text where the government viewed favorably the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, with no mention of immigration.

Thanks to the intervention of Montagu, a Jew, the declaration was toned down and rendered much more equivocal.

The Balfour Declaration may have been issued 104 years ago, but – in light of the debate that swirls around Israel today – the dynamics that accompanied its publication prove the axiom that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

(full article online)

Balfour Day: Dynamics that accompanied famous declaration still at play

In 1917, the Balfour Declaration became the seminal document that led eventually to the establishment of the State of Israel.

www.jpost.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

As Palestinian Media Watch has shown, every year the PA and its institutions mark November 2nd with a comprehensive diatribe against the Balfour Declaration.

This year, PA Chairman and President Mahmoud Abbas issued a new “presidential decree,” ordering that the “national flag” be flown at half-mast on all the PA governmental buildings, including embassies and representative offices abroad.

According to the official PA news agency Wafa, the aim of lowering the flag is to remind “the world in general and the United Kingdom in particular of the suffering of the Palestinian people and their rights to achieve independence, statehood and self-determination.” Last year, the PA courts held a trial against the UK governmentdemanding that it be held accountable for the declaration and its consequences.

Unsurprisingly, the PA never mentions that prior to 1917, much of the Middle East and other regions were part of the Ottoman/Turkish Empire for 400 years. They never mention that an independent “State of Palestine” never existed. They similarly do not mention that the Balfour Declaration was not merely a British whim, but rather a decision adopted and ratified by the international community at the San Remo Conference in 1920.

The PA also never mentions that the Balfour Declaration was then adopted by the League of Nations in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine. At that time, “Palestine” included both Israel (including Judea and Samaria) and Jordan.

While pretending that Israel only has to withdraw to the 1967 borders to achieve peace, the reality is that every day, the PA further intensifies the anti-Israel propaganda and brainwashing of the Palestinian population. For the PA, only the cancellation of the Balfour Declaration and the undoing of its consequences — i.e. destroying Israel — will suffice.

To understand the central place of the Balfour Declaration in PA ideology read this article by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) staff.

(full article online)

Palestinians Admit: Only Destroying Israel Will Bring Peace - Algemeiner.com

In anticipation of this week's 104th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, the Palestinian Authority (PA) once again confirmed its most basic stance: There will be no peace until Israel is destroyed. Describing the Balfour Declaration as “the most despicable global colonialist plan in...

www.algemeiner.com

 

[Rigby5]

Lies.
The Balfour Declaration did NOT address a Jewish state at all.
It only professed a sympathy for a Jewish homeland within an Arab Palestine state.

That is easy to prove.
Just read the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

{...
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

{...
The Churchill White Paper of June 3, 1922, officially the Palestine - Correspondence with the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Zionist Organization, was drafted at the request of Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for the Colonies, partly in response to the 1921 Jaffa Riots. While maintaining Britain’s commitment to the Balfour Declaration and its promise of a Jewish national home in Palestine, the paper emphasized that the establishment of a national home would not impose a Jewish nationality on the Arab inhabitants of Palestine. To reduce tensions between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine, the paper called for a limitation of Jewish immigration to the economic capacity of the country to absorb new arrivals. This limitation was considered a great setback to many in the Zionist movement, though it acknowledged that the Jews should be able to increase their numbers by immigration as of right and not on sufferance.
...}

Churchill White Paper (1922)

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

 

[rylah]

Lies.
The Balfour Declaration did NOT address a Jewish state at all.
It only professed a sympathy for a Jewish homeland within an Arab Palestine state.

That is easy to prove.
Just read the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922

{...
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

This is a common argument - and as well easily disproven,
by the text in which the Balfour Declaration was finalized into international law.

What made it international law is not Britain's commitment to any of their interpretations,
but the The League of Nations specifically signing into law the re-constitution of the Jewish nation.

 

[rylah]

{...
The Churchill White Paper of June 3, 1922, officially the Palestine - Correspondence with the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Zionist Organization, was drafted at the request of Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for the Colonies, partly in response to the 1921 Jaffa Riots. While maintaining Britain’s commitment to the Balfour Declaration and its promise of a Jewish national home in Palestine, the paper emphasized that the establishment of a national home would not impose a Jewish nationality on the Arab inhabitants of Palestine. To reduce tensions between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine, the paper called for a limitation of Jewish immigration to the economic capacity of the country to absorb new arrivals. This limitation was considered a great setback to many in the Zionist movement, though it acknowledged that the Jews should be able to increase their numbers by immigration as of right and not on sufferance.
...}

Churchill White Paper (1922)

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

Who said the White Paper is legal? Read article 27.
Churchill had no authority to amend terms set by the League of Nations.

 

[Rigby5]

This is a common argument - and as well easily disproven,
by the text in which the Balfour Declaration was finalized into international law.

What made it international law is not Britain's commitment to any of their interpretations,
but the The League of Nations specifically signing into law the re-constitution of the Jewish nation.

wrong.
The Balfour Declaration was never written into international law and never could be.
International law over Palestine was established by the Treaty of San Remo and the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, and no one has the authority to change that.
The League of Nations too ZERO action over Palestine, and was never accepted by Congress even.
The only relevant legal documents were from the negotiations by the WWI participants,
And Zionists never played any role in WWI or any peace negotiations.
So they have zero legal authority over Palestine.

The only thing close to legal authority the Zionists got over Palestine was from the UN, under Truman, after WWII was over.

 

[Rigby5]

Who said the White Paper is legal? Read article 27.
Churchill had no authority to amend terms set by the League of Nations.

Lies.
The League of Nations never said a word about Palestine, and the League of Nations was itself never legal.
Churchill ever tried to amend any terms of anything, but merely cleared up misunderstandings as to what the Balfour Declaration actually meant.
And all it meant was some facilitated immigration.
It did not imply any sovereignty at all, in any way.

The British Mandate for Palestine was for England to help prepare the Palestinian Arab for independence.

 

[rylah]

wrong.
The Balfour Declaration was never written into international law and never could be.
International law over Palestine was established by the Treaty of San Remo and the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, and no one has the authority to change that.
The League of Nations too ZERO action over Palestine, and was never accepted by Congress even.
The only relevant legal documents were from the negotiations by the WWI participants,
And Zionists never played any role in WWI or any peace negotiations.
So they have zero legal authority over Palestine.

The only thing close to legal authority the Zionists got over Palestine was from the UN, under Truman, after WWII was over.

Have you even read it?

The San Remo as well orders the re-constitution of the Jewish nation,
explicitly referring to the approval of the declaration by The League of Nations -

San Remo Convention - World War I Document Archive

wwi.lib.byu.edu

 

[rylah]

Lies.
The League of Nations never said a word about Palestine, and the League of Nations was itself never legal.
Churchill ever tried to amend any terms of anything, but merely cleared up misunderstandings as to what the Balfour Declaration actually meant.
And all it meant was some facilitated immigration.
It did not imply any sovereignty at all, in any way.

The British Mandate for Palestine was for England to help prepare the Palestinian Arab for independence.

Can you show any international law or binding document,
even remotely mentioning Arab independence or national rights?

 

[Rigby5]

Have you even read it?

The San Remo as well orders the re-constitution of the Jewish nation,
explicitly referring to the approval of the declaration by The League of Nations -

San Remo Convention - World War I Document Archive

wwi.lib.byu.edu

Wrong.
A "Jewish homeland" refers to and has always referred to only facilitated immigration, and NEVER suggest any Jewish sovereignty or statehood.

{...
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might 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; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;
...}

It clearly says that the current majority is Moslem Arab and that this Moslem Arab majority was to remain in charge.
There has NEVER been a Jewish majority in Palestine or anywhere in the Levant, at any time.
Even now, there are 6 million Jews in Palestine/Israel, but 12 million Arabs in Palestine/Israel.

 

[Rigby5]

Arab independence?? Where is that mentioned?
Show me any international law or binding document.

Everywhere.
The population of Palestine in 1920 was less than 5% Jewish.
So obviously the vast majority of the population was Moslem Arab, and that is who they are always referring to.

{...
it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
...}
The civil rights of the Moslem Arab majority obviously means it was then to be a Moslem Arab state in majority.

The whole point of the treaties were to reward the Moslem Arabs for helping to defeat the Ottoman Empire.
Jews played no part in defeating the Ottoman Empire.

 

[rylah]

Wrong.
A "Jewish homeland" refers to and has always referred to only facilitated immigration, and NEVER suggest any Jewish sovereignty or statehood.

{...
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might 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; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;
...}

It clearly says that the current majority is Moslem Arab and that this Moslem Arab majority was to remain in charge.
There has NEVER been a Jewish majority in Palestine or anywhere in the Levant, at any time.
Even now, there are 6 million Jews in Palestine/Israel, but 12 million Arabs in Palestine/Israel.

Simple truth, neither you nor Britain get to define the Jewish Homeland.
And how does one re-constitute a nation without sovereignty?

Notice affront - I will likely apply your argument to Arabs.

 

[rylah]

Everywhere.
The population of Palestine in 1920 was less than 5% Jewish.
So obviously the vast majority of the population was Moslem Arab, and that is who they are always referring to.

{...
it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
...}
The civil rights of the Moslem Arab majority obviously means it was then to be a Moslem Arab state in majority.

The whole point of the treaties were to reward the Moslem Arabs for helping to defeat the Ottoman Empire.
Jews played no part in defeating the Ottoman Empire.

I don't see a single reference to that Arab supremacist gibberish,
and yet you say "it's everywhere"...is that all you can big mouth?

Can't find any international law mentioning
Arab national rights or independence?

That's your clue.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
SUBTOPIC: Legal Authority
⁜→ Rigby5, et al,

This are another series of problems with the pro-Arab Palestinians.

wrong.
The Balfour Declaration was never written into international law and never could be.
International law over Palestine was established by the Treaty of San Remo and the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, and no one has the authority to change that.
The League of Nations too ZERO action over Palestine, and was never accepted by Congress even.
The only relevant legal documents were from the negotiations by the WWI participants,
And Zionists never played any role in WWI or any peace negotiations.
So they have zero legal authority over Palestine.

The only thing close to legal authority the Zionists got over Palestine was from the UN, under Truman, after WWII was over.

(COMMENT)
.
Actually, there does not have to be any laws on the books pertaining to these anti-Israeli claims.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

SOURCE: Treaty of Lausanne​

The Arab Palestinians were not a party to, or a promisee, in the Balfour (1917), Armistice (1918), the San Remo Decisions (1920), the Treaty of Sevres (1920), the Palestine Order in Council (1922), the Mandate for Palestine (1922), or the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). All these items are agreements with the parties to the agreements being the Allied Powers, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, or between the Allied Powers. The Arab Palestinians were part of the enemy inhabitants place under the control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) between the Surrender and Armistice at Madros → and the creation of the Civil Administration immediately after the San Remo Conference (1920).

The only thing that you were close to getting right was that the Israelis did NOT get relevant legal documents were from the negotiations by the WWI participants or any binding agreements or promises. The Allied Powers decided amongst themselves what actions should be taken.

And the creations of the State of Israel (1948) was by the coordinated action of the Jewish Agency in concert with the National Council for the Jewish State which decided to exercise their Right to Self-Determination and applied for recognition through the UN Palestine Commission. But let there be no mistake. The State of Israel was an act of Self-Determination. It was not given them. It was a lawful acquisition without objection from the UN.

No amount of criticism of the Allied Powers, the Mandate factors, the Treaties or the associated conventions can rescind the Right of Self-Determination. The State of Israel is THE State of Israel. and the people of Israel make their own decisions. If the Arab Palestinians want to change the current outcome, they need to operate under the "Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States" - and the "Settlement by Peaceful Means of Disputes between States"; history not withstanding.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Rigby5]

Simple truth, neither you nor Britain get to define the Jewish Homeland.
And how does one re-constitute a nation without sovereignty?

Notice affront - I will likely apply your argument to Arabs.

Wrong.
A homeland has NEVER implied sovereignty.
Like the tribal homelands the racists white Afrikaners created in South Africa.
Never has "homeland" ever implied sovereignty.
No document ever mentions a Jewish "nation".
All anyone references is a Jewish "homeland".

{...
The British government, including Churchill, made it clear that the Declaration did not intend for the whole of Palestine to be converted into a Jewish National Home, "but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine."[xxii][xxiii] Emir Faisal, King of Syria and Iraq, made a formal written agreement with Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, which was drafted by T.E. Lawrence, whereby they would try to establish a peaceful relationship between Arabs and Jews in Palestine.
...}

Not a single document ever mentions a Jewish state or nation.
That is because that would be illegal, and none was ever intended or supported by anyone but Zionists and Truman.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't see a single reference to that Arab supremacist gibberish,
and yet you say "it's everywhere"...is that all you can big mouth?

Can't find any international law mentioning
Arab national rights or independence?

That's your clue.

I already gave you a reference, the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922.
Since the population of Palestine was less than 5% Jewish at the time of the British Mandate for Palestine, and that it was to repay the Arabs for defeating the Ottoman Empire, there was no reason to assume the mandate was for anyone but the Moslem Arabs.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
SUBTOPIC: Legal Authority
⁜→ Rigby5, et al,

Not that it make any difference, your argument is still faulty.

Not a single document ever mentions a Jewish state or nation.
That is because that would be illegal, and none was ever intended or supported by anyone but Zionists and Truman.

(RECOMMENDED CORRECTION)

A/RES/181(II) Question of Palestine 29 November 1947

PART II
Boundaries
B. The Jewish State
​

The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern) Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Transjordan. It includes the whole of the Hula Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan sub-district, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Jewish Section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat et Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza sub-district and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba sub-district, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza sub-district, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary line to Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

( Ω )

This (A/RES/181 II) is a non-binding agreement between the Membership; a recommendation adopted by the UN. However, it is not what the Israelis used as an authority (it Was merely a guide). (See Posting #696)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

Wrong.
A homeland has NEVER implied sovereignty.
Like the tribal homelands the racists white Afrikaners created in South Africa.
Never has "homeland" ever implied sovereignty.
No document ever mentions a Jewish "nation".
All anyone references is a Jewish "homeland".

{...
The British government, including Churchill, made it clear that the Declaration did not intend for the whole of Palestine to be converted into a Jewish National Home, "but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine."[xxii][xxiii] Emir Faisal, King of Syria and Iraq, made a formal written agreement with Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, which was drafted by T.E. Lawrence, whereby they would try to establish a peaceful relationship between Arabs and Jews in Palestine.
...}

Not a single document ever mentions a Jewish state or nation.
That is because that would be illegal, and none was ever intended or supported by anyone but Zionists and Truman.

A national reconstitution does.
Every binding document you reference confirms that,
and even Churchill's very attempt to reject it in the illegal White Paper.

In the meantime, still no quote mentioning anything about "Arab national rights"?