Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Balfour

Showing posts with label Balfour. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Balfour didn't create the Jewish national home - it was already there and everyone knew it (Daled Amos)

Thursday is the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, yet after 100 years people still argue over it and Abbas is still asking Great Britain for an apology.

What did the Balfour Declaration actually do?
And what did the Balfour Declaration recognize?

The second question is no more settled than the first.

Arthur Balfour. Credit: Wikipedia

We all are familiar with the language of the declaration:

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.

But while the declaration seems to be talking about the future, in The Case For Israel, Alan Dershowitz writes that by the time the Balfour Declaration was published in 1917, that national home already existed:

Even before the Balfour Declaration of 1917, there was a de facto Jewish national home in Palestine consisting of several dozens of Jewish moshavim and kibbutzim in western and northeastern Palestine, as well as in Jewish cities such as Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Safad. The Jewish refugees in Palestine had established this homeland on the ground without the assistance of any colonial or imperialist powers. They had relied on their own hard work in building an infrastructure and cultivating land they had legally purchased.

This was an area under Ottoman control until the end of WWI. Even before WWI, there was no sovereign state, just a collection of districts under the control of foreign Ottoman control.

Dershowitz's interpretation is not his own. In the British White Paper of 1922, Winston Churchill wrote about the Jewish National Home that had already been established in Palestine:

During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organization for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew Press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious, and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact "national" characteristics. When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection. [emphasis added]

Sir Winston Churchill, by Yousuf Karsh. Source: Wikipedia

The Balfour Declaration was not addressed to a foreign group, giving them permission to enter the land. On the contrary, it was recognition of what Jews -- who have an indigenous connection to the land -- had already accomplished and would continue to develop.

As Dershowitz puts it:

The political and legal seeds were were thus sown for a two- (or three- ) state solution to the "Palestinian problem." This was a perfect example of self-determination at work.

This is more than an abstract theory.

The 1925 Larousse French dictionary had an entry for "Palestine":

Here is a closeup view of the beginning of the entry:

This translates as:

PALESTINE, the land of Syria, between Phenicia in the North, the Dead Sea in the South, the Mediterranean in the West, and the Syrian Desert in the East, watered by the Jordan. It is a narrow strip of land, narrowed between the sea, Lebanon, and traversed by the Jordan, which throws itself into the Dead Sea. It is also called, in Scripture, Land of Chanaan, Promised Land and Judea . It is today [in 1925] a Jewish state under the mandate of England; 770,000 inhabitants. Jerusalem capital.

Already in 1925, before WWII and before the Israeli War of Independence, there was a recognition of a Jewish state called Palestine, a state of 770,000 inhabitants that included both Jews and Muslims. It's capital was Jerusalem, which did not have that designation under Ottoman rule.

Not everyone may have recognized Palestine as such, certainly the Arabs did not, but the ideas expressed by Churchill were more than abstract and had gained a certain acceptance.

Even US President Woodrow Wilson, who was a champion of self-determination and opposed British-French plans on dividing the Ottoman Empire after WWI, saw a Jewish state in Palestine as self-determination:

I am persuaded that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish commonwealth.

Woodrow Wilson. Library of Congress.
Source: Wikipedia

The culmination of that self-determination -- with a state for the Arabs -- was prevented by war and a refusal to accept even the presence of Jews on the land.

So, what were the Jews doing in Palestine before the Lord Balfour came out with his famous declaration? They were not waiting around to enter as invited guests. Instead, they worked on a land to which they have a 3,000 year history. Jews with indigenous roots to the land worked to re-establish it as a sovereign state, something it had never been since the time of the Romans.

Jews made a choice.
The Arabs made their own choice too.

Hat tip: EG

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Even Palestinian academics admit that it is impossible to sue Britain for Balfour

A surprising article in Al Quds -in fact, its top story, this morning, discusses whether there is any possible legal basis to sue Great Britain over the Balfour Declaration, as the Palestinian leadership has been threatening since an Arab League summit last July.

The verdict? There is no possible way that the ICC or ICJ would hear such a case.

According to Bir Zeit University international law professor Yasser Al-Amouri, there is no possibility of litigation before the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, since the Balfour Declaration is not within the jurisdiction of either court. The International Court of Justice considers legal matters on the basis of the consent of the parties to the dispute to resolve the case, which is highly unlikely that Great Britain will consent to being sued there. The International Criminal Court, is unlikely to say that it has jurisdiction over a case like the Balfour Declaration, for more than one reason, including the fact that it was written in 1917 and that it seems highly unlikely that Balfour is a war crime or genocidal.

However, Amouri says, the PLO can use diplomatic means to pressure Britain to issue an apology, which would be considered a great victory.

An Al Monitor article last summer described a possible (albeit also unlikely) path for diplomatic pressure on Britain:

Expert in international law Hanna Issa told Al-Monitor...“I expect the PA to follow these successive steps; it should first resort to the [UN] Security Council to adopt a resolution condemning the Balfour Declaration — which will [most probably] be vetoed by Britain since it is a permanent member of the Security Council. [In this case], the PA should then address the UN General Assembly and demand it to consider the case in accordance with the Uniting for Peace resolution [No. 377] issued in 1950, which gives the UN [General Assembly] the right to intervene if the Security Council fails to exercise [its responsibility] should one member [Britain, in this case] use its veto. The resolution gives the UN the right to review the case and make recommendations to take collective measures aimed at maintaining peace and security, and these measures include the formation of a special court to look into the case.”

That is sort of insane. The Uniting for Peace resolution to override the Security Council has been rarely invoked, and it sure won't be for something as stupid as this.

In the end, this is another stunt by Mahmoud Abbas, who has a history of preferring stunts than actual leadership and working for peace. One can only hope that Great Britain and the rest of the West will not only not be influenced by such threats, but would learn from them how unserious the Palestinians are about actual peace.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

The 1939 White Paper, not Balfour Declaration, is the document that the British really DO need to apologize for

A Jewish demonstration against the White Paper, 1939

On this 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, Arabs have been waging a major campaign over the past year to force Great Britain to apologize for issuing it.

This is absurd, of course, for a number of reasons. The The Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the San Remo Resolution and became international law that set aside the entire area of Palestine to become a Jewish national home. This law is still effective today. The campaign is really an effort to deny Jews their right to self-determination.

Arab media have articles about how the Balfour Declaration showed that the British were pro-Zionist, anti-Arab and so forth.

That is obviously a lie - and the proof is the one document that the British really should apologize for.

The 1939 White Paper severely restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine at the very moment that the Jews of Europe faced death.

The British who wrote it pretended that it was all fair and proper, of course:

If immigration has an adverse effect on the economic position in the country, it should clearly be restricted; and equally, if it has a seriously damaging effect on the political position in the country, that is a factor that should not be ignored. Although it is not difficult to contend that the large number of Jewish immigrants who have been admitted so far have been absorbed economically, the fear of the Arabs that this influx will continue indefinitely until the Jewish population is in a position to dominate them has produced consequences which are extremely grave for Jews and Arabs alike and for the peace and prosperity of Palestine. The lamentable disturbances of the past three years are only the latest and most sustained manifestation of this intense Arab apprehension. The methods employed by Arab terrorists against fellow Arabs and Jews alike must receive unqualified condemnation. But it cannot be denied that fear of indefinite Jewish immigration is widespread amongst the Arab population and that this fear has made possible disturbances which have given a serious setback to economic progress, depleted the Palestine exchequer, rendered life and property insecure, and produced a bitterness between the Arab and Jewish populations which is deplorable between citizens of the same country. If in these circumstances immigration is continued up to the economic absorptive capacity of the country, regardless of all other considerations, a fatal enmity between the two peoples will be perpetuated, and the situation in Palestine may become a permanent source of friction amongst all peoples in the Near and Middle East. His Majesty's Government cannot take the view that either their obligations under the Mandate, or considerations of common sense and justice, require that they should ignore these circumstances in framing immigration policy.

In short, the British gave Arab terrorists veto power over allowing Jews to enter the country because of fear of more terror.

...The alternatives before His Majesty's Government are either (i) to seek to expand the Jewish National Home indefinitely by immigration, against the strongly expressed will of the Arab people of the country; or (ii) to permit further expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration only if the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it. The former policy means rule by force....Moreover, the relations between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine must be based sooner or later on mutual tolerance and goodwill; the peace, security and progress of the Jewish National Home itself requires this. Therefore His Majesty's Government, after earnest consideration, and taking into account the extent to which the growth of the Jewish National Home has been facilitated over the last twenty years, have decided that the time has come to adopt in principle the second of the alternatives referred to above.

More Jews mean the Arabs get more upset, and more upset Arabs mean that the Jewish national home cannot survive. How's that for logic to justify the imminent deaths of millions of Jews?

Oh, but the authors pretended to care about the European Jews. Or at least a few of them.

...His Majesty's Government are conscious of the present unhappy plight of large numbers of Jews who seek refuge from certain European countries, and they believe that Palestine can and should make a further contribution to the solution of this pressing world problem. In all these circumstances, they believe that they will be acting consistently with their Mandatory obligations to both Arabs and Jews, and in the manner best calculated to serve the interests of the whole people of Palestine, by adopting the following proposals regarding immigration:

...[T]he admission, as from the beginning of April this year, of some 75,000 immigrants over the next five years. These immigrants would, subject to the criterion of economic absorptive capacity, be admitted as follows:

For each of the next five years a quota of 10,000 Jewish immigrants will be allowed on the understanding that a shortage one year may be added to the quotas for subsequent years, within the five year period, if economic absorptive capacity permits.

In addition, as a contribution towards the solution of the Jewish refugee problem, 25,000 refugees will be admitted as soon as the High Commissioner is satisfied that adequate provision for their maintenance is ensured, special consideration being given to refugee children and dependents.

The existing machinery for ascertaining economic absorptive capacity will be retained, and the High Commissioner will have the ultimate responsibility for deciding the limits of economic capacity. Before each periodic decision is taken, Jewish and Arab representatives will be consulted.

After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.

His Majesty's Government are determined to check illegal immigration, and further preventive measures are being adopted. The numbers of any Jewish illegal immigrants who, despite these measures, may succeed in coming into the country and cannot be deported will be deducted from the yearly quotas.

His Majesty's Government are satisfied that, when the immigration over five years which is now contemplated has taken place, they will not be justified in facilitating, nor will they be under any obligation to facilitate, the further development of the Jewish National Home by immigration regardless of the wishes of the Arab population.

The White Paper also stated, explicitly, that Jews cannot purchase land in much of Palestine from Arabs. making antisemitism official British government policy.

The authors of the paper knew very well every Jew they barred from immigrating to Palestine was likely to be murdered. Liberal MP James Rothschild stated during the parliamentary debate that "for the majority of the Jews who go to Palestine it is a question of migration or of physical extinction".

Even the "League of Nations commission held that the White Paper was in conflict with the terms of the Mandate."

In the end, the British didn't even admit the full 75,000 Jews that the White Paper allowed.

Six million were murdered. Tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, would have been saved if it wasn't for the British White Paper. The disgusting policy of appeasement of what the White Paper literally called "Arab terrorists" - led to the deaths of untold numbers of Jews.

Balfour (and San Remo) should have saved much of European Jewry. The White Paper abrogated Balfour, and violated basic human rights, to kow-tow to the threat of Arab terrorism.

If anyone is going to ask for apologies from the British, it should be the Jewish people for the immoral policy that sentenced hundreds of thousands of our relatives to death.

(This is an update of an article I wrote last year.)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Palestinian government: "Balfour Declaration the biggest political crime in history"

Autotranslated headline of article in Al Ahram

The Palestinian Authority, has issued what is perhaps the most over-the-top statement yet about the Balfour Declaration.

The State of Palestine has decided to sue Britain for its intention to support the Balfour Declaration, which paved the way for the establishment of the State of Israel in Palestine.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki announced in remarks to official Palestinian radio on Sunday that he condemned the British government's insistence on celebrating Balfour's centennial instead of responding to Palestinian demands to apologize for it.

He said the British position "represents a great challenge to the British people, the international community and Palestine on the subject and reflects a real indifference to the historical responsibility and crime committed by Britain a hundred years ago."

He added that this position "must be met by counter-Palestinian measures through the legal side to bring legal proceedings against the British government, whether in the British or European courts for the crimes committed against the Palestinian people."

Al-Malki pointed out that the Palestinian side "tried to give Britain a way to change its position and retreat in a dignified manner by presenting several proposals to try to correct the historical mistake they committed against the Palestinian people."

For its part, the Palestinian Ministry of Information stressed that the determination of British Prime Minister Theresa May to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration and boast to the Parliament of her country's role in establishing and consecrating the occupying state Israel is a repeat of the biggest political crime in human history and continues to break out of all diplomatic traditions.

It stressed in a statement yesterday that May's refusal to apologize for and insist on the black promise reflects not only extreme political trends, but also demonstrates a major moral crisis emanating from a British eye bent on blindness and brazenly defending the denial of Palestinian rights.

May and all those who support the British government's promise in the defense of political sin can not contribute to any formula for a just and comprehensive peace not only in Palestine but also in the entire world.

The defense of the Balfour Declaration means practically neutralizing the idea of occupation, supporting racial discrimination, pride in the British colonial legacy, and glorifying the two world wars: the first and second, and the bloody consequences, and the blind bias and polarization.that preceded them

The ironic thing is that the British government has been downplaying the Balfour centenary, with only a single low-key official event that no one of note attended on Wednesday night. The major effort to mark the occasion is a private dinner that Netanyahu and May will attend next week hosted by the current Lords Balfour and Rothschild.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Palestinian Authority tells its HS students to write 100,000 anti-Balfour letters to Theresa May

Palestinians burn British, American and Israeli flags on anniversary of Balfour Declaration in 2015

Now, this is how to do propaganda.

The Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education and Higher Education announced on Tuesday the launch of a campaign, in cooperation with the PA's Supreme National Committee, to get Palestinian high school students to write 100 thousand letters addressed to Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May against the Balfour Declaration on its centenary.

According to a ministry statement, these messages will be written in different languages, and a number of them will be published in the media.

In addition, a moment of silence will be observed in all Palestinian schools in commemoration of the letter.

The ministry instructed school districts to organize events on November 1 in every schoolyard, and to invite the media and Palestinian leaders to participate.

Every student is supposed to hold a sign in Arabic or English denouncing the Declaration and insisting on an apology from Great Britain.

The Palestinian Authority eagerly and cynically uses children in an effort to get news coverage of its political goal to destroy Israel. And the wire services that will show pictures of these children holding signs will not mention that the PA forced them to do it, and make it appear like a grassroots movement of angry youths.

Children are being weaponized. And the money behind this campaign comes from your tax dollars.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

UK, in bizarre tweet, says there's another "half" to Balfour. Huh?

A bizarre tweet from UK in the UN:

Let us remember, there are 2 halves of #Balfour, 2nd of which has not been fulfilled. There is unfinished business. @AmbassadorAllen #Israel pic.twitter.com/BoAXOcsKdz
— UKUN_NewYork (@UKUN_NewYork) October 18, 2017

Wow, what could the other half be?

Here's the full text of the Balfour Declaration:

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear 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 endeavors 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.

Yours,

Arthur James Balfour

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?

Obviously the UK diplomats are referring to the part that says "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." But there is nothing that prejudices the rights of Arabs in the Jewish national home, which is now Israel.

This is an uncalled for slam against Israel and it is in direct contradiction to the UK's principled stand to celebrate the centennial of Balfour rather than apologize for it, as the Israel-haters demand.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Palestinian Arab snowflakes upset at Balfour celebration at Manchester U

From Al Jazeera:

A British university has drawn criticism for its decision to allow a Balfour Declaration "celebration" organised by a pro-Israel group.

The Manchester Balfour 100 event will be held at the University of Manchester's main campus later in October and is part of a broader series of events to mark the anniversary of the declaration made by then British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour on November 2, 1917.

The university's decision has been slammed by both academics and students.

"Having the celebration of the Balfour declaration on campus is totally disrespectful to students of Palestinian origin," said Ayham Madi, a Palestinian studying at the university, adding: "Many people lost their homes, land and their lives."

The cybersecurity student said a hundred years later, Palestinians continued to feel the impact of the declaration and that he felt "great pain" that the university has allowed the event to take place.

The National (UAE) adds:

BDS campaigner Huda Ammori, 23, told The National that the university’s decision to allow the event to take place on its premises had upset many Palestinian students.

“The Balfour Declaration is seen by many Palestinian students as the invitation of the ethnic cleansing, which took place in 1948,” she explained.

Ms Ammori, who is in the third year of an international business, finance and economics degree at Manchester, described how some of the students on campus felt when they discovered the celebration was taking place.

“It was quite an emotional step back for some of the Palestinian students because it’s a mockery, especially when they are painting it as a celebration. Not an educational talk - a celebration,” she said.

“They (the university) are making a clear statement by holding it on the campus. They are completely disregarding Palestinian students.”

The BDS campaign at the university has joined other student societies in writing a letter to president and vice chancellor, Nancy Rothwell, demanding the event be cancelled. If it is not, Ms Ammori said a protest will take place outside the venue where the celebration is held.

Poor snowflakes.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Anti-Israel "Balfour Project" cant quite find "Palestine" stamps that don't make them look stupid

The "Balfour Project" is an attempt by a bunch of British Israel-haters to force Great Britain to apologize for the Balfour Declaration.

They illustrate their site with the first stamps used by Great Britain in Palestine after they occupied it.

So what are these stamps?

The first set of four stamps look like this:

Note that it doesn't say "Palestine" or anything close. It says "E.E.F" which stands for the British Egyptian Expeditionary Force which occupied Palestine in 1917. The E.E.F. stamps were valid in Palestine, Cilicia, Syria, Lebanon, and Transjordan.

Nothing "Palestinian" about them.

The other stamps are variants of this one, but with an overstrike that says "Palestine" in English and Arabic that Great Britain started in 1920 with the Mandate. In Hebrew it says "Palestina E.Y." where the "E.Y" stands for Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel.

Palestinian Arabs didn't like the idea that the "E.Y." were on the stamps. They countered that they wanted their own national name on the stamps as well in Arabic if the Jews were allowed to place the "E.Y" after their name.

And the name they wanted to print was not "Palestine."

They wanted the stamps to say ""Suria El Jenobia" -Southern Syria!

This was all recorded in the Palestine Bulletin of October 13, 1925.

Israel-haters keep trying to make "Palestine" look like is was a real Arab country. And they always fail, spectacularly.

(h/t Irene)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

British government officially refuses to apologize for Balfour Declaration

A few weeks ago an anti-Israel group called the Balfour Apology Campaign started an official petition to the British Government demanding that they apologize for issuing the Balfour Declaration in 1917:

We call on Her Majesty’s Government to openly apologise to the Palestinian people for issuing the Balfour Declaration. The colonial policy of Britain between 1917-1948 led to mass displacement of the Palestinian nation.

HMG should recognise its role during the Mandate and now must lead attempts to reach a solution that ensures justice for the Palestinian people.

Calls to apologize for Balfour have been spreading since the 99th anniversary of the document, and even Mahmoud Abbas has been publicly insisting on an apology.

After some 13,000 signatures were received, the British Government responded with a resounding no:

The Balfour Declaration is an historic statement for which HMG does not intend to apologise. We are proud of our role in creating the State of Israel. The task now is to encourage moves towards peace.

The Declaration was written in a world of competing imperial powers, in the midst of the First World War and in the twilight of the Ottoman Empire. In that context, establishing a homeland for the Jewish people in the land to which they had such strong historical and religious ties was the right and moral thing to do, particularly against the background of centuries of persecution. Of course, a full assessment of the Declaration and what followed from it can only be made by historians.

Unfortunately, the response turns politically correct at this point.

Much has happened since 1917. We recognise that the Declaration should have called for the protection of political rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine, particularly their right to self-determination.

At the time there was next to no desire by Arabs in Palestine for an independent state - their leaders overwhelmingly wanted to be part of Greater Syria. The idea of a people called "Palestinian" was literally unheard of.

However, the important thing now is to look forward and establish security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians through a lasting peace. We believe the best way to achieve this is through a two-state solution: a negotiated settlement that leads to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states, and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees.

We believe that such negotiations will only succeed when they are conducted between Israelis and Palestinians, but with appropriate support from the international community. We remain in close consultation with both sides and international partners to encourage meaningful bilateral negotiations. We do not underestimate the challenges, but if both parties show bold leadership, peace is possible. The UK is ready to do all it can to support this goal.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

If they think that their "even handed" response will take the wind out of the sails of the haters who created the petition, they are sadly mistaken. The haters don't want a Palestinian state alongside Israel, they want an Arab state replacing Israel.

Which has been their goal since Palestinian nationalism started.

It is nice to see that Her Majesty's Government did not even consider the petition to have any merit to begin with. There was no apology for not apologizing. The rest is well-known British policy, and the only way that this policy will change is when the world governments start looking at things clearly and seeing that these moves are not meant to foster peace but to deny self-determination to the Jewish people.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

The Earl of Balfour blames antisemitism on Israel (poster)

The Earl of Balfour wrote a letter to the New York Times:

In 1917, my forebear Arthur Balfour, as British foreign secretary, wrote the Balfour Declaration, a great humanitarian initiative to give Jews a home in their ancient lands, against the background of the dreadful Russian pogroms. We are conscious, however, that a central tenet of the declaration has all but been forgotten over the intervening decades: respect for the status of (Arab) Palestinians.

The increasing inability of Israel to address this condition, coupled with the expansion into Arab territory of the Jewish settlements, are major factors in growing anti-Semitism around the world.

If this situation is to have a chance of being neutralized, Israel must respect the United Nations resolutions (the same United Nations that gave Israel legitimacy 70 years ago) and look to allow the Palestinians their own state. Of course, this will mean disruption and Israeli political upheaval, and it’s disappointing that this week President Trump looked more like Janus on the issue.

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu owes this to the millions of Jews around the world who suffer essentially because of the results of internal Israeli politics, as well as to the unenfranchised Palestinians.

Thus, we don’t believe that the declaration centenary can be properly celebrated this year unless progress is made, and soon. Simultaneous work toward making Jerusalem an internationally protected capital for all three Abrahamic faiths could see original intentions realized.

RODERICK BALFOUR

London

There is a lot wrong with this letter - for example, the Balfour Declaration promised a Jewish homeland but not a "Palestinian homeland" that Roderick implies it does, and he ignores history like the San Remo Conference and the partition of Palestine that created Transjordan specifically to create an Arab state.

But the worst part is that Balfour believes that Israeli policies are causing antisemitism.

For someone who invokes the Russian pogroms, Balfour sure hasn't learned the lesson of historical antisemitism: people don't hate Jews because of what they do.

Antisemites will come up with any excuse to hate Jews - Jews are capitalist/Jews are communist; Jews are wretched/Jews are too powerful.Jews keep themselves separate/Jews are infiltrating our hallowed institutions. We don't want Jews in our country/we don't want Jews to have their own country.

Settlements aren't the reason for modern antisemitism. Palestinians who are being supposedly oppressed by Jews living a few miles away mostly live in better circumstances than their Arab neighbors. Palestinians in Lebanon and Syria would gladly trade their lives with their fellow Palestinians in Nablus and Ramallah.

I would argue that using Israeli policies as an excuse for antisemitism is a form of antisemitism itself.

(h/ David B)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Palestinian leaders go ballistic over May's invitation to Netanyahu to celebrate Balfour centenary

From The Independent:

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s invitation for the Israeli premier to the centenary celebrations of the Balfour Declaration later this year “speaks volumes” about the closeness of the two countries.

Ms May extended an invite to Mr Netanyahu during an official visit to London which concluded on Monday.

“While the Palestinians want to sue Britain for the Balfour Declaration, the British prime minister is inviting the Israeli prime minister to an event to mark the 100th anniversary of the declaration. That speaks volumes,” Netanyahu said.

Mahmoud Abbas' office went nuts. Xinhua translates from the PA's official Wafa news agency:

Palestinian President Spokesperson Nabil Abu Rudeinah on Tuesday deplored Britain's invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to attend celebrations of the centennial of the Balfour Declaration.

Britain "is responsible for the disaster of the Palestinian people a hundred years ago," Abu Rudeinah said in statements by the official Palestinian news agency WAFA.

"Instead of correcting the historic mistake and recognizing the Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, it is preparing to celebrate an incident considered by the Arab world and the international community as a tragic reason that the Palestinian people and the Arab region is paying for," the spokesperson said.

Abu Rudeinah urged the British government to correct this mistake in order to maintain security and stability in the region.

That last line shows exactly how the Palestinian leadership views peace: by erasing Israel.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Have the Arabs weaponized Balfour? (Irene)

A guest post from Irene:

If you don’t understand what the question is, your answer will be wrong.

The question is not “Why are we celebrating the centenary of the Balfour Declaration?” The question is, “What gave the British the right to give land that was not theirs to people who did not live there, ignoring the wishes of indigenous people?”

That’s the question the average person will have after reading almost any one of the recently numerous articles extolling the Balfour Declaration (and more will follow in the coming year), including most of those written by persons friendly to Israel. And it’s exactly the question that Arabs want people to ask, knowing that it leads the average person to conclude that Israel has no right to exist.

The Arabs use the Balfour Declaration as a potent weapon against Israel. Balfour conjures up images of the world’s foremost colonial power using force to impose its will on lands thousands of miles away with arrogant disregard of the native peoples. It is an image so vivid, so powerful, that it burns its way through the minds of the uninformed with lasting effect.

That is why I recommend that writers defuse the weapon by immediately putting the Balfour Declaration in perspective as an historically interesting letter that was almost immediately superseded by international law. I would dismiss Balfour in five sentences or less. That is all it deserves. If you spend any more time on it, you are playing into Arab hands.

All of the emphasis of articles should be on the international law that followed Balfour and that formed the basis for Israel—the decisions of the winning powers (not just the British) at San Remo and the unanimous decision of the 51 members of the League of Nations to issue the Mandate for Palestine. The League issued the Mandate pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which provided a path towards statehood for peoples previously under Ottoman rule who were not immediately able to stand up a nation of their own. Although it does not use these specific words, the Mandate in effect recognized the Jews as an indigenous people with aboriginal rights.

Emphasis should also be given to the fact that the decisions regarding Palestine were made at the same time that decisions were made to carve five Arabs nations out of the carcass of Ottoman Turkey’s Empire and mirrored decisions redrawing boundaries and changing sovereignties in Europe, Africa, and the Pacific at the end of World War I.

Some people may quibble with my statement that Balfour was “superseded by international law” because both the San Remo decision and the Mandate refer to it and quote from it. Balfour was a very short and very vague document. The Mandate for Palestine is a long and detailed document that provides for encouragement of Jewish immigration and close settlement on the land. It specifies a Jewish governmental body (but no Arab governmental body) with which the British would interact during the period of the Mandate and which would be the basis for the new state. It addresses a long list of other concerns, for example, access to holy places. So I stand by my statement. A few vague sentences issued by the British were supplanted by a detailed international law adopted unanimously by the League of Nations.

The answer to the question of “What gave the British the right to give land..." is that the British did not give away any land. The disposition of conquered lands at the end of World War I was addressed by international laws that recognized five Arab nations and a single small Jewish nation in the Ottoman Middle East. Few nations on earth have such a nice pedigree in international law as does Israel.

If you are a writing a scholarly paper, then yeah, spend a lot of time on Balfour. It was an interesting document. But it you are writing for the popular press, be aware that your words go out to people who already think Israel is illegitimate and are looking for memes to prove it. The Balfour Declaration, issued by a colonial power about a faraway land, is the perfect meme for that purpose. These people will not reach paragraph 18 of your article, when you finally get around to mentioning the Mandate.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Christians and the Balfour Declaration

A group of Christian ministry leaders in the UK, under the name Balfour100.org, are planning events to celebrate the centennial of the Balfour Declaration next year.

Here is their take on the history of the document:

Five hundred years ago the Reformation led to the Bible being translated into English and read by the common man. This led to a greater interest, particularly among Puritans, in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. They were able to read for themselves the prophetic passages speaking of the eventual return of Israel to her biblical promised land. By the 17th Century there was a growing awareness among British evangelicals generally that the Bible prophesied the return of the people of Israel to their historic Promised Land.

Later, in the 19th Century, many well-known preachers like Bishop J.C.Ryle and Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon taught on the restoration of the Jews to their land. Bible-believing Christians (such as William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury who were also enthusiastic restorationaists) had a huge influence on the governments of the time. A belief in the restoration of the Jewish people to Israel has been described as the “default position” for evangelicals in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Sadly, that is not the case today.

Ryle, Spurgeon and others were influential in presenting the case for the return of the Jews. As Bible students they longed to see the return of Jesus Christ. Before that could happen, the Jews had to be back in their own Land (Israel). They understood this from prophetic passages in the Old Testament foretelling the appearance of Messiah in Jerusalem to a restored Jewish people. This then became the central focus of their prayer and political action but seemed impossible while the ancient Land of Israel was under Muslim Turkish control and the Jewish people scattered for 1,900 years.

In 1896 Austrian Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, incensed at the anti-semitism he saw around him (especially the notorious Dreyfus affair), wrote 'Der Judenstaat' on the need to re-establish the Jewish State as the only viable long-term solution for the survival of the Jewish people.

As Herzl began the movement that became known as “Zionism” he became friends with an evangelical Christian minister, Rev William Hechler. Hechler’s high level contacts as a diplomatic chaplain in Vienna enabled Herzl to gain valuable patronage for Zionsim and helped to envision influential leaders, including the Kaiser of Germany.

Historians have noted that if Herzl had not had Hechler’s support and encouragement to continue his work, Zionism might never have been birthed as a political movement. Hechler, a spiritual heir of the likes of Ryle and Spurgeon, was one of the first “Christian Zionists”.

As the 19th Century became the 20th, another partnership between Jew and gentile was developing that was key to the furtherance of the dream of a revived Jewish homeland.
Chaim Weizmann, born in 1874, was one of fifteen children born to a Jewish couple in Belarus. He studied biochemistry in Germany and moved to Manchester in 1904. Becoming a leading bio-chemist in the years that followed, Weizmann also became a leader in the Zionist movement in Britain.

During World War 1 he developed an important chemical ingredient for gunpowder, which brought him to the attention of the British Government and particularly Lord Balfour, with whom he had already become friends.

Born in Scotland, Arthur Balfour became MP for Manchester East (where he first met Weizmann) in 1885, and was Prime Minister from 1902-05. In 1917, when the Balfour Declaration was made, he was Foreign Secretary

This was the partnership that eventually led to the letter known to this day as the 'Balfour Declaration' (Balfour was the signatory). A friendship developed, during which Weizmann, the ardent Zionist, persuaded Balfour, an evangelical Christian in favour of Jewish restoration, of the case for a homeland for the Jewish people in what was then “Palestine.”

Britain’s strategic needs, burgeoning alliances with Arab leaders and the clear justice of the zionists’ dreams coalesced on 31st October 1917, when Britain’s war cabinet (most of whom were also evangelical Christians) agreed the final wording of a letter to Lord Rothschild and the Zionist Federation; a letter which became known as “The Balfour Declaration”.

Another event took place on 31st October 1917, which was key to the intentions expressed in the Declaration. General Allenby won a key battle against the Turks and Germans for the desert town of Beersheva. Without a plan for the future, the victory at Beersheva would have been just another battle in a long and bloody war, a footnote in history. The two events, occurring at the same time yet thousands of miles apart, was a sure sign that this was God bringing His plan for the Jewish people's restoration to their land closer to its fulfilment.

Bye itself, the Balfour Declaration carried little legal weight. It was simply an expression of intent by the British government of the day. Five years later however, in the aftermath of World War One, its intent and most of its very wording were incorporated into international law in the San Remo Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine.

Christians and biblical teaching were instrumental in the events leading to the Declaration, going right back to the Reformation. This gives Christians who love the Jewish people and the state of Israel a desire to celebrate the centenary of this short but vital document along with the Jewish community in November 2017.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

The State Department unaware that the US ratified the words of the Balfour Declaration as law in 1924

In the daily State Department press briefing on Wednesday, the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, spokesman John Kirby was asked the official US position towards that document. And his answer was that he has no idea.

QUESTION: And finally, I want to ask you, today marked the 99th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. I am sure you’re aware of the Balfour Declaration.
MR KIRBY: I am. I studied history in college.
QUESTION: Which basically launched this thing into – began this whole process and so on.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: And I wonder, the Palestinians are going to sort of demand that Britain apologizes for the Balfour Declaration. Will you support them in that effort? Will you support the Palestinians if they go to the UN to say that Britain must apologize for that and must do everything that it can to rectify the wrongs that have been inflicted on the Palestinians as a result?
MR KIRBY: This is the first I’ve heard that there’s an interest in doing that at the UN, Said, so I’m not going to get ahead of proclamations or announcements or proposals that haven’t been made yet at the UN. Look, I’ll tell you, not that I’m saying history is not important. Believe me, as a history major and still a lover of history, I get the importance of history. But I’ll tell you where we’re focused is on the future here. And this gets back to your first question about settlement activity. We want to see a path forward to a two-state solution, and the Secretary still believes that that path can be found. But it requires leadership and it requires a forward vision in the leadership there.
So we are very much wanting to look forward here to a meaningful two-state solution, and I think we’re a little less interested in proclamations about the past. Not that I’m saying the past isn’t important or that we’re not a product of history. I am not at all suggesting that. I’m just saying that we are more focused on moving forward.
QUESTION: So okay, recognizing that --
MR KIRBY: I knew something was coming.
QUESTION: -- does the Administration have a position on the Balfour Declaration – good, bad, indifferent?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know.
QUESTION: They sent a declaration --
QUESTION: You don’t know?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know if we’ve taken a position on the Balfour Declaration or the Treaty of Westphalia or --
QUESTION: I think you think that was good because that established the concept of sovereign immunity.
MR KIRBY: Sovereign states, yeah. I – yes, actually.
QUESTION: How about the Treaty of Worms? That one?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I don’t know.
QUESTION: I --
MR KIRBY: Now, see, if I had actually said that we did have a position on Balfour, then I would expect you to list every other treaty and ask me. But I’m saying we don’t have a position on this right now.
QUESTION: How about Versailles? Do you think that was a good thing?
MR KIRBY: Which one? Which one? 1783? We actually like that one a lot.

Brian of London at Israellycool noted that there is an actual convention between the US and Great Britain, the 1924 Anglo-American Convention, that quotes and ratifies the Balfour Declaration:

Convention between the United States and Great Britain in respect to rights in Palestine. Signed at London, December 3, 1924: Ratification advised by the Senate, February 20, 1925; ratified by the President, March 2, 1925; ratified by Great Britain, March 18, 1925; ratifications exchanged at London, December 3, 1925; proclaimed, December 5, 1925

It includes the exact language of Balfour quoted by the League of Nations, and more- including the right of Jews to settle in all parts of Palestine:

WHEREAS by the Treaty of Peace concluded with the Allied Powers, Turkey renounces all her rights and titles over Palestine; and
Whereas article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations in the Treaty of Versailles provides that in the case of certain territories which, as a consequence of the late war, ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them, mandates should be issued, and that the terms of the mandate should be explicitly defined in each case by the Council of the League; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed to entrust the Mandate for Palestine to His Britannic Majesty; and
Whereas the terms of the said mandate have been defined by the Council of the League of Nations, as follows:

"The Council of the League of Nations:

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
"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 favor 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 connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

Article 2

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble...

Article 4

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

Article 6

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Article 22

English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.

Or, in the words of the State Department, "I dunno."

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Latest gimmick: Abbas to sue UK over 1917 Balfour Declaration. Sign my petition!

TOI reports:

The Palestinian Authority is preparing a lawsuit against the British government over the issuing of the 1917 Balfour Declaration that paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel.

The PA’s Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki told Arab League leaders gathered in Mauritania Monday that London is responsible for all “Israeli crimes” committed since the end of the British mandate in 1948.

Signed by British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour in 1917, the declaration was seen as giving the Zionist movement official recognition and backing on the part of a major power, on the eve of the British conquest of the then-Ottoman territory of Palestine.

The decision, al-Malki said, “gave people who don’t belong there something that wasn’t theirs.”

Interestingly, Hamas had called for Great Britain to apologize for Balfour back in 2010.

Similarly, the "Palestine Return Center" started a petition to the UK Parliament to apologize for Balfour and compensate all Arabs of Palestinian descent. It compared the "nakba" with the Holocaust. It received 1,278 signatures in six months, far short of the 10,000 required for the UK Parliament to respond and the 100,000 required for Parliament to debate the issue.

This is Abbas' latest gimmick. He wants to make it appear to his people as if he is actually doing something but everything he does is symbolic.

For an honor/shame society, where appearances are more important than facts, this can play well. But the rest of the world is more and more impatient with Abbas' adamant refusal to do anything positive for the peace process or for his people.

Of course, two can play at this game.

I started an online petition demanding that the PLO and PA apologize for over a century of terror attacks aimed at Jews.

The Palestinian Authority, as the self-appointed leader of the Palestinian Arab people, must assume responsibility for the historic crimes done against Jews in the region known as Palestine in the 1800s and 1900s.
These include attacks in Rishon LeTzion in the 1880s, the Nebi Musa riots in 1920, the Jaffa and Jerusalem attacks in 1921, the massacres of 1929, the violent riots between 1936-39, the many attacks in 1947 and 1948, as well as the terror attacks that have occurred nearly continuously since 1948 including the Munich massacre that was financed by Mahmoud Abbas and the wave of suicide bombings in the 21st century. Constant antisemitic incitement from Palestinian leaders and official media since the 1920s must be apologized for as well.
Only by the Palestinians accepting responsibility for its part of the conflict can the conflict be solved.

Sign it and show that both sides can do useless gimmicks as PR stunts.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.