As Palestinians mark 100 years since Britain’s controversial pledge, here is everything you need to know about it.
By Zena Tahhan
This week, Palestinians around the world are marking 100 years since the Balfour Declaration was issued on November 2, 1917.
The declaration turned the Zionist aim of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine into a reality when Britain publicly pledged to establish “a national home for the Jewish people” there.
The pledge is generally viewed as one of the main catalysts of the Nakba – the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 – and the conflict that ensued with the Zionist state of Israel.
It is regarded as one of the most controversial and contested documents in the modern history of the Arab world and has puzzled historians for decades.
What is the Balfour Declaration?
The Balfour Declaration (“Balfour’s promise” in Arabic) was a public pledge by Britain in 1917 declaring its aim to establish “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.
The statement came in the form of a letter from Britain’s then-foreign secretary, Arthur Balfour, addressed to Lionel Walter Rothschild, a figurehead of the British Jewish community.
It was made during World War I (1914-1918) and was included in the terms of the British Mandate for Palestine after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
The so-called mandate system, set up by the Allied powers, was a thinly veiled form of colonialism and occupation.
The system transferred rule from the territories that were previously controlled by the powers defeated in the war – Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria – to the victors.
The declared aim of the mandate system was to allow the winners of the war to administer the newly emerging states until they could become independent.
The case of Palestine, however, was unique. Unlike the rest of the post-war mandates, the main goal of the British Mandate there was to create the conditions for the establishment of a Jewish “national home” – where Jews constituted less than 10 percent of the population at the time.
Upon the start of the mandate, the British began to facilitate the immigration of European Jews to Palestine. Between 1922 and 1935, the Jewish population rose from nine percent to nearly 27 percent of the total population.
Though the Balfour Declaration included the caveat that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”, the British mandate was set up in a way to equip Jews with the tools to establish self-rule, at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs.
Why was it controversial?
The document was controversial for several reasons.
Firstly, it was, in the words of the late Palestinian-American academic Edward Said, “made by a European power … about a non-European territory … in a flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority resident in that territory”.
In essence, the Balfour Declaration promised Jews a land where the natives made up more than 90 percent of the population.
Secondly, the declaration was one of three conflicting wartime promises made by the British.
When it was released, Britain had already promised the Arabs independence from the Ottoman Empire in the 1915 Hussein-McMahon correspondence.
The British also promised the French, in a separate treaty known as 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement, that the majority of Palestine would be under international administration, while the rest of the region would be split between the two colonial powers after the war.
The declaration, however, meant that Palestine would come under British occupation and that the Palestinian Arabs who lived there would not gain independence.
Finally, the declaration introduced a notion that was reportedly unprecedented in international law – that of a “national home”.
The use of the vague term “national home” for the Jewish people, as opposed to “state”, left the meaning open to interpretation.
Earlier drafts of the document used the phrase “the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish State”, but that was later changed.
In a meeting with Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann in 1922, however, Arthur Balfour and then-Prime Minister David Lloyd George reportedly said the Balfour Declaration “always meant an eventual Jewish state”.
Why was it issued?
The question of why the Balfour Declaration was issued has been a subject of debate for decades, with historians using different sources to suggest various explanations.
While some argue that many in the British government at the time were Zionists themselves, others say the declaration was issued out of an anti-Semitic reasoning, that giving Palestine to the Jews would be a solution to the “Jewish problem”.
In mainstream academia, however, there are a set of reasons over which there is a general consensus:
- Control over Palestine was a strategic imperial interest to keep Egypt and the Suez Canal within Britain’s sphere of influence
- Britain had to side with the Zionists to rally support among Jews in the United States and Russia, hoping they could encourage their governments to stay in the war until victory
- Intense Zionist lobbying and strong connections between the Zionist community in Britain and the British government; some of the officials in the government were Zionists themselves
- Jews were being persecuted in Europe and the British government was sympathetic to their suffering
How was it received by Palestinians and Arabs?
In 1919, then-US President Woodrow Wilson appointed a commission to look into public opinion on the mandatory system in Syria and Palestine.
The investigation was known as the King-Crane commission. It found that the majority of Palestinians expressed a strong opposition to Zionism, leading the conductors of the commission to advise a modification of the mandate’s goal.
The late Awni Abd al-Hadi, a Palestinian political figure and nationalist, condemned the Balfour Declaration in his memoirs, saying it was made by an English foreigner who had no claim to Palestine, to a foreign Jew who had no right to it.
In 1920, the Third Palestinian Congress in Haifa decried the British government’s plans to support the Zionist project and rejected the declaration as a violation of international law and of the rights of the indigenous population.
However, the other important source for insight into Palestinian opinion on the declaration – the press – was closed down by the Ottomans at the start of the war in 1914 and only began to reappear in 1919, but under British military censorship.
In November 1919, when the al-Istiqlal al-Arabi (Arab independence) newspaper, based in Damascus, was reopened, one article said in response to a public speech by Herbert Samuel, a Jewish cabinet minister, in London on the second anniversary of the Balfour Declaration: “Our country is Arab, Palestine is Arab, and Palestine must remain Arab.”
Even prior to the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate, pan-Arab newspapers warned against the motives of the Zionist movement and its potential outcomes in displacing Palestinians from their land.
Khalil Sakakini, a Jerusalemite writer and teacher, described Palestine in the immediate aftermath of the war as follows: “A nation which has long been in the depths of sleep only awakes if it is rudely shaken by events, and only arises little by little … This was the situation of Palestine, which for many centuries has been in the deepest sleep, until it was shaken by the great war, shocked by the Zionist movement, and violated by the illegal policy [of the British], and it awoke, little by little.”
Increased Jewish immigration under the mandate created tensions and violence between the Palestinian Arabs and the European Jews. One of the first popular responses to British actions was the Nebi Musa revolt in 1920 that led to the killing of four Palestinian Arabs and five immigrant Jews.
Who else was behind it?
While Britain is generally held responsible for the Balfour Declaration, it is important to note that the statement would not have been made without prior approval from the other Allied powers during World War I.
In a War Cabinet meeting in September 1917, British ministers decided that “the views of President Wilson should be obtained before any declaration was made”. Indeed, according to the cabinet’s minutes on October 4, the ministers recalled Arthur Balfour confirming that Wilson was “extremely favourable to the movement”.
France was also involved and announced its support prior to the issuing of the Balfour Declaration.
A May 1917 letter from Jules Cambon, a French diplomat, to Nahum Sokolow, a Polish Zionist, expressed the sympathetic views of the French government towards “Jewish colonisation in Palestine”.
“[I]t would be a deed of justice and of reparation to assist, by the protection of the Allied Powers, in the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago,” stated the letter, which was seen as a precursor to the Balfour Declaration.
What impact did it have on Palestinians?
The Balfour Declaration is widely seen as the precursor to the 1948 Palestinian Nakba when Zionist armed groups, who were trained by the British, forcibly expelled more than 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland.
Despite some opposition within the War Cabinet predicting that such an outcome was probable, the British government still chose to issue the declaration.
While it is difficult to imply that the developments in Palestine today can be traced back to the Balfour Declaration, there is no doubt that the British Mandate created the conditions for the Jewish minority to gain superiority in Palestine and build a state for themselves at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs.
When the British decided to terminate their mandate in 1947 and transfer the question of Palestine to the United Nations, the Jews already had an army that was formed out of the armed paramilitary groups trained and created to fight side by side with the British in World War II.
More importantly, the British allowed the Jews to establish self-governing institutions, such as the Jewish Agency, to prepare themselves for a state when it came to it, while the Palestinians were forbidden from doing so – paving the way for the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
SOURCE: Al Jazeera
C h a p t e r 2
THE PLAN OF PARTITION
AND END OF THE BRITISH MANDATE
Members of the Special Committee on Palestine (shown here with two United Nations officials).
The question of Palestine was brought before the General Assembly by the United Kingdom almost as soon as the United Nations came into being. An 11-member Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was formed at the first special session of the Assembly in April 1947. The majority of the committee members recommended that Palestine be partitioned into an Arab State and a Jewish State, with a special international status for the city of J e rusalem under the administrative authority of the United Nations.
The partition plan, 1947
At its second regular session, after an intense two-month-long debate, the General Assembly, on 29 November 1947, adopted resolution 181 (II), approving with minor changes the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as proposed by the majority in the Special Committee on Palestine. The partition plan, a detailed four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem.
The plan included:
✹ The creation of the Arab and Jewish States not later than 1 October 1948;
✹ Division of Palestine into eight parts: three were allotted to the Arab State and three to the Jewish State; the seventh, the town of Jaffa, was to form an Arab enclave within Jewish territory;
✹ The international regime for Jerusalem, the eighth division, to be administered by the United Nations Trusteeship Council.
The plan also set out the steps to be taken prior to independence. It dealt with the questions of citizenship, transit, the economic union and a declaration to be made by the pro v i s i o n a l government of each proposed State regarding access to holy places and religious and minority rights. By resolution 181 (II), the Assembly also set up the United Nations Palestine Commission to carry out its recommendations and requested the Security Council to take the necessary measures to implement the plan of partition.
The Jewish Agency accepted the resolution despite its dissatisfaction over such matters as Jewish emigration from Europe and the territorial limits set on the proposed Jewish State. The plan was not accepted by the Palestinian Arabs and Arab States on the ground that it violated the provisions of the United Nations Charter, which granted people the right to decide theirown destiny. They said that the Assembly had endorsed the Plan under circumstances unworthy of the United Nations and that the Arabs of Palestine would oppose any scheme that provided for the dissection, segregation or partition of their country, or which gave special and preferential rights and status to a minority.
End of the British Mandate
The adoption of resolution 181 (II) was followed by outbreaks of violence in Palestine. As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established the Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire. For its part, the General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities and decided to appoint a mediator charged with promoting a peaceful settlement in cooperation with the Truce Commission. On 20 May, Count Folke Bernadotte, President of the Swedish Red Cross, was chosen as United Nations Mediator.
First Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949
On 14 May 1948, the United Kingdom relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the terr i t o ry to assist Palestinian Arabs. The fighting was halted after several weeks, through a fourweek truce called for by the Security Council on 29 May 1948. The truce went into effect on 11 June and was supervised by the United Nations Mediator with the assistance of a group of international military observers, which came to be known as the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). Despite the efforts of the Mediator, no agreement could be reached on an extension of the truce, and fighting broke out again on 8 July. On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with the resolution, the second truce came into force. By that time, Israel controlled much of the territory allotted to the Arab State by the partition resolution, including the western part of Jerusalem. Egypt and Jordan respectively administered the remaining portions of Gaza and the West Bank of the Jordan River (which included East Jerusalem, or the old city). More fighting took place in October 1948 and March 1949, during which Israel took over other areas, some allotted to the Arab State. In 1950, J o rdan brought the West Bank including East Jerusalem form a l l y under its jurisdiction pending a solution to the problem. The hostilities also created a major humanitarian crisis, with almost 750,000 Palestinians being uprooted from their land and becoming refugees. While in the middle of negotiations between the parties, Count Bernadotte was shot and killed on 17 September 1948 in the Israeli-held sector of Jerusalem. Ralph Bunche, of the United States of America, was appointed as Acting Mediator. Between February and July 1949, under United Nations auspices, armistice agreements were signed between Israel, on the one hand, and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria on the other. The agreements, which were similar in general content, accepted the establishment of the armistice as an indispensable step towards the restoration of peace in Palestine. They also made clear that the purpose of the armistice was not to establish or recognize any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests of any party. In August of 1949, the Security Council called for UNTSO observers to supervise the armistice. In accordance with Council decisions, UNTSO observers remain stationed in the Middle East.
General Assembly resolution 194 (III):
The right to re t u rn At its third regular session, on 11 December 1948, the General Assembly adopted resolution 194 (III), in which it delineated ways to resolve the Palestine problem. Following suggestions contained in the report prepared by Count Bernadotte for a solution to the increasingly intractable situation in Palestine, the Assembly declared that: ✹ Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date; ✹ Compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return. The Assembly also called for the demilitarization and internationalization of Jerusalem and for the protection of, and free access to, the holy places in Palestine. Resolution 194 (III) also provided for the establishment of a three-member United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, which was to assume the functions of the United Nations Mediator insofar as it considered necessary. It was instructed to assist the parties in achieving a final settlement on all outstanding questions and to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees. The Assembly subsequently named France, Turkey and the United States to the Commission. The Conciliation Commission tried to resolve three major issues: the size of the territories, the refugees and the status of Jerusalem. Through separate talks with Arab States (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria) and Israel at a conference inLausanne in April 1949, it obtained a protocol, signed separately by each side, agreeing to use the boundaries established in the partition resolution as a basis for discussion. However, the 1949 meetings of the Commission ended inconclusively, with the Arab States pressing for the refugees to be returned as a first step, and with Israel insisting that the territorial question be given priority. Later efforts by the Commission to secure the return of the Palestinians and establish an international regime for Jerusalem were also unsuccessful. Since 1951, the Commission has tried to secure the complete release of Arab refugee bank accounts blocked in Israel. In 1964, it completed the identification of Arab refugee property, and it continues to maintain records relating to such property. In periodic reports submitted to the General Assembly since 1952, the Commission has repeatedly stressed that its efforts to advance matters towards the implementation of resolution 194 (III) depend on substantial changes in the attitudes of the parties. The provisions of that resolution on the right of Palestinian refugees to return have been reasserted by the Assembly virtually every year since 1948. Meanwhile, on 11 May 1949, Israel became a Member of the United Nations. In admitting Israel, the General Assembly specifically took note of Israel’s declarations and explanations made earlier to the Assembly’s Ad Hoc Political Committee re g a rding the implementation of resolutions 181 (II) and 194 (III). Those declarations and explanations referred, among other things, to the international regime envisaged for J e rusalem, the problem of Arab refugees and boundary questions.
✒ UN facts
Israel joins the United Nations
Israel became a member of the United Nations on 11 May 1949. The preamble to the resolution admitting Israel to United Nations membership specifically referred to Israel’s undertakings to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) and 194 (III), the two resolutions that formed the centre of the Palestine issue in the United Nations:
“ Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,
“ Noting that in the judgement of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,
“ Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,
“ Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it ‘unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations’,
“ R e c a l l i n g its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,
“ The General Assembly,
“ Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
“ 1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
“ 2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.”
S o u rce: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Pro b l e m,
1 9 1 7 – 1 9 8 8, United Nations, 1990, p. 144.