Theresa May wants British people to feel ‘pride’ in the Balfour Declaration

PM Netanyahu with PM Theresa May
PM Netanyahu with PM Theresa May

BY Robert Fisk
Theresa May wants British people to feel ‘pride’ in the Balfour Declaration. What exactly is there to be proud of?

Balfour initiated a policy of British support for Israel which continues to this very day, to the detriment of the occupied Palestinians of the West Bank and the five million Palestinian refugees living largely in warrens of poverty around the Middle East, including Israeli-besieged Gaza. Surely we should apologise.

Theresa May told us that Britain will celebrate the centenary of the Balfour Declaration this summer with “pride”. This was predictable. A British prime minister who would fawn to the head-chopping Arab autocrats of the Gulf in the hope of selling them more missiles – and then hold the hand of the insane new anti-Muslim president of the United States – was bound, I suppose, to feel “pride” in the most mendacious, deceitful and hypocritical document in modern British history.

As a woman who has set her heart against immigrants, it was also inevitable that May would display her most venal characteristics to foreigners – to wealthy Arab potentates, and to an American president whose momentary love of Britain might produce a life-saving post-Brexit trade agreement. It was to an audience of British lobbyists for Israel a couple of months ago that she expressed her “pride” in a century-old declaration which created millions of refugees. But to burnish the 1917 document which promised Britain’s support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine but which would ultimately create that very refugee population – refugees being the target of her own anti-immigration policies – is little short of iniquitous.

The Balfour Declaration’s intrinsic lie – that while Britain supported a Jewish homeland, nothing would be done “which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” – is matched today by the equally dishonest response of Balfour’s lamentable successor at the Foreign Office. Boris Johnson wrote quite accurately two years ago that the Balfour Declaration was “bizarre”, a “tragicomically incoherent” document, “an exquisite piece of Foreign Office fudgerama”. But in a subsequent visit to Israel, the profit-hunting Mayor of London suddenly discovered that the Balfour Declaration was “a great thing” that “reflected a great tide of history”. No doubt we shall hear more of this same nonsense from Boris Johnson later this year.

Although the Declaration itself has been parsed, de-semanticised, romanticised, decrypted, decried, cursed and adored for 100 years, its fraud is easy to detect: it made two promises which were fundamentally opposed to each other – and thus one of them, to the Arabs (aka “the existing non-Jewish communities”), would be broken. The descendants of these victims, the Palestinian Arabs, are now threatening to sue the British government over this pernicious piece of paper, a hopeless and childish response to history. The Czechs might equally sue the British for Chamberlain’s Munich agreement, which allowed Hitler to destroy their country. The Palestinians would also like an apology – since the British have always found apologies cheaper than law courts. The British have grown used to apologising – for the British empire, for the slave trade, for the Irish famine. So why not for Balfour? Yes, but…. Theresa May needs the Israelis far more than she needs the Palestinians.

Balfour’s 1917 declaration, of course, was an attempt to avoid disaster in the First World War by encouraging the Jews of Russia and America to support the Allies against Germany. Balfour wanted to avoid defeat just as Chamberlain later wanted to avoid war. But – and this is the point – Munich was resolved by the destruction of Hitler. Balfour initiated a policy of British support for Israel which continues to this very day, to the detriment of the occupied Palestinians of the West Bank and the five million Palestinian refugees living largely in warrens of poverty around the Middle East, including Israeli-besieged Gaza.

This is the theme of perhaps the most dramatic centenary account of the Balfour Declaration, to be published this summer by David Cronin (in his book Balfour’s Shadow: A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel), an Irish journalist and author living in Brussels whose previous investigation of the European Union’s craven support for Israel’s military distinguished him from the work of more emotional (and thus more inaccurate) writers. Cronin has no time for Holocaust deniers or anti-Semites. While rightly dismissing the silly idea that the Palestinian Grand Mufti, Haj Amin al Husseini, inspired the Holocaust of the Jews of Europe, he does not duck Haj Amin’s poisonous alliance with Hitler. Israel’s post-war creation as a nation state, as one Israeli historian observed, may not have been just – but it was legal. And Israel does legally exist within the borders acknowledged by the rest of the world.

 There lies the present crisis for us all: for the outrageous right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu is speeding on with the mass colonisation of Arab land in territory which is not part of Israel, and on property which has been stolen from its Arab owners. These owners are the descendants of the “non-Jewish communities” whose rights, according to Balfour, should not be “prejudiced” by “the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. But Balfour’s own prejudice was perfectly clear. The Jewish people would have a “national home” – ie, a nation – in Palestine, while the Arabs, according to his declaration, were mere “communities”. And as Balfour wrote to his successor Curzon two years later, “Zionism … is … of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices [sic] of 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land”.

Cronin’s short book, however, shows just how we have connived in this racism ever since. He outlines the mass British repression of Arabs in the 1930s – including extrajudicial executions and torture by the British army – when the Arabs feared, with good reason, that they would ultimately be dispossessed of their lands by Jewish immigrants. As Arthur Wauchope, the Palestine High Commissioner, would write, “the subject that fills the minds of all Arabs today is … the dread that in time to come they will be a subject race living on sufferance in Palestine, with the Jews dominant in every sphere, land, trade and political life”. How right they were.

Even before Britain’s retreat from Palestine, Attlee and his Cabinet colleagues were discussing a plan which would mean the “ethnic cleansing” of tens of thousands of Palestinians from their land. In 1944, a Labour Party statement had talked thus of Jewish immigration: “Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in.” By 1948, Labour, now in government, was announcing it had no power to prevent money being channelled from London to Jewish groups who would, within a year, accomplish their own “ethnic cleansing”, a phrase in common usage for this period since Israeli historian Illan Pappe (now, predictably, an exile from his own land) included it in the title of his best-known work.

The massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians at Deir Yassin was committed while thousands of British troops were still in the country. Cronin’s investigation of Colonial Office files show that the British military lied about the “cleansing” of Haifa, offering no protection to the Arabs, a policy largely followed across Palestine save for the courage of Major Derek Cooper and his soldiers, whose defence of Arab civilians in Jaffa won him the Military Cross (although David Cronin does not mention this). Cooper, whom I got to know when he was caring for wounded Palestinians in Beirut in 1982, never forgave his own government for its dishonesty at the end of the Palestine Mandate.

Cronin’s value, however, lies in his further research into British support for Israel, its constant arms re-supplies to Israel, its 1956 connivance with the Israelis over Suez – during which Israeli troops massacred in the Gaza camp of Khan Younis, according to a UN report, 275 Palestinian civilians, of whom 140 were refugees from the 1948 catastrophe. Many UN-employed Palestinians, an American military officer noted at the time, “are believed to have been executed by the Israelis”. Britain’s subsequent export of submarines and hundreds of Centurion tanks to Israel was shrugged off with the same weasel-like excuses that British governments have ever since used to sell trillions of dollars of weapons to Israelis and Arabs alike: that if Britain didn’t arm them, others would.

In opposition in 1972, Harold Wilson claimed it was “utterly unreal” to call for an Israeli withdrawal from land occupied in the 1967 war, adding that “Israel’s reaction is natural and proper in refusing to accept the Palestinians as a nation”. When the Palestinians first demanded a secular one-state solution to Palestine, they were denounced by a British diplomat (Anthony Parsons) who said that “a multinational, secular state” would be “wholly incompatible with our attitude toward Israel”. Indeed it would. When the PLO opposed Britain’s Falklands conflict, the Foreign Office haughtily admonished the Palestinians – it was “far removed” from their “legitimate concerns”, it noted – although it chose not to reveal that Argentine air force Skyhawk jets supplied by Israel were used to attack UK forces, and that Israel’s military supplies to Argentina continued during the war.

A year later, Margaret Thatcher, according to a note by Douglas Hurd, included “armed action against military targets of the occupying power” as a definition of “terrorism”. So the Palestinians could not even resist their direct occupiers without being criminals.




19 responses to “Theresa May wants British people to feel ‘pride’ in the Balfour Declaration”

  1. Hind Abyad Avatar
    Hind Abyad

    Theresa May
    Please explain to me how exactly has God given the land to the Jews?
    From what most people who can read should know, that area was controlled by the British, since they happen to colonize basically everything.

    It was Britain that ultimately gave the land to the Zionists (which is NOT the same as those following Judaism, maybe that should be read up on as well).
    So to follow the logic that Israel is now a state because God gave gave the chosen people what he promised them… Would mean that Britain is their God.

    It sure acts like a God, but I can pretty much bet on my life that Britain was not even a thought when the Torah, Bible and Koran was written.

    Also…. Please explain to me realistically how a tiny area that is embargoed on every side, that is being bombed daily are terrorists?
    Who will lie and say that if someone were to come take your home away for no reason (yeah that house that’s been in the families name for generations, where you birthed your kids, spent holidays and so on) and leave you on the street or better yet, forces you to an area that is the size of a small city.
    People are rioting in the streets, fighting and looting areas because they don’t like one candidate for another.

    Florida has stand your ground laws if an intruder tries to enter your home, yet… Everyone expects Palestinians to just sit there.
    Their culture, identity and older/future generations are being denied to them. Somehow humus and falafel is an Israeli food group,

    And further more, we know when Israel was established right?
    During the aftermath of the holocaust, one of the worst crimes committed against
    a group. Yet, it’s OK for it to happen (in different fashions) to Palestinians?
    It’s very hypocritical let’s be honest. Instead of coming to Palestine peacefully and settling in, they committed atrocities to people for no reason.It’s just ironic that people(with no ties to either the Jewish or Palestinian plights) think they have a say in what happens to PEOPLE. People as in humans, real warm blooded humans with dreams of living normal lives.

    Also, do we not remember how everyone hated the Jews throughout history (which in no way is OK) and didn’t want them anywhere?
    They were massacred by the Romans, by Catholics, by Christians, by basically anyone literally for no reason. Yet they were welcomed in Palestine.
    And now all of a sudden it is politically correct to not say anything bad about them or it would be antisemitic, yet it’s OK to defame and slander every Muslim or Palestinian without really learning their story.

    It’s all politics, like every war we’ve fought in modern times. For oil, power and to create constant unrest in the Middle East. An area that people heard little about prior to 1948.

      1. How many times already are you posting this mental masturbation pic?

    1. Please sharmuta, explain how exactly Allah gave to Muslim Orabians Half of Africa, All ME including Judea, Samaria, Lebanon, and even Eurape? Your FaLIEstinians are Muslim KGB Orabians, please insert this to your primitive brain

      1. MaImequer0 Avatar

        Thanks for your call. Just landed in Montreal, it’s cool and wet, a very strange summer. Usually in July, it feels like a sweltering 514 degrees. I’m going to hang-out for a while and have some fun…. maybe attend a party like January, 2009.

        1. Glad to see You, Malmequer0!

      2. Have you noticed that the London municipality rejected an anti-Israel campaign claiming the Balfour Declaration was “the harbinger of the Palestinian disaster.”?

        The advertising campaign, called Make It Right, was commissioned by the Palestine Mission to the UK.

        That campaign was rejected after Theresa May refused the Palestinians’ demand for the United Kingdom to apologize for the Balfour Declaration!

        Manuel Hassassian, the Palestinian ambassador to the UK, has accused TfL of censorship….

    2. As a woman who has set her heart against immigrants, it was also inevitable that May would display her most venal characteristics to foreigners – to wealthy Arab potentates, and to an American president whose momentary love of Britain might produce a life-saving post-Brexit trade agreement.

    1. Danny Farah Avatar
      Danny Farah

      that was a botched up agreement that the British have messed up for sure. At least they could have given protection to both sides and have them establish a peaceful way of co-existence. Instead it was one sided agreement that favored the Jews and the arabs didn’t help either then and neither now. Everybody used them to their own advantage.

      1. Hind Abyad Avatar
        Hind Abyad

        What’s disgusting is T. May celebrating “a botched up agreement” (tragedy). They think people are stupid? In Middle East they have long memories.

        1. Danny Farah Avatar
          Danny Farah

          Yes tell me about it. in the 80’s when Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya Banghazi my boss said that outta shut him up. I said you don’t know Middle Easterner they don’t forget and he will exact revenge. well guess what Lockerbie came next..

  2. Hind Abyad Avatar
    Hind Abyad

    Thank you O’Theresa May/ from a Lebanese Christian.
    All Christianity will pray forever in History for you to go to Jhannam.

    “Israel hands settlers ownership of church property in Jerusalem.”
    The Church of te Holly Sepulchre, the most sacred site in Christendom!

  3. Hind Abyad Avatar
    Hind Abyad

    ‘Thousands march in London to condemn Balfour celebrations’
    Demonstrators chanted ‘Free Palestine’ slogans on centenary of the British declaration that supported the creation of Israel in the Middle East’

    1. Rudy1947 Avatar

      That’s nice and where are the PaliArabs now? Bad decisions, bad policies or bad friends? Due tell.

      1. Hind Abyad Avatar
        Hind Abyad

        yl’an abouk blocked.

    2. Rainbow Sponge Avatar
      Rainbow Sponge

      In 2117 you can celebrate the bicentenary of the Balfour Declaration hahahahaha.

Leave a Reply