Who agreed with Balfour?

John Peirce reflects on the Balfour Declaration

by John Peirce 26th January 2018

It began in February 1917 in the context of the first world war – a war in which two sides had reached a stalemate. New allies were being sought urgently. A conference was held between representatives of the British government and the Jewish community resident in the United Kingdom. On 2 November Arthur Balfour, the foreign secretary and a member of the House of Lords, wrote a letter to Lionel Walter Rothschild, a fellow peer who was a representative of part of that Jewish community, stating that the government would ‘favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people… it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine’.

The 100th anniversary of that ‘agreement’ was recently commemorated. At no point in 1917 were representatives of the resident population of Palestine consulted in the process: they were not at the 1917 conference, nor were they recipients of Balfour’s Declaration – so it is hardly surprising that they were also excluded from the ‘celebratory’ dinner held at Number Ten Downing Street towards the end of 2017.

I was among the 15,000 people who gathered on 4 November last year in front of the American Embassy in London, where we heard some inspirational speeches before setting off for Westminster in a lively parade along Oxford Street. The whole issue is so far off many political – and religious – agendas that the occasion received little or no report in the media.

Chris Rose, director of the Amos Trust human rights organisation, was one of the speakers. He was just back from an epic 3,400 kilometre walk from London to Jerusalem, undertaken as an act of penance and solidarity.

Nine people had followed the whole route, four more had walked over half the distance and hundreds of others joined them along the way – all to apologise for the impact of the Balfour Declaration upon the Palestinian people. The British government at the time had no right to promise their land to anyone else. The walk took five months.

Chris reported that the reception among Palestinians was overwhelming and that the entry into Jerusalem had been a moving and significant occasion – with a Service of Welcome in the Anglican Cathedral there. This great achievement, also, received little coverage in UK.

The final speaker in Grosvenor Square concluded with the phrase: ‘Free! Free Palestine.’ This was taken up, with the accompaniment of drums and dancing, by those on the parade. Others said that to speak up for Palestinian people is not to be anti-Semitic – far from it! It demonstrates the latter, largely ignored aspect of the Balfour Declaration.

The Holy Land shows two main types of rock: golden sandstone and black basalt. I have on my shelf near-identical chips of each rock – picked up on past pilgrimages to the region. To me they represent those two ethnicities that have their home there. As I handle them I say: ‘Pray for the peace of Jerusalem’ (Psalm 122:6). Jews, Christians and Muslims all claim that scripture, but I believe present policies will never achieve that peace.

Comments

The Balfour Declaration has become one-sided in practice,  with the UK government, and especially the USA government, showing overwhelming support for Israel.  With Palestinian refugees living in camps in Jordan and Lebanon for the past 50 years it is unsurprising to find hostility towards Israel after years of injustice and dispossession.  If speaking up for the rights of the Palestinians is anti- Semitic
they I plead guilty.

By TWJ 123 on 25th January 2018 - 22:23

Please login to add a comment