Talk:Balfour Declaration of 1917

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Comments

[edit] Iran is NOT an Arab Country

I urge the title of Arab-Israeli conflict title at the table located bottom of article to be changed to Islamic-Israeli conflict or have Iran removed from the contents as Persians are not Arabs. I will shortly change the title comply.

[edit] Acetone connection

I don't think that the acetone connection is accepted as the primary British movitation by more than a small minority of historians. This should be expanded with some mainstream opinions also. --bdm

I believe the origin of this is: David Lloyd George: War Memoirs, Vol II, p. 584 et seq. Ms Dugdale, in her biograhpy on her uncle, Arthur Balfour (in 1939), states (p.166, Vol II) that "Mr Lloyd George is not quite accurate in describing British policy in Palestine as a kind of quid pro quo for the patriotic action of the Zionist leader. The Balfour Declaration was not part of a bargain nor a reward for services rendered" Huldra 01:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, under "Negotiations": the first story (about London etc) is quoted in the Dugdale book, but the "There is only one thing I want. A national home for my people" exchange is not there. Where is that story taken from? Huldra 01:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I read that same thing, and the acetone thing in general, in the MacMillan book cited in footnote 2. Sfahey 02:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! However, the MacMillan book cannot be the primary source, and as I do not have the book easily available, (=not in a library in my town) could anybody check what the ref. is? Perhaps "Trial and Error", the 1949 autobiography by Chaim Weizmann? (Actually, it looks as if I have the Weizmann book available, I´ll check there in any case -eventually-) Huldra 05:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The point about the acetone connection is not that it was the primary cause of Britain issuing the Balfour Declaration -- obviously conscious imperial strategy lay behind this -- but rather, that it introduced Weizmann into the highest levels of the British establishment. A clear account of this can be found in Orientations, the memoirs of Sir Ronald Storrs, British military governor in Jerusalem. Storrs writes:

Weizmann became a lecturer in Chemistry at the University of Manchester, then in the constituency of Arthur James Balfour. The statesman whose heart was in science would take refuge from party routine with the scientist whose soul was in politics, and the first seeds of sympathy were sown. With the War came a demand for high explosives only less imperative than that for human lives, and acetone, a solvent in the manufacture of cordite, was found to be unprocurable outside Germany. Its absence appalled the British Admiralty, but not the brain of the Jewish chemist. At his word the school-children of the United Kingdom were seen picking up horse-chestnuts by millions, and the acetone famine ceased. Weizmann subsequently registered but did not press his claim for the invention, which was, on the skilful pleading of Sir Arthur Colefax, honoured, with sober generosity, by the British Government.
But acetone had registered another claim far more precious to the inventor; and the name and proposals of Weizmann and his colleagues, strongly supported by Arthur Balfour, Herbert Samuel and Mark Sykes, penetrated to the Supreme Council of the Nation and of the Allies. On November 2nd, 1917, one week before the expected fall of Jerusalem, there was launched upon the world despite two formidable oppositions – British Jewry, preferring to remain “hundred per cent Englishmen of ‘non-conformist’ persuasion”, and an India Office ultra-Islamic under a Jewish Secretary of State – the momentous and fateful Balfour Declaration.

[edit] Balfour Declaration and British Empire Colonial Charters

The language of the Balfour Declaration with relation to the then-current inhabitants of Palestine:

"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"

reminds me of the language in Doris Lessing's "Shikasta", pp 402-405, relating to the granting of self-government to the then Southern Rhodesia. I assume that Doris Lessing had read the documents relating the grant of self-government thoroughly during the time she was active in protesting British indifference to the inequalities in Rhodesia.

But it got me thinking - the Balfour Declaration is not nearly as unique in having such text or declaring such interests important, as some Zionists of my acquaintance would have me believe.

Ie, the Balfour Declaration didn't occur in either a legal or a political vacuum - but similar texts in the form of colonial charters and grants of self-government are harder to find than the Balfour Declaration of 1917 - because of the vested interests of Zionists in pushing their side of the story.

What I would like to know from anyone who has access to the archives of the British Empire, are those specific texts. Colonial charters from all the other British colonies including the North American Thirteen Colonies, and grants of self-government likewise.

This is too important an issue to be monopolized by any one segment.

Wesley Parish wes dot parish at paradise dot net dot nz

[edit] 16 Jan 2004 edit

Comparing revisions, it seemed best to revert all the way back to 14 Oct 2003 to get rid of all that was done by 129.240.240.225 on the 25th. Hopefully the merging I'll be doing shortly will take care of incorporating anything we needed from the later changes. Zero, did I miss anything which needed including or removing? Jamesday 12:58, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)


The account on the Wikipedia page about the Balfour declaration is incorrect, specifically the information about Britian doing everything in its power to prevent a jewish homeland. This is surely a matter of debate and is obviously a far more complicated issue than the author of the page would have you believe. There were far more things at play here, what about the Haganah and the Irgun which made the situation far more unworkable and attempted to load boats of Jewish immigrants despite the detrimental result such a move would have especially in breeding discontent and anger between Palestineans and Jews in Palestine. The Haganah of course wanted to create a problem so that the British looked as bad as possible, likening them to the Nazis in some instances. This propaganda went down particularly well in the USA where the Jewish lobby held sway over the US governments decisions in the region. I suggest the author of this section is an American with a hangover from the 1940's, don;t believe eveyrthing you hear, especially from an inflamatory organisation such as the Haganah.

[edit] US entry into WWI

The article says "In exchange for the commitment in the declaration, the Jewish community would seek to encourage the United States to join World War I.", however the letter was written in November 1917, six months after the US had entered the war!? Mintguy (T) 11:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Mintguy: You are missing the point that these were talks and "negotiations" behind the scenes that were going on for YEARS BEFORE the declaration and many "ideas" were bandied about...Britain was desperate to get the US in on its side, and knew that the Jews of London could talk to the Jews of New York to help get the USA into the war effort, in the end it didn't matter much as the USA had to learn from its own experiences of the Lusitania's sinking by a German submarine to be convinced of Germany's war-mongering. IZAK 10:35, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Well this point that I am missing is not made in the article, and the wording of the above sentence taken from the article doesn't allude to this in anyway Mintguy (T)

I have to agree with Mintguy. My first thought on reading the explanation was "Bull, the U.S. had declared war long before this letter was sent." While I can see that the supposed "secret" negotiations could possibly have been ongoing for some time, I think the current explanation overstates this factor unless there is some back-up. On the other hand, the Brits were having money troubles paying for the war effort by that time and the Rothschilds were one of the leading banking families of Europe at the time. dave at davenjudy dot org.

How many wars has this tribe started? Volksgeist 13:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree too with Mintguy. The Balfour Declaration was a public declaration, much after the actual negotiations which brought the US into WW1 were made. To simplify: the declaration was agreed to be given and signed after the promise of US entering WW1 materialized in favour of the British. Further simplification, e.g. once you give me the money, I will give you the car and sign over the papers, although the car and cash came first, the signing of the papers came after.

[edit] Easter Egg Link

That was me...not intentional. I apologize. Thanks ~ Dpr 06:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Both sides were well aware of the significant Zionist influence within Bolshevik Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States."

What significant Zionist influence? In 1917, the White Anglo Saxon majority dominated government and finance in the U.S. at that time, and the wealthiest Jews in the U.S., predominantly of German origin, were generally not Zionist.

You make a causal link between the Balfour Declaration and that Soviet Russia did not join the War against the Allies. Why would the Communists join with the Junkers? There is no evidence that the new Soviet leaders, either Lenin or Trotsky, were motivated by Zionism. If anything, they saw it as a "bourgeois" distraction from the dialetic materialism they championed.

[edit] Jewish National Homeland?

Why is there a page : [1] that redirects Jewish National Homeland to this article? The Balfour Declaration never mentions the word "homeland", it says: a "national home" -for the Jewish people. In my mind there is quite a difference between home and homeland -just check that wonderful source: Wikipedia! Shouldn´t this redirect just be deleted? Huldra 23:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Why would one want to delete it? Of what benefit would that be? Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
It is a commonly used concept. Perhaps redir to Land of Israel would be more appropriate? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
My interest here comes from doing a major edit on White Paper of 1939. There you had statements like: "Even though the White Paper stated that it was committed to the Balfour Declaration, [...] it was a significant defeat for the Jewish side who viewed this as a great betrayal of British promises for a Jewish National Homeland in Palestine." [2]. Most confusing, IMO, when both linked to the same. And really; how many people think of the Balfour Declaration when they hear the expression "Jewish National Homeland"??
That it is a commonly used concept and that it should have an entry in Wikipedia: that is fine with me. If you guys think that a redir to Land of Israel covers the concept; well, that´s also fine with me. An alternative is, of course, to write something on the Jewish National Homeland page (i.e. no redir at all) about the consept (possibly with a: See also Land of Israel + any other relevant link) Huldra 08:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I just did a quick check: there are several articles that use the Jewish National Homeland -link, and in all (as far as a could see) the redir to the 1917 Balfour Declaration is absurd (quite funny at times, but absurd :-) ), see:
Bilu: "..was a group of Jewish idealists aspiring to settle in the Land of Israel with the political purpose to establish Jewish National Homeland there."
Jewish Legion: "..When Britain waged war against the Ottoman Turks, during World War I, Zionists around the world saw it as an opportunity to promote the idea of a Jewish National Homeland." (this one actually isn´t completely crazy)
Leon Pinsker: "...His analysis of the roots of this ancient hatred led him to call for the establishment of a Jewish National Homeland, either in Palestine or elsewhere." (???)
Zionist terrorism: "...In the 1930s and 1940s, during their campaign for a Jewish national homeland," (..a bit late, weren´t they?) (just noticed: this last one linked direct to the Balf. Decl.: totally absurd..)
Actually: I think the conclusion here must be that a simple redir to Land of Israel probably will not do: you can then get (e.g. under Bilu) sentences which in effect say: "...aspiring to settle in the Land of Israel with the political purpose to establish the Land of Israel there." So: hopefully somebody will write something sensible on Jewish National Homeland´ page. Hey, just saw that Humus sapiens wrote the redir in the first place...Ahem..... Huldra 12:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok: I have rm the redir on the above page, and I´ve copied this discussion into Talk:Jewish National Homeland. Any discussion about JNH should continue there. The JNH article is at the moment quite slim: a headline and a "see also: Land of Israel". I´m not going to work on that article: I´ll leave that to those who made it in the first place! Regards, Huldra 08:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arab/Palestinian view -contradiction on Wikipedia

Here, as in all (?) articles on Wikipedia relating to Declarations/Plans/White Papers about Palestine in the pre-1948 area, the Arabs/Palestinian view/reaction is underreported. Actually, here you have one sentence: "Like the preceding Sykes-Picot Agreement, the declaration is viewed by many Arabs as a gross betrayal of Britain's undertakings to support Arab independence in the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence of 1915–1916". This, however, is contradicted in the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement-article: "The Arabs accepted the Balfour Declaration of 1917 calling for a Jewish national home in Palestine." Which is correct??

[edit] German and Austrian 'Doubts' About Jewish Loyalties

The article suggests that the declaration led to doubts on the part of the German and Austro-Hungarian governments about the loyalties of their Jewish citzens:

the messages within the Balfour Declaration could not help but sow seeds of doubts within the minds of those ruling the Central Powers as to where the loyalty of their own domestic Jewish populations lay.

It is known that the government of the Ottoman Empire became suspicious, but is there any hard evidence of doubt on the part of the German, Austro-Hungarian (and Bulgarian) governments during WWI and, if so, what is it?

Norvo 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictory assurances

Why does this have its own section? I'm not a historian but it doesn't seem to be that important -- just a modern day politician discussing "Britain's imperial past." Is this statement more significant than it appears? Ztrawhcs 01:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship of external links

This external link

  • Jewish anti-Zionist Benjamin H. Freedman speaks about the Balfour Declaration [3]

has been removed.

Freedman states that the declaration was the payment to the Zionist for influencing the entrance of the USA into the war. This interpretation of the Balfour Declaration is considered factual by many people. It is not known if it is true or not but, certainly, it is difficult to belief that this declaration, written from the hand of the prime minister, was the sole result of a negotiation about the cordite synthesis.

If the declaration was the payment is logical that happen alter the US joined the war. There is no contradiction here.

[edit] Cite Source

"Both sides were well aware of the significant Zionist influence within Bolshevik Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States."

What significant Zionist influence? In 1917, the White Anglo Saxon majority dominated government and finance in the U.S. at that time, and the wealthiest Jews in the U.S., predominantly of German origin, were generally not Zionist.

You make a causal link between the Balfour Declaration and that Soviet Russia did not join the War against the Allies. Why would the Communists join with the Junkers? There is no evidence that the new Soviet leaders, either Lenin or Trotsky, were motivated by Zionism. If anything, they saw it as a "bourgeois" distraction from the dialetic materialism they championed.

The point being made is that the Balfour Declaration was a political tool and that its use by Balfour would have intended, but ultimately unknowable, consequences. The timing of its issue, in close proximity to the predominantly Jewish Bolshevik party taking power in Russia, cannot be ignored. Russian cooperation with Germany, who was responsible for sheparding Lenin from Switzerland back into Russia, would have been disastorous for England. Russia possessed the raw materials and foodstuffs that the Allied blockade was denying Germany and thus preventing Germany from winning WWI. Junkers or not, Lenin had every reason to cooperate with Germany given Germany's role in putting Lenin in power by defeating the Tsar. Given this context, Britain needed to do something to counter Germany's position with the Bolsheviks and the Balfour Declaration can be seen as part of Britain calculated attempt to offset German influence in Moscow.

[edit] Balfour & Aliens Bill

Not remarked on in this article as it stands or in Balfor bio article as it stands. Eg:

Consider the background to the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, by which the British government committed itself to the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This was a major coup for the Zionist movement. But it would be wrong to think that it was the product of pro-Jewish sentiment within the British establishment. On the contrary, British support for Zionism was spearheaded by anti-Semites within the civil and foreign service. These people believed that Jews, acting collectively, were manipulating world events from behind the scenes. Consequently, they vastly exaggerated the power and influence of the tiny Zionist movement. Balfour himself took a similar view. Moreover, some years earlier, as Prime Minister, he introduced the Aliens Bill (which became law in 1905), aimed specifically at restricting admission of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. He warned Parliament at the time that the Jews "remained a people apart." Source

I dont presume to judge Balfour by the standards of 2006 but it might aid the reader to know about his involvement in the Aliens bill, and to put some flesh on the bones of his involvement in the 1917 declaration. It can also help flesh out one reasons why support was given to the zionist- Antisemitism. D Mac Con Uladh 12:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A peace to end all peace and the Turkish connection

According to David Fromkin (of Jerusalem Post celebrity), the most significant impetus for Zionism’s actualization originated during the Young Turk movement, when a single British intelligence failure (caused by general confusion, British condescending bigotry, and erroneous fact-checking) created an urgency for the strategic need to secure an exclusively Jewish homeland.

•Here’s his chapter in summary from A Peace to End All Peace: A foreign agent wrote back to Britain that he suspected the Jews of Turkey were being promised a homeland in Palestine by the Turks, which would have meant another resistor to British occupation in the region and a threat to the Middle-East/Africa land corridor and the Suez Canal's security.

•This intelligence was patently incorrect. Turkish Jews were loyal to Turkish interests and their own Turkish Jewish communities. The Jews were represented well in the society, for instance, they had 4 permanent members in the Committee of Union and Progress. There was no evidence of a Turkish Palestine land deal ever having taken place. It would have made little sense for the secular Turkish to promise a territory to Jews, a respected minority, for ascriptively religious reasons (although it is conceivable that inventing this intelligence SNAFU gave the British a pretext for what they did next…).

•In an effort to co-opt the Jews and foment resistance to the declining Turkish hegemony in the region and to protect their own local interests, the British planned their own Palestine land deal for the Jews. British governing elites began serious dialogues with Zionist elites, the results of which eventually manifested in the Balfour Declaration.


--66.69.211.12 09:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Behemoth101

[edit] Conspiracy

Hi, a recent edit by 82.33.115.231 had this:

Why are you publishing clearly anti-semitic conspiracy theories??? Please remove theme asap.
"Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country."

First, I think that this is just a quote, it's not a conspiracy theory, or even a theory. Second, please note the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Thanks. Asabbagh 00:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed more: this was only a part of an unsourced and highly POV essay on how the Jews (including a 1/4 Jew Lenin!) were manipulating the world powers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I checked and yes the essays you removed were inserted into this article with no source. My response above was assuming the user was talking about something already in the article and agreed to be NPOV. Your edit is valid. Asabbagh 02:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humus sapiens

I did review what I was doing. In terms of using the talk page, I suggest you do the same before deleting sections of an article that you disagree with. You made the changes and then went to talk and stated what you did. Try doing the opposite next time and maybe you wont get reverted. Thank you. MetsFan76 03:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought my edit summary was enough. Sorry I didn't know this article has an owner. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to direct you to WP:CIVIL. As an admin, I would have thought you would have read through the guidelines. MetsFan76 03:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have resisted your repeated attempts to add an antisemitic diatribe to the article and now you are giving me a lesson in civility and adminship? LOL. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Metsfan, you've got to be kidding, no? That first section is an unsourced opinion essay; as for the second piece, since when to we post full unformatted texts of antisemitic diatribes into Wikipedia? Wow. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

When I first saw the additions I figured it was someone's idea of a joke. I cannot believe someone is actually seriously trying to add it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. MetsFan, please don't add that back again. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought the essay was interesting, and would encourage you to publish it on a blog, etc. But it's not appropriate for an article in Wikipedia. --Leifern 16:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

-Just one comment on taking out that "essay". Now that the essay is out, there is nothing in this entry about the Jews financing World War One. That needs to be left in there. They were long known for financing wars.

Hi, If you have information which is linked to a source, then you can add it. Asabbagh 19:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] confusing use of inclusion/exclusion

Hi All,

I am confused by the use of the terms inclusion and exclusion in this article. The beginning of the third paragraph in Text development and differing views reads

At that time the British were busy making promises. Henry McMahon had exchanged letters with Hussein ibn Ali, Sheriff of Mecca in 1915, in which he had promised the Arabs control of the Arab lands, exclusive of the Mediterranean coast. The extent of the coastal exclusion is not clear. Hussein protested that the Arabs of Beirut would greatly oppose isolation from the Arab state or states, but did not, it seems, bring up the matter of the Jerusalem area, which included a good part of Palestine.

from which I understand that the excluded lands would not be controlled by the Arabs. But then I read:

This suggests either that the area of Jerusalem and Palestine was not part of the inclusion and was promised to the Arabs, as shown in some maps, and is believed by pro-Arab historians, or that Palestine was included, but that Hussein did not protest.

from which it sounds like it is the included lands that were not promised to the Arabs. Maybe this should be corrected?

other inconsistencies: Haim -> Chaim; belief's -> beliefs

Ptrslv72 22:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed link for Statute_of_Kalisz

There was a link to "statute of kalisz" from the portion of the Declaration "political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". I removed it as a distant and only tangentially related link. If someone wants to create a general page about the political status enjoyed by Jews in other countries and link to kalisz from there, that would seem appropriate. --Zachbe 19:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism

The article, in its present form, does not provide the compelling back story concerning the International Zionist's efforts, before and during WWI and active in the capitals of all of the major belligerents.

This effort, active in Washington, Berlin, Vienna, Paris, Moscow and other capitals of the secondary participants aimed to lobby, negotiate, and tease concessions from one or more of the warring powers that would lead to an assurance of protection for additional Jewish participation in Palestine.

The drama of this situation should be captured herein. The world's first international lobbying effort, the level of organization and commitment, the high stakes game of international poker that was played by the Zionists is a story that found fruition in the Balfour Declaration, yet is not reflected in this article.

The fascinating part of this story is how close the Zionists were to closing a deal with Germany to actually achieve a land grant in Palestine. The anchor on the deal was Germany's war time alliance with Turkey which occupied this same said land. How could Germany cede land to the Zionists that belonged, at the time, to one of its principal allies?

So fellow Wikipedians, how do we elevate this article to fully explore the more fascinating nuances of this subject and not just offer a tired rendition available in any junior high school history text?

Sjttaylor 01:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjttaylor (talk • contribs) 01:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Contradictory assurances section

The first sentence of the "Contradictory assurances" section ("In a 1919 memorandum he wrote as a Cabinet Minister, Balfour wrote of these contradictory assurances as follows:") is a bit confusing. The antecedent of "these contradictory assurances" is ambiguous, and in fact the word "contradictory" first appears in that very sentence.

DRE (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image of Balfour Declaration

Why use an image of the Balfour declaration that has second hand marking on it? There are enough clean images of the original that have not been marked up.

Kopitarian (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2008

[edit] In a cheese?

What does the "in a cheese" mean in the intro? 24.224.143.65 (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism, since removed. You just happened to read the article during the brief time this nonsense was present. The correct wording is "in a letter". Hertz1888 (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)