Related Post
London- The anniversary of the Balfour Declaration falls this year in exceptional circumstances for the Palestinian cause and in light of the struggle of the Palestinian people to regain their land.
Britain, the holder of this promise issued on November 2, 1917, is also living in an exceptional situation between public opinion supportive of the issue, expressed through solidarity marches with the Palestinians, which were the largest in the world, and a political decision that provides absolute support for Israel and has so far refused even a call for… cease-fire.
The promise is made Presented by British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, known in political and historical literature as the “Those who do not have to those who do not deserve” promise, the main starting point for the Palestinian issue, which later resulted in the Israeli occupation.
The Palestinian issue is experiencing crucial moments when London’s historical responsibility regarding the Balfour Declaration becomes greater and more important in order to shed light on it and the backgrounds of this promise.
Al Jazeera Net spoke with 3 British experts about the reason that prompted the United Kingdom government to make this promise and its historical consequences.
Historical responsibility
British academic Chris Doyle links the Balfour Declaration to the events taking place in the Gaza Strip, saying that the current conditions cannot be separated from the promise from a historical perspective.
In his interview with Al Jazeera Net, the director of the Arab-British Council research center in London supports holding Britain “historically responsible for what is happening in Palestine because of its continued failure to find a just solution to this issue.”
Although Chris Doyle blamed the international community for not resolving this problem, he stressed that London bears the primary responsibility because it had the ability to solve the problem decades ago before it became more complicated and became an American issue in the first place.
As for the reason for the then British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour making this promise, Doyle explained that Balfour had no desire for Jews from Eastern Europe to come to Britain, and the presence of Jews in the country was a major dilemma and that is why he considered this promise to be the solution.
The British academic confirmed that Balfour was an anti-Semitic person who believed that the number of Jews in Britain should not increase, and believed that they had a growing influence in America and that they might succeed in extending their influence in his country as well. Making this promise and sending them to a place outside Europe is a completely anti-Semitic idea. According to his reading.
Colonial strategy
Doyle expressed his regret that London, which has a historical and political role in the Palestinian issue, is now unable even to call for an immediate ceasefire, lift the siege, release detainees, and bring in humanitarian aid.
For her part, Afaf Al-Jabri, head of the postgraduate program for refugees at the University of East London, starts from the basic idea that the Balfour Declaration alone did not have any legitimacy, but the League of Nations and the demands of part of the Zionist movement, which was divided at the time, She was the one who gave it Legitimacy.
The same speaker confirms that part of the Zionist movement said that the Jews should not be in one country, and there were those who were talking about Sudan, Ethiopia, or Uganda, so why was Palestine chosen?
A question that Al-Jabri answers in two parts: “The first is for reasons related to the religious narrative of part of the Zionist movement, and the second is anti-Semitism, because Britain and other European countries wanted to expel the Jews from Europe.”
From a legal standpoint, the Academy considers that Britain did not have any right at the time as a colonial state to make this promise, but there are colonial strategies aimed at ensuring permanent clashes in the region and the absence of stability so that the colonial powers can guarantee their interests in it.
Unethical deal
Al-Jabri stressed the historical and legal responsibility of London and the United Nations because the latter granted the right to a colonial state to determine the fate of the indigenous people, as the Palestinians at that time constituted 90% of the population of Palestine, and yet their opinion was not taken into account on the matter.
British human rights activist and head of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in Britain, Ibn Jamal, describes the Balfour Declaration as an important and decisive moment in the founding of Israel, and Britain bears historical responsibility because it gave legitimacy to this idea without paying attention to the indigenous population and making a promise to grant the land to other people.
Bin Jamal confirms – to Al Jazeera Net – that London was the first to supervise the organization of Jewish immigration and gave the green light for this immigration, “However, I say that perhaps if Britain had not made this promise, another country would have done so.”
As for Britain’s goals in making this promise, it had colonial backgrounds linked to the British Empire and saw the Zionist movement as a potential ally in the region, in addition to achieving an anti-Semitic goal of transporting Jews outside Britain, Ben Jamal adds.
The British academic confirms that historical documents show that the promise was a deal between Balfour, who was anti-Semitic, and the Zionist movement. The former did not want Jews in Britain, and the latter wanted to exploit the matter to obtain a state, and this is how this promise was issued.
Since that promise, “London has failed to bear its historical responsibility to make Israel subject to international law. Rather, Britain is protecting it from any legal accountability, which has led to us reaching this situation that we are living in now,” says Ibn Jamal, who stressed that the speech of British politicians reveals ignorance. Fully aware of the seriousness of this issue.
