It seems perhaps you have read Ilan Pappe's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", which explains in great detail exactly what you are speaking of. Even the Balfour Declaration reflected the relative lack of concern about the existing residents of Palestine vis-a-vis the announcement of support for the establishme…
It seems perhaps you have read Ilan Pappe's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", which explains in great detail exactly what you are speaking of. Even the Balfour Declaration reflected the relative lack of concern about the existing residents of Palestine vis-a-vis the announcement of support for the establishment of a Jewish state (a "national home").
The phrase "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" was not part of the original declaration. It was added at the last minute at the insistence of Lord Curzon, who was knowledgeable about the region, and opposed the declaration itself.
According to a letter from the British author of "Britain in Palestine", published on 10/13/2017 in The Guardian, under the heading "Israel, Palestine and what a Curzon declaration might have looked like", Lord Curzon wrote to Balfour at the time of the Declaration's writing, "I do not myself recognize that the connection of the Jews with Palestine, which terminated 1,200 years ago, gives them any claims whatsoever. On this principle we have a stronger claim to France.”
There is additional documentation of this in the publication by Verso Books of an essay by Avi Schlaim, "The Balfour Declaration and its Consequences." Here, Schlaim quotes Curzon's objection to the Declaration: "What is to become of the people of the country? . . . [The Arabs] and their forefathers have occupied the country for the best part of 1,500 years, and they own the soil . . . They profess the Mohammedan faith. They will not be content either to be expropriated for Jewish immigrants or to act merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the latter."
Schlaim then notes that it was not until the final meeting of 10/31/2017, when the wording of the Declaration was finalized, that, "Largely in deference to his [Lord Curzon's] anxieties, the final version of the Declaration contained the caveat about protecting the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine." Clearly the Declaration was in fact what Arthur Koestler said it was - "one nation promising another nation the land of a third nation."
Avi Schlaim's 2009 book, "Israel and Palestine", is full of this kind of well-documented detail. The book ends with a chapter about free speech, which is very timely. He calls out the "propagandistic ploy of equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism" (which has persisted and now extends deeply into American society and government. Schlaim writes, "Here, America is in a league of its own, with institutions such as Campus Watch, which 'monitors' Middle East studies on campus. As its mission suggests, this organization is incompatible with the core values of higher education, such as tolerance, free speech and the dignity of difference."
The British released the Balfour Declaration in 1917 because they were in desperate need of the Rothschild Banks underwriting a national war loan to keep the British armed forces intact in the worst year of the war.
I have read about the reliance of many governments on Rothschild money to finance their military activities (e.g., Napoleonic Wars - both sides, and the Boer War), but I have not come across explicit discussion of a quid pro quo of the Balfour Declaration in exchange for Rothschild loans to the British treasury. Wouldn't surprise me in the least, however.
Given that the senior Rothschild in the family at that period in England was an early supporter of the Zionist movement, it's likely there didn't need to be a written agreement or any sort of formal quid pro quo. It would have been, as the English say, "understood."
Undoubtedly. Ben-Gurion gave no consideration to the Palestinians' interests, either, although he did admit in his diary that there was no way the Jewish immigrants would be able to establish the country they planned without marginalizing them. Balfour must have had that awareness, and, frankly, the Zionist movement at the time never exhibited any formal planning to make arrangements for any sort of peaceful co-existence. In my understanding no such plan has ever been presented to the present. All the "peace" deals offered the Palestinians dating to the Mandate Plan were nothing any self-respecting Palestinian representative or negotiator could possibly agree to.
Thanks for your clear-eyed and knowledgeable posts on this latest horrendous violence and mayhem.
That was a factor for sure. Also playing a role were the Christian evangelicals among the aristocracy who believed that supporting a "home" for the Jews in Palestine would fulfill prophecy and hasten the Second Coming. And now Christian evangelicals in the U.S. unequivocally support Israel (and, I'm pretty sure, AIPAC) for the same reason.
I haven't read Pappe, but I've been interested in the Middle East since I was in junior high -- my speech on the Sykes-Picot agreement won me a finalist slot in a high school speaking competition. <g> For an excellent introduction to the history, I recommend Alex McDonald's HOW I LEARNED TO SPEAK ISRAEL. It's indie published but getting easier to find. More info here: https://speakisrael.info/about/.
Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out. I recently counted up the number of books I have read about Middle East history generally or Israel-Palestine, in particular, and it was about a dozen or so. Surprisingly, I still come across some pretty major aspect of what has occurred that is totally new to me. Typically, such insights are even worse than what I knew about already. TC's mention that there was a totally cynical financing availability element as a part of what generated the Balfour Declaration. I hadn't heard about that, and it's even worse than the several reasons I knew about already. Good meeting you, Susanna. I send out a newsletter to friends and colleagues several times a week called Random Guy Noticing Stuff - if you want to check one out and see if you'd be interested in being added to the email list, let me know at bertrandbartok@gmail.com. Best regards. Gary
You are so right, Susanna.
It seems perhaps you have read Ilan Pappe's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", which explains in great detail exactly what you are speaking of. Even the Balfour Declaration reflected the relative lack of concern about the existing residents of Palestine vis-a-vis the announcement of support for the establishment of a Jewish state (a "national home").
The phrase "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" was not part of the original declaration. It was added at the last minute at the insistence of Lord Curzon, who was knowledgeable about the region, and opposed the declaration itself.
According to a letter from the British author of "Britain in Palestine", published on 10/13/2017 in The Guardian, under the heading "Israel, Palestine and what a Curzon declaration might have looked like", Lord Curzon wrote to Balfour at the time of the Declaration's writing, "I do not myself recognize that the connection of the Jews with Palestine, which terminated 1,200 years ago, gives them any claims whatsoever. On this principle we have a stronger claim to France.”
There is additional documentation of this in the publication by Verso Books of an essay by Avi Schlaim, "The Balfour Declaration and its Consequences." Here, Schlaim quotes Curzon's objection to the Declaration: "What is to become of the people of the country? . . . [The Arabs] and their forefathers have occupied the country for the best part of 1,500 years, and they own the soil . . . They profess the Mohammedan faith. They will not be content either to be expropriated for Jewish immigrants or to act merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the latter."
Schlaim then notes that it was not until the final meeting of 10/31/2017, when the wording of the Declaration was finalized, that, "Largely in deference to his [Lord Curzon's] anxieties, the final version of the Declaration contained the caveat about protecting the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine." Clearly the Declaration was in fact what Arthur Koestler said it was - "one nation promising another nation the land of a third nation."
Avi Schlaim's 2009 book, "Israel and Palestine", is full of this kind of well-documented detail. The book ends with a chapter about free speech, which is very timely. He calls out the "propagandistic ploy of equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism" (which has persisted and now extends deeply into American society and government. Schlaim writes, "Here, America is in a league of its own, with institutions such as Campus Watch, which 'monitors' Middle East studies on campus. As its mission suggests, this organization is incompatible with the core values of higher education, such as tolerance, free speech and the dignity of difference."
The British released the Balfour Declaration in 1917 because they were in desperate need of the Rothschild Banks underwriting a national war loan to keep the British armed forces intact in the worst year of the war.
I have read about the reliance of many governments on Rothschild money to finance their military activities (e.g., Napoleonic Wars - both sides, and the Boer War), but I have not come across explicit discussion of a quid pro quo of the Balfour Declaration in exchange for Rothschild loans to the British treasury. Wouldn't surprise me in the least, however.
Given that the senior Rothschild in the family at that period in England was an early supporter of the Zionist movement, it's likely there didn't need to be a written agreement or any sort of formal quid pro quo. It would have been, as the English say, "understood."
Undoubtedly. Ben-Gurion gave no consideration to the Palestinians' interests, either, although he did admit in his diary that there was no way the Jewish immigrants would be able to establish the country they planned without marginalizing them. Balfour must have had that awareness, and, frankly, the Zionist movement at the time never exhibited any formal planning to make arrangements for any sort of peaceful co-existence. In my understanding no such plan has ever been presented to the present. All the "peace" deals offered the Palestinians dating to the Mandate Plan were nothing any self-respecting Palestinian representative or negotiator could possibly agree to.
Thanks for your clear-eyed and knowledgeable posts on this latest horrendous violence and mayhem.
That was a factor for sure. Also playing a role were the Christian evangelicals among the aristocracy who believed that supporting a "home" for the Jews in Palestine would fulfill prophecy and hasten the Second Coming. And now Christian evangelicals in the U.S. unequivocally support Israel (and, I'm pretty sure, AIPAC) for the same reason.
I haven't read Pappe, but I've been interested in the Middle East since I was in junior high -- my speech on the Sykes-Picot agreement won me a finalist slot in a high school speaking competition. <g> For an excellent introduction to the history, I recommend Alex McDonald's HOW I LEARNED TO SPEAK ISRAEL. It's indie published but getting easier to find. More info here: https://speakisrael.info/about/.
Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out. I recently counted up the number of books I have read about Middle East history generally or Israel-Palestine, in particular, and it was about a dozen or so. Surprisingly, I still come across some pretty major aspect of what has occurred that is totally new to me. Typically, such insights are even worse than what I knew about already. TC's mention that there was a totally cynical financing availability element as a part of what generated the Balfour Declaration. I hadn't heard about that, and it's even worse than the several reasons I knew about already. Good meeting you, Susanna. I send out a newsletter to friends and colleagues several times a week called Random Guy Noticing Stuff - if you want to check one out and see if you'd be interested in being added to the email list, let me know at bertrandbartok@gmail.com. Best regards. Gary