Pride or shame in Balfour

British Prime Minister Theresa May expects the British public to be proud of one of their most terrible colonial disgraces and to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 1917 Balfour Declaration. The then British government promised to support a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, albeit then stating that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

May claims that “it is an anniversary we will be marking with pride.” The reality, as she surely knows, is that the “we” will not include a hefty part of the British population who will be appalled.

Leading Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi has described the Balfour Declaration as “the single most destructive political document of the 20th century on the Middle East.”

This was never a pledge made for the benefit of the Jewish people who had suffered so much, not least in the pogroms of Russia but also in the immediate interests of the British state in the middle of World War I. This was a pledge rooted in both colonialism and anti-Semitism.

Ever since Lord Palmerston in 1840, there were British politicians who hoped to encourage Jews to settle in Palestine and leave Britain. The one Jewish member of the Cabinet in 1917, Edwin Montagu, wrote that: “I wish to place on record my view that the policy of His Majesty’s Government is anti-Semitic and in result will prove a rallying ground for anti-Semites in every country in the world.”

Balfour’s inherent racism was clear. Far from being interested in the welfare of Jews, as prime minister in 1905, he introduced severe immigration controls to prevent a Jewish influx from Eastern Europe. He preferred that the Jews find a home outside of Britain. He was even more contemptuous of Arabs. In 1919, Balfour stated that “in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country.”

It is this sort of attitude that allowed the British government to ignore the earlier promises it made to Sharif Hussein of Makkah to create an independent Arab state there.

At the time of the Balfour Declaration, the Arabs constituted around 90 percent of population of Palestine. There were more Christian Arabs than Jews. Britain ignored the political rights of the non-Jews, that of the overwhelming majority. Unsurprisingly, Palestinians rejected this and it brought about the emergence of the Palestinian national movement.

All this should be obvious to a British prime minister, both then and now. Not only is May claiming to be proud of this but she has even invited the Israeli prime minister to Britain to celebrate the occasion. Moreover, Prince Charles will visit Israel to mark the occasion in what is to be the first state visit by a British royal. The Foreign Office issued a telling statement: “The Balfour Declaration is a historic statement for which Her Majesty’s Government does not intend to apologize. We are proud of our role in creating the State of Israel. The task now is to encourage moves toward peace.” In Parliament, the Foreign Office Minister Tobias Ellwood did admit in a debate that “the Balfour Declaration had its flaws,” however. Before he became foreign secretary, Boris Johnson was more colorful in describing it as a “masterpiece of Foreign Office fudgerama.”

This contrasts with the very welcome position of the current Earl of Balfour, who has called on Israel to recognize a Palestinian state and for Jerusalem to be an “internationally protected capital for all three Abrahamic faiths.”

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has demanded an apology and having been informed it will not materialize, has claimed that Palestine will sue the British government. How this is possible is not at all clear. There may be grounds to sue the British government on a host of fronts but not for the writing of what was essentially just a promise of support in a letter to a British citizen.

May frequently preaches and moralizes about supposed British values, but casts these aside every time she deals with Israel. Does the prime minister believe that Britain in 1917 had the moral right to give away another people’s country? Israel was created, and for many Jews this is something to celebrate, yet the Palestinians are long overdue their state too. How does May think Palestinians will feel as they watch the British government celebrate their dispossession and loss?

If May wants to retain any credibility on the Middle East, she needs to own up to Britain’s heavy historic responsibility. She should reflect on her hostile attitude toward the Palestinians. Historical apologies may be welcome but positive and concrete policy changes are needed. It is time for Britain to make a powerful new declaration that sets aside Palestine a place on the map just as Balfour paved the way for Israel. This is the only remotely ethical way to mark the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration and May still has six months to change her mind.

• Chris Doyle is the director of the London-based Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU). He has worked with the council since 1993 after graduating with a first class honors degree in Arabic and Islamic studies at Exeter University. He has organized and accompanied numerous British parliamentary delegations to Arab countries. He tweets @Doylech.