Balfour vs Trump
Zalli Jaffe
We
are commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, and so, reflecting
on this anniversary, a number of books were recently published. Some of them express
different views about the Declaration, its contribution to the Middle East, to
The State of Israel, to international relations, and of course, to the
integrity of White Hall [as did another famous agreement of the time, The Sykes
Picot Agreement]. Many believe that The Balfour Declaration marks the beginning
of the Palestinian – Israeli conflict, [Jonathan Schne believes the
Balfour Declaration to be “The Origin of the Arab Israeli Conflict”, a title he gave his book; or Ian Black in his Enemies
and Neighbors, Arab and Jews in Palestine and Israel, 1917-2017]. Such theories I believe, somehow to be the rewriting
of history in more ways than one [yes, inclusive of ‘the “origin” of The ‘Palestinian Nation’].
The
politics associated with the developments that brought about the signing of the
letter to Lord Walter Rothschild, are indeed disputed. Most researchers accused
the British of “double-dealings”. The conflicting promises made to the Arabs on
one side and to the Jews on the other side, certainly contributed to the
conflicts in the Middle East. Indeed, England had vacated quite a number of
areas associated with The British Empire following both World Wars, without any
orchestration; thus, leaving behind chaos [Ireland, India and Pakistan, many
places in Africa, etc].
Many
drafts were prepared; a famous one was by the Office of The War Cabinet, and
addressed to Rabbi Sir Philip Magnus. However, the wording of the letter sent to Lord Rothschild 2 November
2017, is undisputed.
Two
drafts that were exchanged and reworded
should be considered. One of the major
changes between the draft known - and
defined by Bernard Regan, in his newly published book The Balfour
Declaration, Empire, The Mandate and Resistance in Palestine – is ‘The
Zionist Draft’; and the final letter
signed by Lord Arthur James Balfour, relates to the intention of “His Majesty’s
Government”.
All
drafts originated from article 11 of The League of Nations Mandate. The signed latter did not read “[the]
principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the National
Home of The Jewish people” as some had hoped, and as worded in the ‘Zionist
Draft’, but ”establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish
people”. We do not have to elaborate on
the discrepancy. The signed letter does not guarantee the whole of
Palestine as a homeland of the Jewish people [as per the ‘Zionist Draft’], but
only a portion of it. The confusion as to the boundaries and the caveats
inserted to the letter, only complicated his Majesty's Government position. But who are better than the British to be
used to ‘fogs’.
 |
| Arthur James Balfour |
70
years later, President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital city of
Israel. However, there was a caveat in his recognition - similar to a caveat
mirrored in The Balfour Deceleration - when
he stated that the boundaries of Jerusalem – the capital city of Israel
– must be determined by the parties to the conflict; i.e. Israel and the Palestinians.
In other words, Donald Trump left open the possibility of certain parts of
Jerusalem to be an integral territory of
a Palestinian state, as part of the two states solution.
British
Prime Minister Theresa May still expresses an opinion - as she did on 6th December in Westminster - that Jerusalem should be the capital city of
both Palestine. No. Mrs. May did not learn from history that the British
Empire never succeeded in trying to bridge over the conflicts between two
groups fighting for the same land. A
joint capital is a guaranteed formula for violent conflicts. Every aspect of
life in Jerusalem [police, electricity, water, visiting dignitaries, religion, and most of all, security] will only
enhance and escalate conflicts and violence between two groups who do not have
any trust and confidence in one another. This is a primitive way of thinking. I am somehow amazed that Mrs. May does not
remember the past, thus she is condemned to repeat it.
Mr.
Trump's statement is an important development. It is true that nobody acted
in the past, as Mr. Trump does today. He is not following the rules according to ‘the
old school’, and might be considered a Machiavelli.
But he does not waive what he promised to
do, which is also a change from all previous presidents of the United States.
It
is important to decrease the tensions that will escalate as a result of the
“Trump Declaration”. But the negative comments by friends and foes alike should
not deter us. President Harry S. Truman recognized
the State of Israel in variance to the recommendations of the Department of
State not to issue such recognition. Indeed as of the end of World War
I, United States foreign policy is not a proud chapter in US history. The professionals in “State”, past and
present, have a lot to answer for.
People
objected to the Balfour Declaration, professionals objected to the recognition
of the State of Israel. Many - inclusive
of Charles de Gaulle - anticipated the realization of President
Nasser's ‘prophesy’ prior to The Six Days War that the Jews in Israel will be
thrown to sea. Why, even David Ben Gurion, shared with the then Chief of Staff of the Israel
Defense Forces, Yitzhak Rabin, his
fears, that the upcoming war in June 1967, might bring the end of the Jewish
state.
All
were wrong. Notwithstanding lack of confidence,
notwithstanding ‘experts’ opinions, notwithstanding dark prophecies, Israel is
a front runner, stable and healthy democracy, with equal rights to people from
all genders, religions and societies. No other country in the Middle East is sharing
these Western values. It is tragic that European countries – fighting Islamic terror
- support viewpoints of entities whose sole purpose is to annihilate Israel in
the name of “Islam”. This is true of Hamas; this is true of the education
system of the Palestinian Authority, whose schools in the West Bank teach The Protocols
of the Elders of Zion; it is true of
Iran or its proxy - Hizbollah. What the world fails to understand is that the
only core of stability in the Middle East, influencing its surrounding, is
Israel . If not for the State of Israel - as can be concluded by reading Dennis
Ross book, The Missing Peace, The Inside Story of The fight for Middle East Peace
- the Middle East and Africa would have been a massive bonfire.
So,
the Czech Republic following President Trump’s Declaration, also recognized
West Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel. So did The Philippines. Europe's
inability to support Israel, the encouraging of the Palestinian’s side, is
phony and tragic. Notwithstanding the fact that many elements in the
Palestinian authority are still hooked to terror – as was once defined by two historians who
wrote the biography of Yasser Arafat, “to talk about world terrorism and not to
mention the PLO, is like talking about the blood circulation and not not to
mention the heart”; notwithstanding the
fact that Abu Abbas supported Iraq when the latter invaded Kuwait, and never
even apologized for it; notwithstanding the fact that same Abu Abbas
dissertation for his “PhD” in Moscow was about the denial of the Holocaust,
Europe supports him. The support of the European Community to the Palestinian’s
position did not help England or France or Sweden fighting terror. Yes. Islamic Terror. Because when democracies
are divided, when democracies deny history for the purpose of political
convenience or ”political correctness”, the bad ones are encouraged to continue. As Winston Churchill once remarked “United we stand divided we fall. Divided the dark ages return, United we can save and guide the world”.
Western
democracies uniting with Israel will keep and guard the world.
Zalli
Jaffe
