+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

The danger of ignoring Arab opinion: 100 years since Balfour

Following the Balfour Declaration, two academics set out to understand what the people of Palestine wanted for their own future. What comes across from their report is the recognition that local, in this case largely Arab, opinions mattered. The British and French were undeterred.

By James J. Zogby

Palestinian men carry black flags at a protest marking 100 years since the Balfour Declaration outside the British Consulate in East Jerusalem, November 2, 2017. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Palestinian men carry black flags at a protest marking 100 years since the Balfour Declaration outside the British Consulate in East Jerusalem, November 2, 2017. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

In 1919, following the first World War, the victorious Allied Powers met in Paris to remake the world. The prime ministers of Italy, France, and Great Britain as well as U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, collectively known as “The Big Four,” were the decisive diplomatic players at the meeting. Under their leadership, the lands of the defeated Central Powers were picked apart. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was dissolved into smaller central European nations. Germany lost territory and was served with an extremely punitive and expensive peace treaty. In several cases, the triumphant Big Four parceled out bits of land to themselves.

It was in this context of post-war imperial conquest that the fate of the Arab lands of the defeated Ottoman Empire was decided.

During WWI, the Allies had overcome the Ottomans with the important assistance of local Arabs who had rebelled against Turkish rule. Among these formerly Ottoman subjects was Emir Faisal, the son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca. Faisal arrived in Paris seeking assurance that the British would honor the commitment they had made to his father: post-war independence for all the Arab lands that had been liberated from Turkish control.

The conference also heard from Chaim Weizmann, a leader of the British Zionist movement. Weizmann argued for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the Arab territory known as Palestine. During his presentation, Weizmann cited in its entirety the Balfour Declaration –the 1917 promise made to the Zionist movement by British Foreign Secretary, Lord Balfour, stating that the British government favored the establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

It was exactly this conflicting maze of treaties and agreements that led to the outbreak of the World War. And it was with the very aim of preventing another such calamity that in 1919 Woodrow Wilson proposed the foundation of a League of Nations — a body designed to bring international diplomacy into the light of day and rule of law. Wilson believed that by promoting international agreement and democracy, sovereignty, liberty, and self-determination, an environment for a lasting peace would be created. Wilson, therefore, did not arrive in Paris with an agenda of expanding U.S. territory in the East, but with the idea that a lasting peace was achievable and the best outcome.

So when the Ottoman question arose, Wilson made a proposal in keeping with his ideal of self-determination: ask the people who live there what they want. This was, of course, an idea completely alien to the imperial ambitions of France and Britain and certainly out of place at the Paris conference, where the unofficial motto was, “to the victor belong the spoils.” Yet Wilson was not daunted by the radical nature of his suggestion. Instead, he declared that the newly liberated Arabs should shape their own destiny and that any settlement “of territory [or] of sovereignty [should be determined on] the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned.”

Palestinian shops close and hang black flags in protest of the Balfour Declaration and British policy in Palestine, East Jerusalem, November 2, 1929. (American Colony Photo Dept.)

Palestinian shops close and hang black flags in protest of the Balfour Declaration and British policy in Palestine, East Jerusalem, November 2, 1929. (American Colony Photo Dept.)

With that, Wilson commissioned the first survey of Arab opinion. In June of 1919, an American commission, led by the president of Oberlin College, Dr. Henry King, and a businessman and diplomat named Charles Crane, arrived in the Mediterranean coastal city of Jaffa to begin the first-ever Arab public opinion survey. The Commission traveled throughout what was then known as Greater Syria, including modern-day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Palestine. They visited three dozen towns, met with representatives of 442 organizations and received nearly 2,000 petitions. At each stop they tried to ascertain what the local population wanted for their political future — to be independent or placed under the mandate of a foreign power. They asked how the people viewed British and French plans to divide their region. They also questioned local populations about Britain’s intention to support the Zionist goal of a “Jewish Homeland” in Palestine. At the time, the population of the region in question was 3,247,500, of whom 2,365,000 were Muslim, 587,560 were Christian, 140,000 were Druze and 11,000 were Jewish.

The results were particularly adamant on certain issues. Among them: “The non-Jewish population of Palestine – nearly nine-tenths of the whole – are emphatically against the entire Zionist program […] There was no one thing upon which the population of Palestine were more agreed than upon this.” This feeling was also shared by the broader population of the entire Arab East: “Only two requests – those for a united Syria and for independence – had a larger support,” continued the King-Crane report.

Based on the responses of the local populations, the King-Crane report made a series of suggestions. With regard to the fate of Palestine, they suggested that the Zionist project, to which they had been initially sympathetic, should be dramatically scaled back — both by limiting Jewish migration and by dismissing the eventual goal of a Jewish state in Palestine.

The report’s suggestions continued on for pages on certain specific issues, but strikingly, what comes across is the recognition that local, in this case largely Arab, opinions mattered. Like Wilson, King and Crane fully accepted that imposing policy against the will of the population would generate massive resistance. However, the British and French — old hands at the colonial game — were undeterred.

Lord Balfour, for one, sharply rejected the Wilsonian approach. “In Palestine,” he declared, “we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American commission has. [. . .] Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is…of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”

In the end, Lord Balfour had his way. Instead of independence, boundaries were drawn, dismembering the Arab East and creating British and French spheres of influence over the newly created states of Lebanon and Syria (France) and trans-Jordan and Iraq (Britain) as well as Palestine (also to the British, with the understanding that it would become the “Jewish Homeland”).

These deplorable actions by the imperial powers set the stage for the multiple conflicts that have plagued the region ever since. As British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the New Statesman in 2002: “A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now, I have to deal with now, are a consequence of our colonial past […] The Balfour declaration and the contradictory assurances which were being given to Palestinians in private at the same time as they were being given to the Israelis — again, an interesting history for us but not an entirely honourable one.”

And so, the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration is not cause for celebration. Rather it should prompt us to recall the grave injustice that imperial acquisitiveness and racist insensitivity have done to an innocent Arab nation. Their rights and opinions were ignored and as a result the last 100 years have been marked by unceasing conflict and suffering. This is the shame of Balfour.

James J. Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Its about time that 972 releases a well thought out article.
      Lately, its been just… well.. bad!

      The british (and other colonies) are indeed largely to blame for many of today’s issues. Here in Israel/Palestine, and in much of Africa. We need more articles like these that will motivate for good debate understanding, and good compromise 🙂

      Thanks @James

      Reply to Comment
    2. Mark

      You have to admire the foresight of Balfour. By insisting on breaking the region up, with each bout of fratricidal murder there’s am escape route to the next country. Were the boders not there, we might expect a never-ending influx of Arabs seeking refuge in Europe and USA.

      Reply to Comment
      • duh

        Not to mention Africa. Oh boy, let’s not get you started on that continent.

        Reply to Comment
    3. Ben

      Well, there you have it, a kind of smoking gun:

      “In Palestine,” he declared, “we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American commission has. [. . .] Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is…of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”

      As Gideon Levy put it:

      “There was never anything like it: an empire promising a land that it had not yet conquered to a people not living there, without asking the inhabitants. There’s no other way to describe the unbelievable colonialist temerity that cries out from every letter in the Balfour Declaration, now marking its centenary.”
      read more: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.819539

      Reply to Comment
    4. Richard Cohen

      Explain why Woodrow Wilson commissioned an opinion poll then backed the Balfour Declaration.

      You also need to pay heed to the fact that the British anti colonialist Labour Party called for a Jewish Home in Palestine before Balfour

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        @Richard Cohen: When you open this can of worms you are going to find that a large part of what happened had to do with Britain’s enlistment of American Zionists to persuade Wilson’s United States to get into the Great War, and the quid pro quo involved between Britain and the Zionists. It is not a pretty picture. Few people want to talk about it. First, read this paragraph and all of the footnotes it links to:

        “These geopolitical calculations were debated and discussed in the following years.[145] Historians agree that the British believed that expressing support would appeal to Jews in Germany and the United States, given two of Woodrow Wilson’s closest advisors were known to be avid Zionists;[xxix][xxx][306] they also hoped to encourage support from the large Jewish population in Russia.[307] In addition, the British intended to pre-empt the expected French pressure for an international administration in Palestine.[xxxi]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

        Reply to Comment
    5. Bruce Gould

      I, too, long for the days when a small group of European gentlemen could draw the borders of countries while sipping sherry.

      Reply to Comment

The stories that matter.
The missing context.
All in one weekly email.

Subscribe to +972's newsletter