But something else of considerable interest comes out of these documents. It is the revelation for the first time of the profound divergence between the Zionist and the non-Zionist Jews of that time, the difference between the fantastic and immoral designs of the Zionists on the one hand and the reasonable and legitimate aspirations entertained by sane Jews like Mr. Lucien Wolf. All that Mr. Lucien Wolf asked for in his definition of Jewish aspiration in this connection was that the Jewish population should enjoy equal political rights with the other inhabitants, religious and civil freedom, such municipal privileges in colonies and towns as wold appear necessary, as well as reasonable facilities for colonisation and immigration. Here was no plot to take Palestine away from its people or to give the Jews in it a predominate position, no suggestion of immediate or ultimate political sovereignty, no claim to lead either openly or surreptitiously to the formation of a Jewish state. But this was not enough for the Zionist and it was the Zionists and not Mr. Lucien Wolf and the other Jews of his way of thinking who had the ear of the British Government and voiced Grey and other members of the Cabinet that only a scheme calculated to lead to a Jewish state would be sufficiently attractive for the majority of Jess, to "facilitate the conclusion of a transaction securing Jewish support". And this was a time when the anti-Zionist Jews were the leading figures and representative spokesmen of British Jewry. Mr. Lucien Wolf himself was the spokesman of the Anglo-Jewish Association and of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the two chief institutions representing British Jews. If the British Government had accepted Mr. Wolf's formula instead of listening to the political Zionists, there need have been no Palestine British Jewry provided for something which could have been realised in Palestine without any encroachment on the rights of the Arabs and without any violation of Britain's undertaking to them. Arab consent might have easily been won for such a scheme and the whole bitter conflict of the last thirty years with its still incalculable consequences avoided. But the British Government rejected this chance and gradually committed themselves to the cause of political Zionism.
Mr. Lucien Wolf, however, and those other leaders of British Jewry who thought like him, did not abandon the struggle. As the programme of political Zionism took shape and as bits of information leaked out revealing the progress which the Zionist leaders were making in winning the British Government over to it, the opponents of political Zionism among British Jews became alarmed at its dangerous implications. On May 24th, 1917, Messrs. Alexander and Claude Montefiori, Presidents respectively of the Board of Deputies of British Jes and of the Anglo-Jewish Association, wrote a letter to the Times in the name of the Conjoint Committee of these two bodies, which was a manifesto of protest remarkable for the clear-sightedness with which it exposed the fallacies and dangers of political Zionism. In this letter, after declaring their adherence to Mr. Lucien Wolf's formula, the writers went on to say that the "establishment of a Jewish nationality in Palestine, founded on the theory of Jewish homelessness, must have the effect throughout the world of stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands and of undermining their hard-won positions as citizens and nationals of those lands". They pointed out that the theories of political Zionism undermined the religious basis of Jewry to which the only alternative would be:-"a secular Jewish nationality, recruited on some loose and obscure principle of race and of ethnographic peculiarity. But this would not be Jewish in any spiritual sense, and its establishment in Palestine would be a denial of all the ideals and hopes by which the survival of Jewish life in that country commends itself to the Jewish conscience and Jewish sympathy. On these grounds the Conjoint Committee of the Board of Deputies and the Anglo-Jewish Association deprecates earnestly the national proposals of the Zionists.
"The second part in the Zionist programme which has aroused the misgivings of the Conjoint Committee is the proposal to invest the Jewish settlers (in Palestine) with certain special rights in excess of those enjoyed by the rest of the population . . . . In all the countries in which Jews live the principle of equal rights for all religious denominations is vital to them. Were they to set an example in Palestine of disregarding this principle they would convict themselves of having appealed to it for purely selfish motives. In the countries in which they are still struggling for equal rights they would find themselves hopelessly compromised. . . . The proposal is the more inadmissible because the Jes are and probably long will remain a minority of the population of Palestine, and might involve them in the bitterest feuds with their neighbours of other races and religions, which would severely retard their progress and find deplorable echoes thought the Orient".
About the same time Dr. Weizmann speaking to a Jewish Conference in London made the following statement:-
"I shall try to outline, as much as is possible to do so, what are our plans and how we think we shall be able to carry them out . . . . One reads constantly in the press and one hears from one's friends, both Jewish and non-Jewish, that it is the endeavour of the Zionist movement immediately to create a Jewish state in Palestine. Our American friends went further than that and they have even determined the form of that state by advocating a Jewish republic. While heartily welcoming all these demonstrations as a genuine amifestation of the Jewish national will, we cannot consider them as safe statesmanship. . . . The conditions are not yet ripe for the setting up of a stage ad hoc. States must be built up slowly, gradually, systematically and patiently. We therefore say that while the creation of a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine is our final ideal - an ideal for which the whole of the Zionist Organisation is working - the way to achieve its lies through a series of intermediate stages. And one of these intermediary stages which I hope is going to come about as a result of the war is that the fair country of Palestine will be protected by such a mighty and a just Power as Great Britain. Under the wing of this Power Jews will be able to develop and to set up the administrative machinery which, while not interfering with the legitimate interest of the non-Jewish population, would enable us to carry out the Zionist scheme. I am entitled to say that His Majesty's Governments is ready to support our plans".
This speech was made in May, 1917, two-and-a-half years before the League of Nations was born and nearly three years before the Palestine Mandate was conferred on Great Britain. All the chicanery about the Mandate, all the humbug about "Britains's obligations" stand clearly exposed in it.
Now, in answer to the Alexander-Montefiori protest, Dr. Weizmann himself wrote to the Times denying that the Zionists "are demanding in Palestine monopolies or exclusive privileges". No monopolies or exclusive privileges, only a deep-laid plot, as the Doctor himself had explained to the Jewish Conference a few days before, to make of the whole of Palestine, "through a series of intermediate stages" a Jewish state!
A few days after the publication of Dr. Weizmann's letter a further manifesto was sent to the Times by 18 prominent Jews of British birth who declared their solidarity with Messrs. Alexander and Montefiori. Amongst these were Lord Swaythling, Sir Matthew Nathan, Isidore Spielmann, Ernest Franklin, Laurie Magnus, and Israel Gollancz. The Zionist opposition counter -attacked at a meeting of the Conjoint Committee. There was a hot debate and resolution disapproving the Alexander-Motefiori protest was passed by a majority of five votes, 56 to 51. Mr. Alexander resigned his presidency of the Board of Deputies both the Anglo-Jewish Association stood by Mr. Montefiori. The only Jewish member of the British Cabinet at that time, Mr. Edwin Montagu (famous in connection with the Montagu-Chelmford reforms in India) threw his entire wight against the Zionist scheme, as being one likely to cause great harm to world-Jewry.
Meanwhile, the Zionist leaders were being also very active in Washington, Paris and Rome. In America, where ignorance of the Arabs and their existence was even greater than in England, they had succeeded in winning a large measure of support for their scheme. President Wilson, looking at it entirely from the Jewish point of view with a total unawareness of what it would imply for the Arabs, had given it his blessings, and the American Government lent its support to the Zionist campaign in London. Finally when things had crystallized sufficiently in London and Washington, Zionist missions were (on the advice of the pro-Zionist members of the British Government) sent to Paris and Rome to win over the French and Italian Governments.
For its part, the British Government supported by America made representations to all its Allies in the sense that a declaration of sympathy for Zionist aims by the British Government would by securing the whole-hearted support of "American Jewry for the Allied cause, be of great help to the common war effort.
The ground had now been prepared and everything was ready. About the middle of the summer of 1917, Lord Rothschild and Dr.Weizmann called together on Lord Balfour at the Foreign Office and in the words of Mrs. Edgar Dugdale, "put it to him that the time for a definite declaration of support and encouragement had come". Lord Balfour asked the visitors for "a draft that he would put before the War Cabinet for sanction". The Zionists at once set about preparing their draft in consultation with the American branch of the movement. A considerable number of drafts were prepared in this way but they were all too long and elaborate for the liking of the British Government who, in the words of the report issued later by the Zionist Organization, "did not want to commit themselves to more than a general statement of principle". A shorter formula was therefore asked for and on July 18th Lord Rothschild forwarded to Lord Balfour what was intended to be the Balfour Declaration. These were its terms:-
"His Majesty's Government, after considering the aims of the Zionist Organization, accepts the principle of recognizing Palestine as the National Home of the Jewish people and the right of the Jewish people to build up its national life in Palestine under a protection to be established at the conclusion of peace, following upon the successful issue of the War.
"His Majesty's Government regards as essential for the realization of this principle a grant of internal autonomy to the Jewish nationality in Palestine, freedom of immigration for Jews, and the establishment of a Jewish National Colonizing Corporation for the resettlement and economic development of the country.
"The conditions and forms of the internal autonomy and a charter for the Jewish National Colonizing Corporation should, in the view of His Majesty's Government be elaborated in detail and determined with the representatives of the Zionist Organization".
Thus the aim of the Zionists clearly was to commit the British Government to a recognition of all Palestine as the National Home and to secure internal autonomy for the Jewish nationality from the start. Whether without any intervention from outside the British Cabinet would have accepted this formula cannot be determined. But they were not left free to act entirely on their own initiative. The anti-Zionist British Jews having learned of the proposed text of the declaration made a vigorous protest against it to the Cabinet.
As a result of this move the Cabinet had the Declaration re-drafted. The new formula was:-
1) His Majesty's Government accepts the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people.
2) His majesty's Government will use its best endeavours to secure the achievement of this object and will discuss the necessary methods and means with the Zionist Organization.
The anti -Zionist British Jews, however, found this draft as objection able as, and opposed it as resolutely as they had opposed its predecessor. And in fact on the most crucial point of all the second formula was no better than the first. Both provided for the arbitrary seizure of Palestine by the Zionists. Neither took any notice of the presence of the Arabs in Palestine.
Faced once more with the difficulty of issuing on behalf of the Jews a document against which Jews fought with might and main, the British Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary were compelled to have the Declaration remodelled again.
In the new and third draft, Palestine was no longer to be the National Home of the Jewish people. Instead the Government signified its desire to establish "a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine". But the anti -Zionist Jews, who had forced the Government to make this modification, were still perturbed and continued to protest on behalf of British Jewry. Their chief objection was to the maintenance in the text of the word "national". They rightly saw that "national" was a key word. They feared the implications of this word, seeing in it the germ of a Jewish State, of something which they were convinced would be extremely harmful to world Jewry.
Despite their efforts, however, the word "national" was kept in succeeding drafts by the Government. The political Zionists insisted upon it and were supported by their friends in the Cabinet. But the anti-Zionists were still far from abandoning the struggle. Indeed so successful, for some time, was their opposition, led from within the Cabinet by Edwin Montagu, Secretary for India, that they almost carried the day. Balfour was stalemated, and for a brief period the British Government was on the point of dropping its pro-Zionist policy. Shortly afterwards, however, Montagu had to go to India, and with him out of the way Balfour resumed his offensive. To speed matters up, a memorandum, asking for the Declaration, was handed to Balfour by Lord Rothschild and Dr. Weizmann. In this memorandum it was urged that "the problem be considered in the light of imperial interests and of the principles for which the Entente stands. . . We therefore now humbly pray that this Declaration may be granted to us and this would enable us to further consolidate Jewish opinion in the Entente countries and to counteract all the demoralizing influence which the enemy Press is endeavouring to exercise by holding out vague promises to the Jews".
The meaning of the last sentences of this memorandum is transparent. It was almost a threat, a warning that if Britain did not come forth with the declaration she might be forestalled by Germany who would thus capture the goodwill of the Jews for her cause in the war. Pressure was also being maintained from America. The President, speaking now with the authority of the principal Power engaged in the war against Germany, sent a personal message to the British Government intimating his agreement with the idea of a pro-Zionist announcement. And so the Zionists carried the day on the 2nd November, 1917, Lord Balfour, as Foreign Secretary, addressed to Lord Rothchild a letter which had been almost entirely written by Lord Rothchild and his friends, that is to say the Zionist Jews, defining what was to be the policy of the British Government with regard to Zionism in Palestine, and which was to become known as the Balfour Declaration.
This was its text:-
THE FOREIGN OFFICE,
2nd November,1917.
DEAR LORD ROTHSCHILD,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet.
His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
I shall be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR.
It will be easily seen from a comparison of the text of the Declaration as it was issued with the previous drafts which we have quoted, that the policy which the British Government now announced its willingness to pursue, was far less committal than what they would have undertaken if any of the preceding formulae had been adopted. Not only was "a national home of the Jewish people" but also it was now stipulated (someone at the Foreign Office must have suddenly remembered the Arabs) that the process of establishing this national home should not be allowed to prejudice the rights of the people of Palestine.
Yet there is so much dishonesty and duplicity (it is impossible to avoid using such words) both in the wording of this safeguarding clause and in its purport that it does little indeed to redeem the drafters of their previous sins. If the Arabs were not mentioned at all in the former drafts, they were mentioned here in such a way as to give an entirely false idea of their position in the country and their indubitable right to it. The, who constituted practically the entire population of the country (to wit, more than 90%); they, who as Arabs had occupied and owned the country for more than 1300 years, were now called "the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" in order, presumably (there is no other possible explanation) that the world might think of them as a few unimportant minority groups occupying a subordinate position to the Jews. This clause by purporting to protect the rights of the Arabs as "existing communities" in reality aimed at robbing them of their right to the country as its people. As Mr. J.M.N. Jeffries says in his book "Palestine: the Reality", "the population of Palestine was an Arab population with a dash of Jew. . . . Before this unpalatable reality what did the framers of the Balfour Declaration do? By an altogether abject subterfuge, under colour of protecting Arab interests, they set out to conceal the fact that the Arabs to all intents constituted the population of the country. They called them the "non-Jewish communities in Palestine". They called the multitude the non-few; they called the 670, 000 the non-60,000; out of a hundred they called the 91 the non-9. You might just as well call the British people the non-continental communities in Great Britain! It would be as suitable to define the mass of working men as "the non-idling communities in the world", or the healthy as "the non-bedridden elements amongst sleepers", or the sane as the "non-lunatic section of thinkers", or the grass of the countryside as the "non-dandelion portion of the pastures".
But leaving aside this shocking wording and looking merely at the implications of this safeguarding clause, there is only one possible inference that can be drawn from it, and only one possible judgement that can be passed on it, namely that if it was meant honestly it was sufficient to nullify the rest of the Declaration, at least in the sense in which it was understood by the Zionists. The British Government knew that what the Zionists wanted would have constituted a deadly encroachment on Arab rights. They promised to help the Zionists achieve their aim, provided that nothing was done to enable them to achieve it.