MIDDLE EAST POLICY, VOL. XXIV, NO. 4, WINTER 2017 THE BALFOUR DECLARATION A CENTURY LATER: ACCIDENTALLY RELEVANT Ian S. Lustick Dr. Lustick is the Beth W. Heyman Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania. This article is based on a paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the Association for Israel Studies at Brandeis University, June 12-14, 2017. he 2017 centennial of the Balfour “HMG should recognize its role during the Declaration has been observed Mandate and now must lead attempts to with great fanfare. The theme reach a solution that ensures justice for the of the 2017 annual meeting of Palestinian people,” it added. Tthe Association for Israel Studies was “A As with every anniversary associated Century after Balfour: Vision and Real- with the Arab-Israeli conflict, one side’s ity.” In February 2017, Israeli Prime celebration is the other side’s occasion for Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exulted in mourning and protest. That is perfectly un- the British government’s invitation to him derstandable, and the Balfour Declaration to attend its celebration of the centenary: is, rightly, considered a major step toward “While the Palestinians want to sue Britain an ultimate aim of Zionism — establish- for the Balfour Declaration, the British ment of a Jewish-dominated state in the prime minister is inviting the Israeli prime Land of Israel and, accordingly, toward the minister to an event to mark the hundredth catastrophe of destruction and displace- anniversary of the declaration. That speaks ment visited upon the Arab inhabitants of volumes.” Israel reciprocated by inviting Palestine. Nevertheless, both those who the royal family to visit the Jewish state to venerate the declaration and those who honor the anniversary of the declaration. hold it in contempt are mistaken insofar as The Palestinians, for their part, have they imagine it to represent a deep logic marked the centenary by demanding an of international law, Western culture or apology from Great Britain. “We call on historical rights, on the one hand, or, on Her Majesty’s Government to openly the other, the diabolical logic of European apologize to the Palestinian people for is- imperialism dedicated to exploiting Middle suing the Balfour Declaration. The colo- Easterners and Middle Eastern resources. nial policy of Britain between 1917-1948 Both sides would be well to remember led to mass displacement of the Palestin- Kurt Vonnegut’s explanation, in his novel ian nation,” read the petition, according The Sirens of Titan, for the rise and fall of to WAFA, the Palestinian news agency. hundreds of human civilizations. In that © 2017, The Author Middle East Policy © 2017, Middle East Policy Council 166 LUSTICK: THE BALFOUR DECLARATION A CENTURY LATER tale, there is no profound meaning to the in a position of influence might imagine history of mankind, no transcendental pur- could aid in the struggle was highly likely pose to the rise and fall of cultures, states to be done. Balfour’s own words about or civilizations. All of that history was the attitude of the Great Powers toward rather the result of a travel delay. Hundreds Palestine register the casual cynicism to- of thousands of years ago, a messenger of ward those whose lands would be forever the advanced race of Tralfamadorians was marked by the decisions about their future traveling from one galaxy with a simple incidental to the European conflagration or greeting for representatives of another race the organization of its aftermath. in another galaxy. The messenger suffered a transportation breakdown in our galaxy, Whatever deference should be paid to indeed our solar system. The Great Wall of the view of those living there, the Pow- China, the Roman Empire, and hundreds ers in their selection of a mandatory more human accomplishments, and many do not propose, as I understand the matter, to consult them. In short, so far more failures, were just messages sent by as Palestine is concerned, the Powers the Tralfamadorians to their stranded mes- have made no statement of fact which senger that the spare part he needed was is not admittedly wrong, and no dec- on its way. From a Middle Eastern point laration of policy which, at least in the of view, the origins and consequences of letter, they have not always intended to the Balfour Declaration are, in their way, violate...” (August 11, 1919) exactly as orthogonal, banal and arbitrary as were the consequences of the Tralfama- Arthur Koestler captured this same at- dorian mishap for earthlings. In the case titude in his characterization of the Balfour of the Balfour Declaration, the aliens are Declaration as “one of the most improb- the European imperialists. Their interests, able political documents of all time. In this passions and concerns, trivial or important document one nation solemnly promised to to them, are not at all related to the con- a second nation the country of a third.”1 cerns, passions, aspirations, beliefs, norms It was not simply the fact of the Bal- and realities of the Middle East — the four Declaration or its timing — before disposition of which occurs as an arbitrary Britain had even taken control of Palestine function of the accidents of European, not — that were accidental, which is to say, Middle Eastern, affairs. the contingent by-product of contending Most crucially, in the second decade of forces. The declaration’s content, indeed the twentieth century, a great and terrify- its precise wording, was also, in this sense, ing war pressed leaders of European states thoroughly accidental. As Leonard Stein, to fear for their lives and the survival of Jonathan Schneer and others have shown their states. It was upon one another that in detail, the wording of every sentence, their attention, their real attention, was and even every phrase, of the declara- focused. The categorical imperative was tion reflected bargaining processes among to prevail in the war, and nothing less. No Zionists, between Zionists and the British matter how flimsily justified or farfetched, government, and within the British govern- no matter how duplicitous, no matter how ment itself (that is, the War Cabinet). contradictory to other commitments by In 1917, the horrors of trench warfare, other officials, anything that any person the disaster at Gallipoli, uncertainty about 167 MIDDLE EAST POLICY, VOL. XXIV, NO. 4, WINTER 2017 the strength of America’s commitment and rate negotiations surrounding the phrasing revolution in Russia inclined British lead- of the declaration, its exact wording was ers to grasp at whatever straws of support also, in this sense, “accidental,” a highly might be available. In his detailed treat- contingent by-product of intensive nego- ment, Schneer comments that, more than tiations among interested parties. What anything else, “the Balfour Declaration is fascinating is to notice how artful and sprang from fundamental miscalculations largely uninformed turns of phrase by about the power of Germany and about the ex-Etonians had massive ripple effects in power and unity of Jews.”2 Indeed, bizarre the Middle East, effects similar to those beliefs were held by some that internation- apparent in the Middle East map as a result al Jewish power could be the difference of Churchill’s apocryphal hiccup. between defeat and victory over the central To understand the odd wording of the powers. They combined with the millenari- Balfour Declaration, one must add to this anism of Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour, cacophony of interests, fantasies, false and the excellent connections and diplo- beliefs, grinding imperatives and hair- macy of Chaim Weizmann and Nahum raising fears the traditional anti-Semitism Sokolov, to make Zionist demands appear of British leaders such as Herbert Asquith as a priority for desperate British leaders. and Robert Cecil, and the raw disputes Yet the geopolitical imperatives were among British Jews over Zionism as a pos- not completely clear. With Russia weak- sible threat to an assimilationist program. ened and out of the war, a deal with the This latter split was rendered obvious to Ottoman Empire seemed possible, since the highest levels of the British govern- the Russian demands for Constantinople ment by the confrontation between two could be ignored. But that would mean high ranking British Jews, the secretary of betraying the Zionists by leaving Pales- state for India, Sir Edwin Montagu, who tine under Turkish control. No matter. All opposed Zionism, and Sir Herbert Samuel, would be promised to all — the Ottomans, who ardently supported the movement. the French, the Jews and the Arabs — Samuel had refused Prime Minister Lloyd anything to keep in play the possibility of George’s request to remain as home secre- marginal assistance to the war effort and to tary, but did accept his appointment after rule out the phantom threat of Germany’s the war as Britain’s first high commis- rallying world Jewry to its side by forcing sioner of Palestine. the Ottoman Empire to accept mass im- After months of wrangling and revi- migration of Jews into Palestine. sions, and amid ferocious opposition by anti-Zionist British Jews, the declara- THE DECLARATION AS tion was approved by the Cabinet. Dated CONCEPTUAL EQUIPMENT November 2, 1917, it was issued as a letter It is accordingly correct to say that the from the foreign secretary to Lord Wal- Balfour Declaration was entirely “ac- ter Rothschild. But drafts of what would cidental” — a reflection of contingencies emerge as this letter had been solicited and concerns afflicting Europeans that had from the Zionists by the British govern- absolutely nothing to do with the realities ment five months earlier. Multiple versions and inhabitants of the region as a whole or were circulated and massaged, based on Palestine in particular.