The year 1917 marked the beginning of the Palestinian imbroglio. It was in that year that the seeds of the conflict were sown by the issue of the Balfour Declaration by the British government. The implementation of this Declaration during the British mandate resulted in a forcible and artificial change in the demographic position in Palestine, and in the building up of a dangerous situation which exploded in 1948.
The Balfour Declaration has been relied upon by the Zionists as if it were a document of title to Palestine. On November 2, 1917, Arthur James Balfour, British Foreign Minister, addressed the following written communication to 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 may 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 should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.”
This communication, which came to known as the Balfour Declaration created one of the most explosive problems of our times — a problem which has convulsed the Middle East for almost 90 years now. This Declaration is at the root of the Palestine tragedy and of the Arab-Israelites conflict.
The Balfour Declaration represented the culmination of Zionist efforts to secure British support for the Zionist plan to colonize Palestine and to establish there a Jewish State. The plan was originally launched by Theodor Herzl in 1896 and was adopted by the first Zionist Congress, at Basle in 1897.
The Balfour Declaration was invalid by reason of its conflict with the assurances and pledges given by the British Government to the Arabs and the Palestinians. Although the Balfour Declaration might well be void by reason of its conflict with these assurances and pledges, yet, in my view, its nullity depends much more upon intrinsic reasons. Arising from the nature of the Declaration itself and from the incapacity of its maker to make it.
Regardless of its real meaning, regardless of the real or apparent safeguard which it stipulated in favour of the inhabitants of Palestine — a safeguard which was completely disregarded — and regardless also of its incompatibility with pledges made to the Arabs, the Balfour Declaration is legally null and void for either one of the two following reasons.
First, the British Government, as author of the Balfour Declaration, possessed no sovereignty or dominion in Palestine enabling it to make a valid promise of any rights, whatever their nature and extent, in favour of the Jews of the world. It is immaterial whether these rights were meant to be territorial, political or cultural. On the date that the Balfour Declaration was made, Palestine formed part of Turkey, and neither its territory nor its people were under the jurisdiction of the British Government. The Declaration was void on the basis of the principle that a donor cannot give away what does not belong to him. The Balfour Declaration has been described as a document in which “one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third”.
Secondly, the Balfour Declaration is also void on the ground that it violated the natural and legitimate rights of the people of Palestine. It was immaterial whether the Balfour Declaration sought to impose the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish State or simply of a national home for alien Jews.
The Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian, and all the Arabs rejected the Balfour Declaration. But what may be little known is that the Palestinian Jews also rejected and opposed the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. Ronald Storrs, the first British Military Governor of Jerusalem, wrote: “ The religious Jews of Jerusalem and Hebron and the Sephardim were strongly opposed to political Zionism...”. The opposition of the Palestine Jews to the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine shows that this was a foreign concept, extrinsic to Palestine and alien to the Jewish community living there. Such a concept could not be construed as a recognition of a right of self-determination in favour of the Jewish community then living in Palestine.
There remains to examine an argument which has been advanced to the effect that even though the Balfour Declaration initially lacked juridical value, it was validated by its inclusion in the mandate for Palestine. Shabtai Rosenne, and Israeli spokesman at the UN, said with reference to the Balfour Declaration: “Its precise legal status at the time it was made may be open to discussion but that problem is secondary in view of the fact that the council of the League of Nations incorporated its text into the Preamble to the Mandate for Palestine.”
If, as is clear, Great Britain possesses no sovereignty over Palestine and no power to make the Declaration, then such a Declaration was a nullity, and the position is no better if other powers, such as France, Italy and the USA, or any number of powers which also possessed no sovereignty over Palestine, joined in approving the Declaration. Such approval would be a nullity and would have no validating effect. An accumulation of nullities cannot generate a valid juridical act.
Rosenne argues that: “Ottoman sovereignty over the territory of Palestine, as over many other of its territories, was ceded to the Allied Powers in the Peace Treaty.”
This statement is completely erroneous: sovereignty over Palestine was no ceded by Turkey to the Allied Powers, either under the abortive Treat of Sevres or under the Treaty of Lausanne, because, as already mentioned, it had no sovereignty left that it could cede.
Therefore, the inclusion of the Balfour Declaration in an international instrument, such as the mandate, did not and could not cure its invalidity. In fact, the inclusion of the Balfour Declaration in the mandate, instead of validating it, had the effect of invalidating the mandate itself.
Whether or not included in the text of the Palestine mandate, the Balfour Declaration cannot be considered to have embodied a valid grant to Jews of any rights in Palestine. This Declaration was nothing but an illegal and mischievous promise which has brought the most disastrous consequences to Palestine and the Middle East.
