The Balfour Declaration was issued on 2 November 1917. In the memorable words of Arthur Koestler, Balfourâs declaration was âone the most improbable political documents of all time,â in which âone nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third.â
As is well known, the Balfour Declaration was categorically rejected by the Palestinians. That they would not look kindly upon their intended dispossession by the Zionist movement was considered so self-evident that General Edmund Allenby, who that same day had finally seized Gaza from the Ottomans on the third attempt, and was preparing to make his way to Jerusalem, issued a decree prohibiting its publication in Palestine.
Less well known is that the Balfour Declaration hardly met with widespread euphoria among its intended beneficiaries, the Jews of Europe.
Below is an excerpt from a memo presented to the British cabinet by Edwin Samuel Montagu in August 1917, as the Balfour Declaration was being drafted.
Montaguâs memorandum, entitled âOn the Anti-Semitism of the Present [British] Governmentâ, is significant because Montagu was at the time the only Jewish member of the British cabinet, and in that capacity also the Balfour Declarationâs fiercest opponent. In his words:
Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom. If a Jewish Englishman sets his eyes on The Mount of Olives and longs for the day when he will shake British soil from his shoes and go back to agricultural pursuits in Palestine, he has always seemed to me to have acknowledged aims inconsistent with British citizenship and to have admitted that he is unfit for a share in public life in Great Britain, or to be treated as an Englishman. I have always understood that those who indulged in this creed were largely animated by the restrictions upon and refusal of liberty to Jews in Russia. But at the very time when these Jews have been acknowledged as Jewish Russians and given all liberties, it seems to be inconceivable that Zionism should be officially recognised by the British Government, and that Mr. Balfour should be authorized to say that Palestine was to be reconstituted as the ânational home of the Jewish peopleâ. I do not know what this involves, but I assume that it means that Mahommedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mahommedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine. Perhaps also citizenship must be granted only as a result of a religious test.
I lay down with emphasis four principles:
1. I assert that there is not a Jewish nation. The members of my family, for instance, who have been in this country for generations, have no sort or kind of community of view or of desire with any Jewish family in any other country beyond the fact that they profess to a greater or less degree the same religion. It is no more true to say that a Jewish Englishman and a Jewish Moor are of the same nation than it is to say that a Christian Englishman and a Christian Frenchman are of the same nation: of the same race, perhaps, traced back through the centuries - through centuries of the history of a peculiarly adaptable race. The Prime Minister and M. Briand are, I suppose, related through the ages, one as a Welshman and the other as a Breton, but they certainly do not belong to the same nation.
2. When the Jews are told that Palestine is their national home, every country will immediately desire to get rid of its Jewish citizens, and you will find a population in Palestine driving out its present inhabitants, taking all the best in the country, drawn from all quarters of the globe, speaking every language on the face of the earth, and incapable of communicating with one another except by means of an interpreter. I have always understood that this was the consequence of the building of the Tower of Babel, if ever it was built, and I certainly do not dissent from the view, commonly held, as I have always understood, by the Jews before Zionism was invented, that to bring the Jews back to form a nation in the country from which they were dispersed would require Divine leadership. I have never heard it suggested, even by their most fervent admirers, that either Mr. Balfour or Lord Rothschild would prove to be the Messiah.
I claim that the lives that British Jews have led, that the aims that they have had before them, that the part that they have played in our public life and our public institutions, have entitled them to be regarded, not as British Jews, but as Jewish Britons. I would willingly disfranchise every Zionist. I would be almost tempted to proscribe the Zionist organisation as illegal and against the national interest. But I would ask of a British Government sufficient tolerance to refuse a conclusion which makes aliens and foreigners by implication, if not at once by law, of all their Jewish fellow-citizens.
3. I deny that Palestine is today associated with the Jews or properly to be regarded as a fit place for them to live in. The Ten Commandments were delivered to the Jews on Sinai. It is quite true that Palestine plays a large part in Jewish history, but so it does in modern Mahommendan history, and, after the time of the Jews, surely it plays a larger part than any other country in Christian history. The Temple may have been in Palestine, but so was the Sermon on the Mount and the Crucifixion. I would not deny to Jews in Palestine equal rights to colonisation with those who profess other religions, but a religious test of citizenship seems to me to be the only admitted by those who take a bigoted and narrow view of one particular epoch of the history of Palestine, and claim for the Jews a position to which they are not entitled.
If my memory serves me right, there are three times as many Jews in the world as could possible get into Palestine if you drove out all the population that remains there now. So that only one-third will get back at the most, and what will happen to the remainder?
4. I can easily understand the editors of the Morning Post and of the New Witness being Zionists, and I am not in the least surprised that the non-Jews of England may welcome this policy. I have always recognised the unpopularity, much greater than some people think, of my community. We have obtained a far greater share of this countryâs goods and opportunities than we are numerically entitled to. We reach on the whole maturity earlier, and therefore with people of our own age we compete unfairly. Many of us have been exclusive in our friendships and intolerant in our attitude, and I can easily understand that many a non-Jew in England wants to get rid of us. But just as there is no community of thought and mode of life among Christian Englishmen, so there is not among Jewish Englishmen. More and more we are educated in public schools and at the Universities, and take our part in the politics, in the Army, in the Civil Service, of our country. And I am glad to think that the prejudices against inter-marriage are breaking down. But when the Jew has a national home, surely it follows that the impetus to deprive us of the rights of British citizenship must be enormously increased. Palestine will become the worldâs Ghetto. Why should the Russian give the Jew equal rights? His national home is Palestine. Why does Lord Rothschild attach so much importance to the difference between British and foreign Jews? All Jews will be foreign Jews, inhabitants of the great country of Palestine.
I do not know how the fortunate third will be chosen, but the Jew will have the choice, whatever country he belongs to, whatever country he loves, whatever country he regards himself as an integral part of, between going to live with people who are foreigners to him, but to whom his Christian fellow-countrymen have told him he shall belong, and of remaining as an unwelcome guest in the country that he thought he belonged to
...
I would say to Lord Rothschild that the Government will be prepared to do everything in their power to obtain for Jews in Palestine complete liberty of settlement and life on an equality with the inhabitants of that country who profess other religious beliefs. I would ask that the Government should go no further.
E.S.M.
23 August 1917
One of the central tenets of Christian Zionism is that Palestinian Christians, the heirs and descendants of the first Christians, have no rights in or to their homes and homeland.
In the Christian Zionist worldview, the dispossession of Palestine's Christians is, at worst, necessary collateral damage in what they insist is the divinely-ordained project of transforming Palestine into an exclusivist Jewish state.
In practice this means that Zionism, and Israelâs agenda and policies with respect to Palestinian Christians, is to be supported, encouraged, and praised as the work of God irrespective of the costs or consequences to its victims.
The forcible expulsion of most Palestinian Christians from Palestine and the systematic theft of their properties during the 1948 Nakba? Praise the Lord!
The systematic destruction of Palestinian Christian villages in Israel after the end of the Palestine War? Hallelujah!
The decline of the Christian population of Jerusalem, illegally annexed by Israel in 1948 (west) and 1967 (east), from approximately twenty per cent of the city's population in 1947 to barely one per cent in 2025? Glory to the Almighty!
Israeli terrorist attack blows a leg off the Palestinian Christian mayor of Ramallah and he is subsequently deposed from office by Israelâs military government? Why didnât Israel do Godâs work and kill him!
Military-supervised settler pogroms against Palestinian Christian villages in the West Bank? Itâs Judea and Samaria! It is the Christian villages that are illegal, and their residents are squatters who should be evicted!
Israel bombs the Church of St Porphyrios in Gaza City, the third oldest church in the world, killing over a dozen? Burn that abomination to the ground and leave no one inside alive!
Israel repeatedly bombs Al-Ahli Arab Baptist Hospital in Gaza City during the Gaza Genocide? Better late than never!
Israel seizes Armenian property in Jerusalem for exclusive Jewish settlement? Jews from Brooklyn and Moscow are from Judea, Armenians belong in Armenia!
Christian clergy are routinely spat upon in the streets of Jerusalem? Theyâre the lucky ones! Settler sputum is sweeter than rosewater!
And on it goes.
Christian Zionists claim to stand for Christian values and the survival of embattled Christian communities. Youâll hear them scream âgenocideâ whenever and wherever a Christian is murdered or killed. Particularly so if the offense takes place in Muslim-majority societies, and especially Arab ones.
But in Palestine? Not even embarrassed silence but full-throated support for systematic attacks on the worldâs first and oldest Christian community. Because they are Zionists before they are Christians.
Their Holy Trinity is Zionism, the state of Israel, and Binyamin Netanyahu.
Their communion consists of the bread used by GHF to bait desperate Palestinians and the blood of those murdered by its death squads.
And their Bible is Samuel Huntingtonâs Clash of Civilizations.
To cover their tracks, they like to pretend Palestinian Christians simply donât exist, that Arab Christians are like them all devoted Zionists, and that all Palestinians are Muslims.
In the alternative reality constructed by Christian Zionism, there is no such thing as a Palestinian struggle for national self-determination, let alone one in which Christians have always played a prominent part, decades before Hamas existed and years before its parent organization the Muslim Brotherhood was established.
Because in their view that struggle was never about retrieving Palestinian rights violently usurped by Israel, but rather part of a global Jewish â sorry, Islamic â conspiracy to seize control of the world.
Anyone who opposes Israel or its genocidal apartheid regime and policies is conveniently dismissed as Hamas, a jihadist, a passenger, as per Dan Burmawi clown show below, in the âTrojan horse that carries the virus of Islamificationâ.
This also helps explain the central role Christian Zionists have played in whipping up not just fear and hostility to Islam, but hatred of Muslims and what can only be described as hysteria â with few parallels since the 1930s â about the New York City mayoral candidacy of Zohran Mamdani.
Needless to say, Christian Zionists despise not only Palestinian Christians for getting in their way, but also have rather nefarious plans for the Jews, who most view as the âTrojan horseâ that will hasten the Second Coming, and then the rapture that many believe will see millions of Jews literally immolated.
With all the fanaticism that is often the hallmark of converts to a new religion, Burmawi postures as the authentic voice of all Christianity, cavalierly ignoring the beliefs and aspirations of those in the region who have been Christian for very much longer than himself, and of Palestinian Christians in particular.
Since he was previously a fanatic Muslim, he also considers it his mission to persuade us that any Muslim who does not spend every waking moment plotting the next 9/11 is an apostate, betraying the very essence of the faith.
Christian Zionism has all the moral force of âChristians for ISISâ, but unfortunately its vast political power is only beginning to be challenged and confronted.
bird.makeup - Tweet
Support Israel and do whatever it takes to guarantee its security. Make sure your streets aren’t occupied by Israel haters, and by doing tha...
When the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in January 2024 ruled that South Africa's claims that Israel is violating the 1948 Genocide Convention were sufficiently plausible to justify a full hearing of the case, Israel and its apologists responded as they always do when criticism is levelled at the genocidal apartheid state: condemn the accuser, scream blood libel, work themselves into a frenzy about anti-Semitism, and play the aggrieved victim.
Once the initial hysteria passed, anyone concluding that Israel is perpetrating genocide in the Gaza Strip was roundly denounced on the grounds that no such determination can be made unless and until the ICJ rules that Israel is indeed guilty of genocide.
This was, of course, nothing but a disingenuous delaying tactic. If anyone seriously believes Israel and its flunkies will accept a ruling by the ICJ that does not absolve it of the genocide charge, the response was provided today.
In a devastating ruling for Israel, the ICJ today issued an Advisory Opinion on Israelâs obligations as an occupying in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, international organisations, and foreign states in the territories it occupies.
Since my purpose is not to analyse the ICJ verdict itself, for those interested a link to the full document is provided below, followed by a summary produced by the Court and a newspaper article on the matter.
Suffice it to say that the Court rejected every single claim by Israel, and specifically refuted Israelâs unsubstantiated claims about UNRWA. It also made short shrift of Israelâs GHF project.
It was also for all intents and purposes a unanimous ruling. The sole dissenter, Julia Sebutinde, will never let international law get between her and support for Israel.
And how have those who claim we must wait for an ICJ ruling on the genocide case before drawing any conclusions responded?
Entirely predictably: The ICJ got it all wrong, the judges donât understand international law and have no clue what theyâre talking about, the Court ignored the evidence that really matters, and so on.
Israel, of course âcategorically rejectsâ the ruling and announced it wonât implement a single one of its obligations as specified by the Court. True to form, Washington chimed in with similar language, denouncing not only the ruling but also the Court itself.
For good measure Israelâs parliament the same day pushed forward legislation to formally annex the illegally-occupied West Bank.
If the ICJ in several years defies expectations and finds that Israel is not guilty of genocide, Israel will trumpet the ruling as the definitive, unassailable conclusion of the matter.
But if, as widely anticipated, the ICJ finds either that Israelâs entire campaign, or specific policies and atrocities conducted during this campaign constitute genocide, expect Israel and its flunkies to condemn the accuser, scream blood libel, work themselves into a frenzy about anti-Semitism, and play the aggrieved victim. Because Israel is always right, and it is always the victim, particularly when engaging in genocide.
đ.pdf
đ.pdf
the Guardian
ICJ orders Israel to allow aid into Gaza and says restrictions breached international obligations
UNâs top court also finds Israel failed to justify blocking Unrwa and other relief agencies
During the 2008 US presidential election campaign, and for the eight years of the Obama administration, President Barack Obama was constantly criticized for his attitude towards Israel.
Obama did at least as much for Israel as any of his predecessors, and handed the genocidal apartheid regime USD 38 billion of taxpayer-funded weaponry in one of his final acts in office.
As many Israeli analysts noted at the time, the amount would have been substantially higher if Binyamin Netanyahu had not gone behind Obamaâs back and addressed the US Congress in a transparently direct attempt to undermine him.
Because of Netanyahuâs insubordination, Israel walked away with a mere USD 38 billion courtesy of the US taxpayer.
The criticism of Obama wasnât really about what he did or did not do for Israel. The constant refrain was that âhe doesnât love Israelâ. US politicians, in other words, were expected to have an emotional if not erotic attachment to a foreign state. I know of no other instance in which a national leader is considered unsuitable for office because he lacks a passionate devotion to a country other than his or her own.
That was then, this is now.
There are multiple reasons Kamala Harris lost the 2024 US presidential election to Donald Trump. But it is also increasingly clear that her campaignâs decision to engage in public and visible displays of contempt towards the Arab-American and Muslim-American communities, specifically on the issue of Palestine and Israel, cost her dearly in key states.
More importantly, her exorbitantly-paid campaign managers and consultants convinced themselves this would play well with the rest of the electorate because other constituencies were either indifferent to Palestinian rights or supported Israel.
It is today clear she could not have won without singing a very different tune on the Gaza Genocide, and that her refusal to do so probably cost her the election. In other words, what was presumed to be an âethnicâ issue turned out to be a national one, cutting across multiple constituencies and particularly the youth vote.
More recently, in the Democratic Party primary for the New York mayoral race, Andrew Cuomoâs campaign did everything within their power to transform it into the Likud Party primary.
They succeeded, and in significant part because of this Zohran Mamdani wiped the floor with Cuomo and forced him to run as an independent.
I anticipated that Cuomo and his billionaire backers would draw the appropriate conclusions and change their line of attack against Mamdani, claiming that he is a communist determined to impose Khmer Rouge rule in New York City.
I was only partially correct. While indeed denouncing Mamdani as a commie pinko and all the rest of it, Thursdayâs debate confirmed they are still doing everything within their power to portray the 4 November election as a contest for the mayor of Tel Aviv. All indications suggest their herculean efforts will produce the same result.
Never underestimate the self-confident hubris of nepo-babies or billionaires.
We live in a different world.
The public repudiation of AIPAC by a growing number of candidates for office, a development inconceivable even a year ago, demonstrates that Israel is no longer the electoral asset or requirement for success it has been for so long. The âlove for Israelâ demanded of Obama is today increasingly the preserve of freaks.
By contrast, support for Palestinian rights, previously a political death sentence if not one-way journey to obscurity, is rapidly being normalized.
According to this 2017 article in The Independent, allied governments were already receiving information about the unprecedented scope of the Holocaust in late 1941.
By late 1942 they were fully aware that several million Jews had already been killed, that millions more were at risk, and that Germany, in the words of British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden that December, was waging a war of extermination against Europe's Jews.
There has been ongoing debate about why nothing was done in direct response to this information.
Explanations range from anti-Semitism, to an allied assessment that bombing the railroad tracks leading to the extermination camps (or the camps themselves) would have an only temporary and limited impact, to the conviction among relevant governments that they should focus their resources on defeating Germany's Nazi government, because their priority was military victory and this would also be the most effective way to end the atrocities.
What is not debatable is that these governments could have spared large numbers of Jewish lives by offering them refuge but made a deliberate choice not to. It was the previous incarnation of "there's a reason nobody wants them", so popular among Israel flunkies these days when discussing Palestinians.
In contrast to today's Middle East, during the 1940s there were no fears expressed that refugees would be prevented from returning to their homes after war's end.
The article also reveals that allied governments, acting on the information at their disposal about Germany's slaughter of the Jews, which was far from complete, began drafting war crimes indictments against German leaders in 1942. This was several years before Soviet soldiers entered Majdanek, the first camp to be liberated in mid-1944.
There was opposition to such legal prosecutions, but then as now this was for political rather than legal reasons.
In those days, no one in their right mind claimed we should ignore the overwhelming evidence at our disposal, and first obtain a legal ruling definitively establishing that crimes were committed, before indicting those responsible.
By contrast, in 2025 any talk of the Gaza Genocide is denounced as "blood libel" because the International Court of Justice has not issued a final ruling on the matter. And if, as widely expected, it finds that Israel has indeed committed genocide in Gaza, that too will be denounced as a "blood libel", only more loudly.
The Independent
Secret documents reveal allied forces knew about Holocaust long before they discovered Nazi camps
Archive shows Adolf Hitler was indicted for war crimes in 1944
