The Balfour Declaration, A receipt for services rendered?

Balfour Declaration
A receipt by the Allies to World Jewry for help to win WW1

Northern Whig – Thursday 09 August 1923

It is 100 years ago today since the Balfour declaration was made to Lord Rothschild. Here is a little more information not so openly known by the general public on this pledge.

The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government during World War I announcing support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population. It read:

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.

The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The text of the declaration was published in the press on 9 November 1917.

Now why would the British Empire in the midst of the greatest war in history just suddenly decide to make such a gesture to the Jewish people?

Was is just out of magnanimity? was is just because they thought it was the right thing to do? Was it just from pester power by the Zionist movement?

Or was it a receipt for services rendered?

This is from an article by Sir Martin Conway MP

Text reads:


The general public does not realise that the idea of the Balfour Declaration was of slow growth, and that it only took form after long and minute discussion. ‘To recapitulate the negotiations here would wearisome, and is not necessary. The leaders of the Zionist movement were introduced to Mr. Lloyd George in 1914 and from that time onward discussions continued. Schemes were put forward, modified, developed. Various versions the ultimate formula were suggested, criticised, rejected, replaced, till finally one was agreed on. and was put into the mouth Mr. Balfour, who gave official utterance it on behalf of the British Government November 2nd 1917. It ran follows;- 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 that object, being clearly I understood that nothing shall done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the right and political status enjoyed by the Jews in any other country.”
No act of State could have been more formal. The honour of the British Government and people was pledged, and so remains, and must remain. The suggestion that such pledge can be lightly set aside and disregarded can only come from light-minded journalists and irresponsible talkers. The pledge was accepted; The goods were delivered. The Jewish community all over the world backed the Allies. America came into the war. In the words of The “Case against Zionism,” ‘ During the world war it (the pledge) insured for the Allies the loyalty and financial support the Jews all over the world, and assured England of a permanent suzerainty over the Southern portion of Syria for the protection of the Suez Canal, which is the spinal cord of England’s colonistic Empire.’* Great Britain, therefore, can by no possibility back on the Balfour Declaration. Whatever the future relations of Britain to Palestine may be, the Declaration must remain one of the pivots of our Imperial policy. What we have promised and must perform. There were, however, other promises made, and these also have to kept.

Here is another example from a little known politician called Winston Churchill

Balfour declaration on Jews and Palestine, Zionism

Western Daily Press – Wednesday 05 July 1922

Extended text reads:

Mr Churchill said this was a topic that easily lent itself to prejudice. When they had a Jew, a Russian, Bolshevism, Zionism, electrical monopoly and Government concessions presented at the. same moment even the recently budding statesman could make a very fine case. There was. broadly speaking. two issues, and it was important to keep them distinct. The first was were they to keep pledge to their pledge to the Zionists which were made in 1917 to the effect that the Government their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of national home for Jewish people or were they to abandon that. The second issue was whether the measures taken Colonial Office to fulfil the pledge were reasonable and proper measures. On the first issue the House as a whole had definitely committed itself on more than one occasion the general proposition that they should use their best endeavours to make good the pledge to the Zionists. The pledge was made to gain the support, in winning the war, of Jews all over the world. Parliament had deliberately accepted the peace arrangements that bad been made , including the acceptance by Great Britain of mandatory responsibility for Palestine- Balfour declaration was part of the mandatory system.

Was this the stab in the back oft referred to by the Nazis?

Here is a more eloquent take on it







A Holocaust Witch Hunt

Grab your popcorn boys there’s another holocaust denial witch hunt under way. Burn the heretics!

A speaker at a Labour Party fringe meeting on free speech dared to opine that any issue should be open to debate…..including the Holocaust!!!!


Miko Peled
Free speech and the Holocaust don’t mix.

Daily Mail Holocaust debate
Debate shall not be tolerated

Sky News
Disgusting Comments?

And just what were those “Disgusting” comments?

Controversy was reignited on Monday when Israeli-American author Miko Peled told a fringe event: “This is about free speech, the freedom to criticise and to discuss every issue, whether it’s the Holocaust: yes or no, Palestine, the liberation, the whole spectrum.

“There should be no limits on the discussion.”

My God, the man is insane. Off with his head!

Huffpost Holocaust Denial
He’s a witch, burn him

Labour MP Wes Streeting said: “This is not a question to which there is any other answer than ’the holocaust is one of the greatest crimes in human history and this should never happen again.

A Labour Party spokesperson said: “Labour condemns antisemitism in the strongest possible terms and our NEC unanimously passed tough new rule changes last week.“All groupings in the party should treat one another with respect. We will not tolerate antisemitism or holocaust denial.”

Jennifer Gerber, director of Labour Friends of Israel, said the event was “beyond disgraceful”.

She said: “Supporting the world’s only Jewish state is a mainstream and long-standing Labour position. We hope the Labour Party leadership acts swiftly to condemn those who seek to bully pro-Israel and Jewish members out of the party.”

And Jeremy Newmark, Chair of Jewish Labour Movement, said it was “a thinly veiled call to purge Jews from the Labour Party.”

Sorry but it’s too daft to laugh at. The media is losing it’s knickers over a meeting about free speech and going into a frenzy to demonise  someone who appears to advocate open discussion. Obviously some things are beyond question. I think the crux of this furore is that there was also hints of criticism of Israel in the speech and that is beyond the pale. The Holocaust Card has been played and the two subjects have become convoluted and the propaganda machine of the Israeli lobby has coughed into life.

I’m no fan of the Labour Party and would never vote for them but what is happening here is truly unfair. We’ve seen this happen many times before and we’ll surely see it again.

Jews return to Palestine 1920

Falkirk Herald – Wednesday 12th May 1920


JEWS RETURN TO PALESTINE.—“ I do not think there will anything’ like a general exodus of from this country,” said Weizman, Zionist leader, who has just returned London from Saint Remo, Press Association representative. “There is, however, likelihood that many Jews, how domiciled in England will there, he added. The object of. re-settlement. Weizman said, would be to make Palestine Jewish national home. Palestine can provide accommodation for about six million people, and Dr Weizinan anticipates that emigration, which will be largely from countries where Jews are oppressed, Russia and Poland, will soon begin. The scheme provides for the re-settlement during the hrd year from 25.000 to 30,000. but in the following year doubt the number dealt with reach 100.000. new civil administration of Palestine will begin in about a month, present Palestine is suffering from a shortage of houses. least 5000 are required to meet .the demands the immediate future. the work reconstruction begins in Palestine, and friendly co-operation with the. Arabs is established, it will contribute greatly settlement the Near East. think.’’ .-slid. that the role of the Jew to bring hack settled conditions into a part of the world which is present process being broken up” Plane have been a]approved for tire erection of Jewish university on the slopes of Mount Scopus. order accomplish the of the Jews in Palestine, a sum between £25.000.000 and £30,000.000 will required, but dot’s not anticipate any great difficulty in raising the money.


Russia and the Jews

London Daily News – Wednesday 26th August 1903

I have a suspicion that Zionism will feature strongly in this exploration of the Holocaust story. Everything I’ve seen and read so far brings me to believe that these two things are intrinsically entwined. I suspect too that Dr Herzl will be making a few appearances in this blog.

Here is a newspaper article including some of the key words, Jewish Question, Palestine


Full text reads.



 (From Our Special Correspondent.)

 BASEL, Tuesday,

Dr. Herzl has received the following letter from M. de Plehve, the Russian Minister the Interior. It will be noted that the Russian Government tolerates Zionism only on the condition bluntly stated by M. Plehve that it will aid it in getting rid of the Jews. M. Plehve writes follows:

 St. Petersburg, 12th August.

 Sir,—You expressed a desire preserve memorandum of our interview. I agree willingly to this wish, in order to set aside everything which might, give rise exaggerated hopes or disquieting doubts. I have occasion to inform you of the point view from which the Russian Government actually regards Zionism. The Government, in fact, might very easily be obliged to change its policy of toleration view measures dictated by the national safety. As long Zionism consisted in wishing to create independent State Palestine, and promised to organize the emigration from Russia of certain number of its Jewish subjects, the Russian Government was perfectly well able to favourable, but from the moment when this principal aim Zionism is found to abandoned in order to replaced by simple propaganda of national Jewish concentration Russia, it is natural that the Government cannot tolerate this new departure Zionism. only effect would to create groups of individuals, perfectly strange and even hostile to the patriotic sentiments which are the power every State.         That is why Zionism cannot tolerated except on condition that it returns its former plan of action. It could in that case count on moral and material support when certain its practical measures should cause a diminution in the Jewish population Russia. This support might consist protecting the agents the Zionists near the Ottoman Government, helping the action of emigration societies, and even in supplementing the needs these societies evidently outside the means the State, means of contributions levied on the Jews. I consider it necessary to add that the Russian Government, obliged conform in its mode of action in the Jewish question the interests of the State, has nevertheless never departed from the great principles of morality and humanity. Quite recently it has enlarged the rights domicile within the borders of the localities destined for the Jewish population, and nothing prevents it hoping that the carrying out these measures will serve to ameliorate the conditions of living of the Russian Jews, especially if emigration diminishes their number.—Yours, etc..


BASEL, August 25,

 At this morning’s sitting of the Zionist Congress the delegates’ credentials were examined and confirmed. Of the thousand delegates elected to attend the Congress more than 600 have arrived. . The latter and greater part of the sitting was taken up with the reading the report of Mr. Israel Zangwill, of London, Zionism and Jewish charitable institutions, of which a glowing picture was given. The speaker went on to show that the majority of Jewish philanthropic institutions would become useless if the Jews returned to Palestine or to any other country that should be their own, but he recognised that Zionism was the only solution the political problem of Jewish settlement. At this afternoon’s sitting there was a general debate on the British East African colonization scheme, which has unexpectedly become the chief subject discussion of this year’s Congress. Seventy-six delegates have entered their names to speak upon it, and each is allowed a time limit of ten minutes. The Russian delegates urge the rejection of the scheme forthwith, while the German, English, and Italian delegates propose that an investigation committee, consisting of twenty-0ne members, should be appointed. Mr. Salzberger, of Philadelphia, has recommended that the scheme should be energetically followed up and referred to the tendency in England and the United States to check Jewish immigration. Dr. Herzl, the President of the Congress, has not yet made any speech either in favour of or against the colonization scheme, but it is understood that he is in favour the scheme being adopted, and his views will perhaps exercise decisive influence on the final decision. The debate is not expected finished today.—Reuter.