The Dark Forces Behind the Balfour Declaration — And Its Lasting Legacy

Even Operation Protective Edge Harkens Back To Document

I Do Declare: Arthur Balfour, author of the Balfour Declaration, being presented to Tel Aviv by the city’s mayor in 1925.
wikimedia commons
I Do Declare: Arthur Balfour, author of the Balfour Declaration, being presented to Tel Aviv by the city’s mayor in 1925.

By Jerome Chanes

Published August 23, 2014, issue of September 05, 2014.

Why does the Balfour Declaration, written in 1917 during the darkest days of World War I, tug at our elbow, insisting we pay attention to it? Indeed even today, “Operation Protective Edge” in Gaza harkens back to Balfour. Political analyst Avishai Margalit said, “You can unspool this vendetta back to the Balfour Declaration.”

The Balfour Declaration, written as a letter on November 2, 1917, from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to British Jewish leader Baron Lionel Walter Rothschild, pledged British support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. The declaration is one of the iconic documents in, and represents one of the great moments of, Zionist history.

Conventional wisdom has it that the Balfour Declaration was all about Zionism, that British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour were nice guys, “Zionists” both — whatever that meant in 1917 — and that the declaration written was motivated by some kind of Zionist inspiration.

Alas, the genesis of the declaration had little to do with Zionism and everything to do with World War I, British interests in the war, power politics — and anti-Semitism. Indeed, the declaration derived from classic European anti-Judaism and from the gentile English version of anti-Semitism.

The story begins not in Palestine but in Ottoman Turkey, in 1908, with the beginnings of the revolution of the Committee of Union and Progress — the “Young Turks” — which ultimately established hegemony over the Ottoman Sultanate.

The leaders of the Young Turks uprising were viewed with sympathy by the British Foreign Office, in London, but with disdain by the British Embassy in Constantinople, where it counted. As historian David Fromkin tells it, the British ambassador, Sir Gerald Lowther, fell completely under the influence of his “First Dragoman”: his adviser on Middle Eastern affairs, Gerald FitzMaurice, who detested the Young Turks. To FitzMaurice, the fact that the Young Turk revolution began in 1908 in Salonika, Greece (then under Ottoman rule), was significant: More than half of Salonika’s inhabitants were Jews of one flavor or another. This, plus the fact that Salonika had a Freemason lodge founded by a Jew, was enough for FitzMaurice, who himself was entirely taken with the notion of an “international Jewish conspiracy”: The C.U.P. was part of an international Jewish Freemason conspiracy — “the Jew Committee of Union and Progress” — and FitzMaurice convinced his boss, Lowther (who was rather a fool to begin with), of this canard.

Lowther and FitzMaurice cobbled together a report to the Foreign Office, alleging that the Jews (“adept at manipulating occult forces”) had taken control over the Ottoman Empire.

The FitzMaurice and Lowther report won wide acceptance among British officials in London and led to a profound misconception about Middle East power and politics: that a group of Jews wielded political power in the Ottoman Empire — indeed everywhere in the world — at that time. This misconception was common enough; it found particular sinister expression in the Czarist forgery “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.” But in this case, the obvious conclusion was drawn: The Great War, in which Britain was by then heavily engaged, could be won by buying the support of this powerful group. But bought with which coin? Zionism, of course, with British Zionists making the case for the notion of a British-allied postwar Jewish Palestine. To the British, this translated into Jewish support for their war effort, which could be bought by the promise of support of the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This notion — a natural to FitzMaurice and his obsession with “Jewish power” — persuaded the Foreign Office to pledge British support to the Zionist enterprise.

Enter Lloyd George.

It is true that Lloyd George’s English Protestantism celebrated the Old Testament Hebrews; it was not uncommon among English Protestants to have deep feelings about the Jewish connection to the Holy Land. But it is more to the point that Lloyd George and the people around him were taken with the notion of Jewish international networking, and more so with international Jewish power. Bringing Jewish power into the picture, precisely when Britain needed help in the war effort, might ensure financial assistance to the Allied cause, and might even help bring America into the war.

The British government never learned that Lowther and FitzMaurice had supplied it with a warped view of Ottoman politics, one in which the Ottoman government was pictured as a tool of world Jewry. In fact, this backdrop served as a perfect setting for the Balfour Declaration.

This national icon derived from dark forces indeed.

Jerome Chanes, a Forward contributing editor, is a fellow at the Center for Jewish Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center.



Would you like to receive updates about new stories?






















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.