Talk:Balfour Declaration

“Small Minority”

The article claims the Jewish population was a small minority which it accomplishes by invoking the Ottoman Empire. It is true that the Ottoman Empire, a Muslim Caliphate, was minority Jewish however the population of Jerusalem was majority Jewish until the time of the British mandatory and the mass Arab immigration. Also the article calls the region Palestine which the Balfour declaration surely did but the ottoman called it Syria. Between the 670CE and the Mandates Muslims never used the word Palestine to describe any part of their empires. 2601:582:4680:7510:57:53D4:8005:B6EB (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Your post includes multiple incorrect statements. Please read the following:

• Timeline of the name Palestine

• Cartography of Palestine

• Demographic history of Palestine (region)

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines "vast majority" as meaning >95%. The article on demographic history cited above indicates that the muslim population was only around 75%, which makes it a "majority," but not even close to a "vast majority." Writing "vast majority" rather than "majority" presents the situation incorrectly, and prejudices readers opinions on a highly controversial topic. Similarly, the use of "small minority" rather than "minority" makes it sound as if the Jewish population was much less than the 13% indicated by the demographic history. 142.181.139.139 (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The article says "The local Christian and Muslim community of Palestine, who constituted almost 90% of the population" (~~ 89% in 1922) so that's your vast majority and then by subtraction, the remainder must be a small minority, 84/752 ~ 11% in 1922? The alternative would be to specify actual figures which seems like overkill for the point. Selfstudier (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I have another issue with the intro to this article. I see no point in explaining the demographic situation in 1917 Palestine so early. If we are to do so, it only makes sense to add the other side of the argument- let's not forget that Palestine was not a random territory selected by the British as a national home for the Jewish people. The Land of Israel, as it is known in Jewish tradition, is the Jewish ancestral homeland and the birthplace of the Jewish people. Without this extremely important piece of information, it almost sounds like this declaration was based on nothing, which is of course untrue. To me, it's either we remove the "small minority" part from the first paragraph, or it stays as part of a balanced portrayal which also mentions the Jewish connection to the land. Tombah (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

So remove fact, and insert POV. I dont think thats how it works. Palestine wasnt the only suggestion for a Jewish homeland, and the selection of Palestine had as much to do with rallying support against the Ottomans as it did with the "ancestral homeland and birthplace of the Jewish people". nableezy - 22:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not an argument, it's just sourced facts. Selfstudier (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Tombah's suggestion would also require us to explain that the idea that the place was the "Jewish ancestral homeland and the birthplace of the Jewish people" had only gained traction within the European Jewish community within the previous few decades, and even then had not yet become the majority view. It was the Balfour Declaration itself that supercharged Jewish nationalism, turning what was considered by most to be a fairy tale into a deep-seated identity for which people were willing to devote their lives. This is explained and sourced in the article, and referenced in the final paragraph of the lede – adding part of it anachronistically in the first sentence would be misleading. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This is just plain wrong. A majority of Jews worldwide did acknowledge that Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish people. Just open a Bible, or a Siddur, or the Mishna. Or modern genetic studies, if you wish. Apart from the Crimean Karaite community, which did so to avoid persecution, I do not believe any Jewish community worldwide has rejected the well-established fact that Jews originated in the Land of Israel. This is an integral part of Jewish culture, religion and tradition. That was never the question. Whether they should support Zionism, which called for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Israel, was the question. Many people rejected Zionism because they did not wish to abandon their current lives or renounce their national or civic identities. For religious reasons, others did not wish to return to Israel before the Messianic Age. The other options for a Jewish homeland were pragmatic alternatives that caused mass debate within the Zionist movement. To sum this up, There is a heavy bias toward the Palestinian narrative in this lede. Conveniently enough, we forgot to mention the not-so-important fact that Jews desired a national homeland in Palestine because they originated there. But the fact that Jews were then a "small minority"? Sure, let's put that in, as early as we can, maybe we'll win some supporters for the Palestinian cause, and portray the Jews as colonial invaders once again. Maybe "super-minor extremely-small minority" would be even better. I'm not blaming anyone, but this is how it sounds currently, and I'm surprised you guys don't see this. Tombah (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the Balfour Declaration. Do you know what FA review is? Check out the FA review for this article, bias my foot.Selfstudier (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It's sort of a side-topic, but isn't the land of Israel the 'promised land' not the 'homeland' - if we're going with fairytales, the Hebrews trekked to it. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest Tombah take this discussion to Talk:History of Zionism and Talk:Nationalist historiography. His statement above incorrectly describes the concept of "the Jewish people" as if such a concept had always existed in its modern form. To understand the context, I recommend reading Imagined Communities or Nations and Nationalism (book).

It is simply the debate of "is Judaism a religion or an ethnicity". Tombah clearly believes the latter, and today he is correct - the ethnic community now exists. But this was not always the case. Studies of 19th century Jewish thought during the Haskalah and thereafter show that most Jews were not Zionist (i.e. the majority did not believe things like "Palestine is my ancestral homeland") until after the Balfour Declaration. :::::::::Onceinawhile (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I can make some recommendations of my own. You might want to read The Jewish War by Josephus. You'll find out there was already a Jewish ethnicity back in the 1st century CE. Tombah (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

And modern romantic Jewish nationalism claims ownership of that ancient story. That is how it works – take old story, and apply your modern identity to it. The 2,000 years in between get ignored. Modern Greek identity, Pharonic Egyptian, Lebanese Phoenician identity, all the same stuff. All the mixing, conversion and dispersion doesn’t matter in the romantic nonsense. Then someone says “oh but the DNA”, and then others say “yes exactly the DNA proves the opposite of what you think”. It never ends. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit and revert

I recently edited this phrase "the founding document of Mandatory Palestine, which later became Israel and the Palestinian territories" [1], as I believe it is misleading. Mandatory Palestine did not 'become' anything; the word 'become' suggests a seamless transition, and that one or other of the polities was the natural successor. It was reverted with the edit summary "Not an improvement, "became divided between" (ugh) and there was no "division" anyway".
I have raised this with the responder, who wants the discussion to be here. So, why is it essential to preserve this form of words, why can we not mention the division of the territory, as we do on other, similar, pages. and in what sense was there 'no division anyway'? Moonraker12 (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The sentence is not material to the article so I have deleted it. Selfstudier (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Montagu and Balfour

Edwin Montagu's view of the Balfour declaration, as the only Jewish minister when the declaration was issued, is very underrepresented. I will be adding a sentence of that in lede after expanding the section talking about his opposition to Zionism. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure, his position on the Declaration and UK policy is covered in the article, why would his position in particular be leadworthy? Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it as lead-worthy. I think his position is covered adequately in the text. DuncanHill (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Barely mentioned in text, only a picture of his document. Maybe not lead-worthy, but certainly worth expanding on, as the only Jewish minister in the very same cabinet that issued the declaration. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Look again, there is more than a "bare mention". Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I think an expansion of our coverage of the responses from the representative Jewish leaders might be expanded. DuncanHill (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Apart from being for and against, which is covered, what would you want to add and with what sources? Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Their suggested amendments, proposed alternatives, reasons for support/opposition. All alluded to in the picture. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The picture can speak for itself, what secondary sources would you use? Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The picture tells us they suggested amendments and alternatives, but not what they are. It also does not have alt text, so cannot speak for itself to everyone. As for what sources we can use, perhaps we could start by using the talk page to find them? Do you know any good ones? DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought from your initial comment that you had something in mind, I will see if I can find something a bit later, you can do the same, see what we turn up. Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Also worth pointing out that there is nothing mentioned about Balfour's antisemitic motivations. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

That's something different, what did you want to add? Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Back to this. Motivations should be kept separate from the historiography subsection, and added back into the background section. There is much more to expand on other than geopolitical considerations, the rampant anti-Semitism of many members of the then British cabinet. More to be added from other figures [2] Makeandtoss (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yousef Munayyer barely/possibly doesn't even meet WP:GNG, and certainly is not the authour of a major published or peer-reviewed work or body of work with enduring impact on this subject so I'm a little puzzled as to why his views should be represented in this article? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The material's appearance in Arthur Balfour is possibly of relevance but a fairly random assertion that the anti-Semitism of Balfour played a role in the issuance of the BD seems undue here. Are there others saying a similar thing? Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Plentiful.

• "However, an even larger portion of their minds was occupied by anti-Semitic prejudices and stereotypes. Paradoxically, these beliefs only caused them to embrace the Balfour Declaration more readily and served as a crucial ingredient in determining British support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine" Foreign Policy
• "Before Israel’s creation, some of the world leaders who most ardently promoted Jewish statehood did so because they did not want Jews in their own countries. Before declaring, as foreign secretary in 1917, that Britain “view[s] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”, Arthur Balfour supported the 1905 Aliens Act, which restricted Jewish immigration to the United Kingdom. And two years after his famous declaration, Balfour said Zionism would “mitigate the age-long miseries created for western civilisation by the presence in its midst of a Body [the Jews] which it too long regarded as alien and even hostile, but which it was equally unable to expel or to absorb”." The Guardian
• Munayyer's arguments seem to be quoted from this book [3]
• Quoted also here, here, here.

I'm sure there are many other sources discussing this downplayed (in the literature and in this article) aspect.

Makeandtoss (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Schneer is a good source that we use a lot in the article. I think maybe we want a heading somewhere like British anti-Semitism and a discussion of that in a BD context rather than just focusing in on Arthur Balfour alone? Perhaps in the Background/Early British support section? Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That sounds appropriate. Again, I'd perhaps look at the broader picture per Selfstudier rather than purely representing the views of a relatively minor voice (Munayyer)... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I added something, is it OK? Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort. Its more centered however around antisemitic tropes of Jewish power, rather than the intention of getting rid of Jews from Europe to elsewhere. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I was mainly trying to meet this comment There is much more to expand on other than geopolitical considerations, the rampant anti-Semitism of many members of the then British cabinet. Are there sources that speak to the separate idea of getting rid of Jews from Europe to elsewhere in a BD context? Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Wanting to get rid of Jews out of Europe is antisemitic, it's not a separate idea, that's the original thing I tried to include. Balfour's 1905 Aliens Act; the quote from the Guardian above; and more from the books cited.. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

1905 is not a BD context though and if it is only Balfour, then such an argument would not be due, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

"Before Israel’s creation, some of the world leaders who most ardently promoted Jewish statehood did so because they did not want Jews in their own countries." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

That quote is from https://forward.com/opinion/419988/debunking-the-myth-that-anti-zionism-is-anti-semitic/ an opinion piece by Beinart in the Forward and the context is again Balfour the man. The quote continues "Before declaring, as Foreign Secretary in 1917, that Britain “view[s] with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” Arthur Balfour had supported the 1905 Aliens Act, which restricted Jewish immigration to the United Kingdom." 1905 is not a BD context and its just Balfour (as I said above that's fine in his article but I think it is not due here). Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The very same article is not considered an opinion piece in the Guardian link. The other sources I quoted use Balfour as an example but point out to other British officials as well. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Balfour's antisemitism as illustrated in the 1905 act was consistent down to the Versailles Peace Talks, after his 1917 declaration. He was actually opposed to the idea of a British Mandate in Palestine, but his belief remained consistent at the 1919 peace talks.

He did however believe that Zionism could alleviate the continued presence in gentile society of an alien entity that posed a continuing danger to the stability of that society.'Harry Defries, Conservative Party Attitudes to Jews 1900-1950, Routledge 2014 ISBN 978-1-135-28469-5 p.52

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023

Slight change in punctuation and wording in sentence, from:
"At the same time, with growing distrust of the Young Turks – Turkish nationalists who had taken control of the Empire in 1908 – and the Second Aliyah, Arab nationalism and Palestinian nationalism was on the rise, and in Palestine anti-Zionism was a unifying characteristic."

To:
"At the same time, with growing distrust of the Young Turks (Turkish nationalists who had taken control of the Empire in 1908) and the Second Aliyah, Arab nationalism and Palestinian nationalism was on the rise; and in Palestine, anti-Zionism was a characteristic that unified these forces."

in order to make the sentence less cumbersome to read
Gabzony (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

State of Israel

The State of Israel is mentioned but one time—indirectly, at that—in the intro for this article, way at the bottom and nearly out of sight. My attempt to add explicit mentions with a wikilink was reverted twice by what seems to be a self-appointed page protector. Shouldn't this page mention the fact that the Balfour Declaration eventually led to the creation of the State of Israel? natemup (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The sourced section "Long-term impact" says "The declaration had two indirect consequences, the emergence of a Jewish state and a chronic state of conflict between Arabs and Jews throughout the Middle East." which needs changing from "Jewish state" to "Israel." The sources consider the declaration to be (indirectly) at the root of at least two things, the conflict and the emergence of Israel. Since the former is mentioned in the last para of the lead, I also added something there to address the concern.

Btw, Which of the two different reverters is the "self-appointed page protector"? This sort of comment seems unhelpful. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• protectors.

natemup (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, I still think the mention of the State of Israel belongs in the first paragraph as well. I would dare say the declaration is scarcely mentioned in reliable sources apart from a direction mention of the country it helped create. natemup (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Many things are mentioned in RS when referring to the Declaration, most of them having to do directly with the declaration and the circumstances around it at the time. By your logic, the entire article should be in the first para of the lead, it is a question whether or not it is due, the Israel article does not mention the Balfour Declaration in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

By my explicit logic, it belongs in the first graf because the declaration is inseparable from the State, as it concerns an encyclopedia in 2023. The reverse is not necessarily the case, though I see no reason why it shouldn't be in the intro there. natemup (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It is in the lead now along with the other long term impact. It does not "belong" in the first para imo, the declaration is inseparable from the State Says who? This is false. Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

*Waves* Best

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Since the name Israel wasn't chosen until shortly before the state was created, it only makes sense to refer to it as a Jewish state at this point. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

We can say "the emergence of Israel", that's OK. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in the book The High Walls of Jerusalem: A History of the Balfour Declaration and the Birth of the British Mandate for Palestine (Google Books) it opens with this

From these events can be traced the beginning, not only of the three decades of British government in Palestine - first under a military administration, then under a League of Nations mandate - out of which the State of Israel was born, but also of the political map of the Middle East as we know it today.

Perhaps this will help resolve some wording issues. skarz (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Citation needed for British regrets

These statements doesn’t currently have a citation and given their importance, it feels like they should. I tried to locate a reference for the first (the 1939 White Paper?) but was unable to find this specific acknowledgement. Please note I do not have a political axe to grind, just someone trying to better understand the conflict from primary sources.

‘The British government acknowledged in 1939 that the local population's views should have been taken into account, and recognised in 2017 that the declaration should have called for the protection of the Palestinian Arabs' political rights.’ Minkus (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Both statements actually are cited - just not in the lead. Check at the bottom of the Balfour_Declaration#Civil_and_religious_rights_of_non-Jewish_communities_in_Palestine section.

Citations are frequently left out of lead sections, according to WP:LEADCITE.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to both - I can see those now. The second statement is quite clear from the quotation - however, having the original text of the first, I'm not sure how accurate the first statement in the lead reads to me. The original text says It is beyond the scope of the Committee to express an opinion upon the proper interpretation of the various statements mentioned in paragraph 19 and such an opinion could not in any case be properly expressed unless consideration had also been given to a number of other statements made during and after the war. In the opinion of the Committee it is, however, evident from these statements that His Majesty's Government were not free to dispose of Palestine without regard for the wishes and interests of the inhabitants of Palestine, and that these statements must all be taken into account in any attempt to estimate the responsibilities which—upon any interpretation of the Correspondence—His Majesty's Government have incurred towards those inhabitants as a result of the Correspondence. - it's clearly diplomatic speech, but does it clearly mean 'the local population's views should have been taken into account' (with the implication that their views weren't taken into account) - or something weaker than that - more like 'they should have been taken into account; but we're not going to judge whether the government of the time did so effectively or not'? - original text here https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-199699/#:~:text=In%20the%20opinion%20of%20the,any%20attempt%20to%20estimate%20the Minkus (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Update to the above - could it be updated to reflect the text - 'The British Government acknowledged in 1939 that they 'were not free to dispose of Palestine without regard for the wishes and interests of the inhabitants of Palestine'...' Minkus (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That quote is in the body of the article, I don't think it is necessary to repeat it in the lead, the prose there seems OK to me. Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - the current lead text is a fine summary. Though I could see replacing "views" with "wishes and interests." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

PhotogenicScientist was quite right to revert my edit. The lede is so long that I didn't notice that I was adding a "citation needed" tag to a sentence in the lede. I personally think the lede is too long, but that's another issue. I have publicly thanked PhotogenicScientist.Dylanexpert (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead is perhaps a bit overweight... it's five fairly hefty paragraphs, and we usually shoot for summarizing everything in four. Though, this is an article on a pretty... erm, hefty topic. If the lead is to be trimmed, it shouldn't be at the expense of informativeness. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Iirc, the lead, the footnotes etcetera were all gone over in gory detail in FA review. Selfstudier (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

I think there is something wrong with the article. Aaron the great and powerfull (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shaws username . talk . 02:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Suggest correction to lead

The lead currently reads: "The declaration called for safeguarding the civil and religious rights for the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population, and also the rights and political status of the Jewish communities in other countries outside of Palestine."

This sentence is incomplete, and gives balfour more credit than is due. See Khalidi:

Significantly, the overwhelming Arab majority of the population (around 94 percent at that time) went unmentioned by Balfour, except in a backhanded way as the “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” They were described in terms of what they were not, and certainly not as a nation or a people—the words “Palestinian” and “Arab” do not appear in the sixty-seven words of the declaration. This overwhelming majority of the population was promised only “civil and religious rights,” not political or national rights. By way of contrast, Balfour ascribed national rights to what he called “the Jewish people,” who in 1917 were a tiny minority—6 percent—of the country’s inhabitants.

DMH223344 (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the entire article? Selfstudier (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I have not read the full article, but the lead itself should capture this detail correctly DMH223344 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Which detail? The small minority Jewish population is in the lead and it also says in the lead that the British government should have covered Palestinian Arabs' political rights. Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok i should have been more explicit. The declaration does not explicitly call for the safeguarding of the rights of Palestinian Arabs. It calls for the safeguarding of the rights of non-Jews (which would of course include most Palestinian Arabs).

Suggest to replace with:

The declaration called for the protection of civil and religious rights for the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine," who made up about 94 percent of the local population at the time. These communities, predominantly Arab, were not recognized as a nation or a people in the declaration, with the terms "Palestinian" and "Arab" being notably absent. The declaration did not promise political or national rights to the overwhelming Arab majority but did call for the safeguarding of the rights and political status of the Jewish communities in other countries outside of Palestine. DMH223344 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There are differing figures for the size of the minority (3 to 10 iirc), that's why it ended up just saying "small minority". The acknowledgement from the British government covers the one sided nature of the declaration effectively, I would say. We can't put everything we would like into the lead and this article was subject to an extensive review for FA status. Might want to have a look at those discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Anglo-centric

The lede to be honest is quite Anglo and Zionist-centric. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No comprendo.:) Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It does surprise me that this passed FA review with the lead in its current state. I'll spend some time to dig up those discussions.

There's a lot of detailed background about the context in which the declaration came to be, but no mention of Chaim Weizmann's lobbying efforts.

The quote "It indirectly led to the emergence of Israel" is strange since the balfour declaration marked the declaration of direct british support, arguably one of the most important factors for the early success of the zionist movement.

The quote "is considered a principal cause of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict," is it though? Or is the cause of the conflict Zionism which was supported by the british as specified in this declaration?

The quote "The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified, and the British government later confirmed that the words "in Palestine" meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine." does not cover at all the maximalist interpretation of notable zionist leadership.

The lead is full of details which I'm not sure are all that important. For example "A stalemate in southern Palestine was broken by the Battle of Beersheba on 31 October 1917." But maybe I'm just missing the point here.

My biggest issue is that the lead makes the declaration sound a lot more even-handed than it was. DMH223344 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't just the FA review, there were extensive (and heated) discussions. But it is a good idea to read the entire article and those discussions before deciding, possibly prematurely, that there is a bias there. Onceinawhile and myself did a lot of work on this and we are not exactly known for having a pro Israel POV.

That said, we can always discuss specific issues, which one do you want to go with first? Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean bias. You clearly spent a lot of time on making this FA and it shows. I was meaning that the lede seems to be focused on the Zionist and British perspective; what the British did, what the Zionists thought, the logistical, practical and political implications of the declaration from a British perspective (in regards to WWI and relationship with Russia and US/scope of its implementation) etc.. The Arab and Palestinian perspectives are not shown, especially how the betrayal of promises made to the Sharif are portrayed in a tone of controversy rather than what seems to be academic consensus that the British were playing everyone. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, the article is primarily about the Declaration, which was strictly a Zionist/British affair. Difficult to articulate the Arab/Palestinian POV at the time, arrived late to the party, there were a lot of conflicting views as between Palestinian factions and then the Hashemite/Sharifian side of things as well.

The lead does say that it was a principal cause of the IP conflict, tho, and the McMahon correspondence is mentioned although not elaborated (no Sykes-Picot). Which perspectives of the time do you think should be added to the lead? I assume that there is not any argument with the body? Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what exactly, and to be honest I cannot yet formulate a coherent narrative from the sources I have read. But the incoherent things that currently come to my mind and should be highlighted are as follows: the immediate Arab and Palestinian reaction; the Palestinian attempts at opposition through the Arab congresses and revolts until 1948 (possible scope of article 1917-1948 considering that's when it was "fulfilled"); the implications of the declaration such as Jewish immigration. Most importantly, the fact that Britain was basically an occupying imperial power which had no right to declare anything related to a foreign territory is not explicitly mentioned. It is taken as granted that Britain somehow set up a mandate there. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

On the last part, that's inaccurate, the fix was in with the French and the Americans, see the Approvals section. The way they did these things in those days, we see it as wrong now, but that was then. Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

What I mean was that reading through the third paragraph of the lede, the reader would not understand how twisted all of this was. It seems like an innocent and benign policy declaration by a country supporting a persecuted minority. The missing point is how this policy was enforced by an occupying power from the half of the globe.. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Some comments on DMH223344's comments:

• Chaim Weizmann -> Most of the Weizmann story is hagiography. Up to the Balfour Declaration, Weizmann was just a lobbyist. The world is full of lobbyists, and they rarely are relevant enough to describe in detail in the headlines of any political decision. Ultimately this was a declaration by the British government, so the key story is the journey that the British government took to get there. Weizmann is mentioned in the second paragraph, as well as implicitly in the phrase "Zionist leadership" in the prior sentence.
• "indirectly led to the emergence of Israel" / "is considered a principal cause of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict" -> There are sources and quotations explaining these in the main body of the article.
• The "Maximalist interpretation of notable zionist leadership" -> This is and always was nonsense. We cannot explain every piece of propaganda in the lede.
• Stalemate in southern Palestine was broken by the Battle of Beersheba on 31 October 1917 -> This was a wartime declaration, so the position of the war at the time of the declaration is clearly relevant. 31 October 1917 was the date that the Balfour Declaration was approved.

The body article is full of detailed footnotes. I suggest taking time to review this in detail before returning to the lede.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Re Makeandtoss's comment that ...especially how the betrayal of promises made to the Sharif are portrayed in a tone of controversy rather than what seems to be academic consensus that the British were playing everyone. -> I agree with this. The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence is a WP:GA - perhaps we can use some wording from there to improve the wording here.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. I'll go through the body of the article in more detail and try to come up with some more specific and justified recommendations. At this point I still feel the lede gives the british more credit than they deserve here, but I'll be more specific in a followup post. DMH223344 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2024

Substitute square brackets for round brackets around the editorial comment contained in the following paragraph:

[The French] had agreed to a Jewish National Home (capitalized in the source), not a Jewish State. They considered we were steering straight upon the latter, and the very last thing they would do was to enlarge that State for they totally disapproved our policy.[179]

In other words, in order to avoid any doubt, "(capitalized in the source)" becomes "[capitalized in the source]" Alternativecarpark (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed "(capitalized in the source)" since it is anyway a blockquote from the source.Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

14 May 2024

Hi @Selfstudier, on this edit[4], I am not sure we are understanding each other. The incorporation of the text into the mandate is the subject of the sentence, not the object. The long term impact of such incorporation was, as the wording suggested, the territorializing of sectarian identity (the object), "whereby the "designation "Jewish" would carry with it all sorts of political baggage totally absent from the prior experience of the many [pre-mandate] Jewish communities". Is it not clear what Robson is saying there? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean? Yr Enw (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The source has this:

"But it was in Palestine that European colonial promotion of sectarianism took its most toxic turn. In 1922, the final iteration of the mandate for Palestine formally incorporated the Balfour Declaration into its text, making the British commitment to mass European Jewish immigration to Palestine not merely government policy but international law: “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political administrative and economic conditions as well secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.” In other words, Palestine was being established as a settler colony where the settlers—formally defined not by their status as immigrants but by their communal identification as Jews—would enjoy a set of political, legal, economic, and above all national rights (including the right to their own security apparatus) that would be denied to everyone else, on the presumption of Zionist utility to the British colonial project in Palestine over the

long term.49 This was perhaps the most important colonial practice of territorializing sectarian identity in the interwar Middle East. Henceforth, the designation “Jewish” would carry with it all sorts of political baggage totally absent from the prior experience of the many Jewish communities of the Arab Ottoman world and their Muslim and Christian compatriots"

So a couple things, first, that's not a long term impact, it's "henceforth" ie after the Mandate came into force in 1923 and which terminated in 1948. Then I get the point that it is a settler colonial project but that's not a point that was made in the edit. Lastly, what does that last sentence mean and why is it necessary?

The source continues:

The Balfour promise was not the only entry in the postwar game of inventing nations for imperial purposes. During the war, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria—and to a lesser extent Palestine as well—became host to thousands of refugees whose physical presence and national identifications came to be seen as a further opportunity for the occupying powers to territorialize ethnicity in ways that might preempt anti-colonial resistance down the road.

So now we have territorialize "ethnicity" as well as "sectarian identity".

I'm thinking this has very little to do with the Balfour Declaration as such and more to do with Zionism as settler colonialism and blaming the British for it or just plain old Settler colonialism.

I see you added this as well to the IP conflict article, it fits better there than here at least but that last sentence is gobbledegook unless it is explained somewhere else in the source, idk. Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking, then, that the question really centres around what Robson means by "territorialising identity" ? (For what it's worth, I think the passage demonstrates that she's using "sectarian identity" and "ethnicity" interchangeably)

I think the notion of "territorialising" (sectarian) identity is an important one. In the full quote you've presented above, the settler colonial aspect is only one half of what she's saying:

Palestine was being established as a settler colony where the settlers—formally defined not by their status as immigrants but by their communal identification as Jews—would enjoy a set of political, legal, economic, and above all national rights (including the right to their own security apparatus) that would be denied to everyone else, on the presumption of Zionist utility to the British colonial project in Palestine over the long term. This was perhaps the most important colonial practice of territorializing sectarian identity in the interwar Middle East.

The other half, baked into her discussion of the Declaration (or, more specifically, the Declaration as incorporated into the Mandate), is about whatever she means by "territorialising" identity.

Some passages that elucidate this, elsewhere in the book (bolded emphasis mine):

[...]mass violence in the modern Middle East represents the opposite of atavistic communal impulses. It is in fact almost wholly wrapped up with structures of modernity, and particularly with two characteristically twentieth century phenomena: state centralization and the concomitant territorialization of national, ethnic, and religious identities, both inherently violent processes that became all the more brutal for unfolding in a context of constant incursions from outside powers

[...]territoriality: “an enhanced concept of territory . . .not just as an acquisition or as a security buffer but as a decisive means of power and rule.”13 The saturation of territory with the mechanics of power—rail lines, telegraph networks, deployed soldiers, and the physical infrastructure of occupation—characterized late empire across the globe, and nowhere more than in the Middle East. (p.6)

The imperial states in the Mashriq owed their shape—literally—to the exercise of mass violence against civilians; and in the process they often territorialized their subjects internally as well, forcibly removing and resettling populations and communities whose social identities (religious, linguistic, ethnic) thereby became attached to particular geographical spaces (p.7)

So she is talking about attaching these identities to particular geographical spaces. But I accept, of course, it is too big a task to try and condense that into what I'm trying to say in this specific article, so I'm not sure what approach to take. Yr Enw (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking, then, that the question really centres around what Robson means by "territorialising identity" ? That and the fact that it is not a "Long term impact" if it is referenced to the Mandate.

The part I really don't understand is "...whereby the "designation "Jewish" would carry with it all sorts of political baggage totally absent from the prior experience of the many [pre-mandate] Jewish communities". What do you think this means? Selfstudier (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

To me, she is saying "Jewish", as it was applied by the British in the mandatory territory, took on sectarian connotations that it didn't possess in the Ottoman era (that's the point I thought she was making on p.69 in the original quote you and I were both discussing).

The "territorialising" aspect (although perhaps this is quite close to WP:SYNTH) was a continuation of this and refers to the way in which "social identities (religious, linguistic, ethnic) thereby became attached to particular geographical spaces". The long term aspect lies in the fact she is talking about the "modern Middle East" (in the first p.6 quote).

The point you raise about it being tied to the Mandate, let me think on that. But the preceding body of the article does mention the Declaration being incorporated into the Mandate, so I thought it was relevant to the Declaration. Yr Enw (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Per your removal of this on the I-P main article [5], did we settle this as being too unclear then? I still think the points made in my last comment (about the sectarian connotations of "Jewish" post-Balfour) are important to include. User @DMH223344 evidently thought it was important to retain in History of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, here [6]. Yr Enw (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand it, and someone on the IP talk page queried it as well. Seriously it just sounds like gobbledegook. I'm not saying there isn't a valid point being made in there somewhere but I think it's more than just a quote. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I havent gone through this whole thread, but I do think we could summarize the content of the quote rather than just including it as is. I agree it is hard to parse, and possibly needs some elaboration to actually get the point across? DMH223344 (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, thanks both for the input. Do we think my understanding of it above (that she's saying "Jewish", as it was applied by the British in the mandatory territory, took on sectarian connotations that it didn't possess in the Ottoman era) is off the mark then? Yr Enw (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea, I don't even understand the question. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry? you're saying the quote is hard to understand, no? And so I'm asking, does my understanding of it seem wrong then? Yr Enw (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Nope, I was saying that I did not even understand your question. Selfstudier (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Am I being stupid? I really don't see how it could have been any clearer. You had asked me to explain what I thought Robson meant, so I did and you didn't say anything about it. So, then my question was: do you think I misunderstood Robson? Yr Enw (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

This is evidently causing enough difficulty to warrant excluding it, but it's a shame because I thought the point about sectarianising Jewish identity was important. Yr Enw (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

(that she's saying "Jewish", as it was applied by the British in the mandatory territory, took on sectarian connotations that it didn't possess in the Ottoman era) is off the mark then? I was looking at the whole of this. What are "sectarian connotations"? And whatever those are, why did they exist in the Mandate era and not in the Ottoman era? And how do they apply to "Jewish"? It reads like maybe its a summary of other stuff written in the book but without knowing what the other stuff is, one is left bemused. Selfstudier (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

"European colonial promotion of sectarianism", this is the key point right? Not the "political baggage" of the term "Jewish", right? DMH223344 (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

They're surely linked, no? The point Robson is making about the European colonial promotion of sectarianism results in new political baggage being attached to "Jewish". That's my reading of it, given she's sticking the points together. Yr Enw (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Source link broken, nevertheless the source is an opinion piece

James Renton concurs, writing that the British foreign policy elite, including Prime Minister David Lloyd George and Foreign Secretary A.J. Balfour, believed that Jews possessed real and significant power that could be of use to them in the war.[13]

On top of the fact that James Renton has a hyperlink attached that leads to an army officer who died in 1972, this "source" and information from it don't seem to make any sense. I don't understand why a random Israeli newspaper's opinion piece should be featured as credible information to this article. This sentence reads as if James Renton holds information on the thoughts of the British foreign policy elite, when it sounds as if it just speculation. Although I can't read James Renton's article as it seems it has been taken down, I don't believe any primary evidence would be hiding in their that confirms his statement. It just seems unnecessary to have this speculation backed up by little to nothing. LukeHistory (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the incorrect link to another James Renton. The Haaretz link does work for me (but the article is paywalled so I can't read it atm). This James Renton is a history professor, specialising in antisemitism and islamophobia, and has written a book on the Balfour Declaration "within the wider story of the global politics of race and nationalism in the Great War, the book put forward a new interpretation of its origins, purpose and significance", so I wouldn't be inclined to dismiss his writing out of hand. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I actually just saw his name pop up in other research and realised I had not looked into his character enough. I admit my mistake on that one, didn't realise his credibility. Thanks for the reply. LukeHistory (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"Significant figures in the British government, including Prime Minister David Lloyd George and Foreign Secretary A.J. Balfour, thought that the world’s Jews could help Britain to deal with these urgent problems. The British foreign policy elite, along with their counterparts on both sides of the global war, believed that Jews possessed a tremendous power around the world. No policymaker put down on paper how exactly this influence was supposed to work - it was understood as a nebulous force that could steer high finance, press, public opinion, and (!) revolutionary socialism. Nonetheless, in the minds of the political establishment, this power was very real and significant." is from that Haaretz article, just for info (think that's fair use). Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Political rights denied to non-Jews.

Balfour and then the League of Nation denied non-Jews political rights within the Mandated territory. However this has been lost especially at Oslo where the PA, a political entity, was created. The PA immediately showed itself to be a terrorist organisation. This subterfuge is akin to Hitler fooling Chamberlain at Munich. Our politicians are easily fooled by terrorists in suits. 78.150.94.131 (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)