Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Turks, Arabs Welcomed the Balfour Declaration "A Jewish National Home," 100 Years On by Efraim Karsh


Turks, Arabs Welcomed the Balfour Declaration
"A Jewish National Home," 100 Years On

by Efraim Karsh
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2018
To mark the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, contained in a letter dated from the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild dated November 2, 1917, we're pleased to release in advance the following article by Middle East Quarterly editor Efraim Karsh from the Winter 2018 issue of Middle East Quarterly. In it, he argues that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict evolved in spite of the Balfour Declaration, not because of it.
World War I allies incorporated the Balfour Declaration into the Turkish Peace Treaty signed at the French town of Sèvres in August 1920.
"100 years have passed since the notorious Balfour Declaration, by which Britain gave, without any right, authority or consent from anyone, the land of Palestine to another people. This paved the road for the Nakba of Palestinian people and their dispossession and displacement from their land."[1]
So Mahmmoud Abbas claimed at last year's annual meeting of the U.N. General Assembly in what constitutes the standard Arab-Palestinian indictment of the November 1917 British government's pledge to facilitate "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" providing that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."
It is an emotionally gripping claim, but it is also the inverse of truth. For one thing, Britain did consult its main war allies, notably U.S. president Woodrow Wilson, before issuing the declaration, which was quickly endorsed by the contemporary international community, including the leaders of the nascent pan-Arab movement. Furthermore, the declaration was used as a model by the Ottoman Empire for its own official communiqué.
The Balfour Declaration was used as a model by the Ottoman Empire for its own official communiqué.
For another thing, it was not the Balfour Declaration that paved the road to the displacement of many Palestinians but its rejection by the extremist Palestinian Arab leadership headed by the Jerusalem mufti Hajj Amin Husseini—this against the wishes of ordinary Palestinian Arabs who preferred to coexist with their Jewish neighbors and take advantage of opportunities created by the evolving Jewish national enterprise. Had this leadership not ignored the wishes of its subjects, and the will of the international community for that matter, there would have been no nakba.

The Historical Context

The end of World War I saw the ideal of national self-determination becoming the organizing principle of the international system as the victorious powers carved territorial states from the collapsed Ottoman, German, Habsburg, and Russian empires. This was done through a newly devised mandates system that placed the Afro-Asiatic territories of the defunct empires (the European lands were given immediate independence) under the control of respective mandatory powers, beholden to a new world organization—the League of Nations—which were charged with steering them from tutelage to independence.[2]
This sea change is commonly associated with Woodrow Wilson's famous fourteen points, announced in an address to a joint session of Congress on January 8, 1918. In fact, it was the much-maligned May 1916 Anglo-French-Russian agreement on the partition of the Ottoman Empire (or the Sykes-Picot agreement as it is generally known) that blazed this new trail by providing for "an independent Arab State or a Confederation of Arab States ... under the suzerainty of an Arab chief."[3]
Hashemite emir Faisal I (right) and Chaim Weizmann (wearing Arab headdress) in 1918 in Transjordan. Later, Faisal stated, "No true Arab can be suspicious or afraid of Jewish nationalism."
The Balfour Declaration sought to modify this agreement by substituting a Jewish national home for the international administration to which Palestine was to be subjected. While the French resented the change for fear of losing influence over Christianity's holy sites, they eventually relented and joined their war allies in incorporating the declaration into the Turkish Peace Treaty signed at the French town of Sèvres in August 1920.[4] Two years later, on July 24, 1922, the League of Nations appointed Britain the mandatory for Palestine with the explicit goal of "placing the country under such political, administrative, and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home" as stipulated by the Balfour Declaration.[5] A week later, the U.S. Congress endorsed the declaration in a joint resolution, amplifying this move during World War II with several resolutions and declarations supporting unrestricted Jewish immigration and the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.[6]
In other words, within five years of its issuance, the Balfour Declaration had come to reflect the will of the international community as represented by a major official resolution by the newly established world organization (the U.N. predecessor). And this was not only in the "practical" sense of supporting the creation of a Jewish national home but in the deeper sense of recognizing "the historical connexion [sic] of the Jewish people with Palestine and ... the grounds for reconstituting their national home in the country."[7]
Even the Ottoman Empire, head of the world's Muslim community, seemed to have acknowledged the right of the Jews to collective revival in their ancestral homeland. On August 12, 1918, Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha, one of the triumvirs who had run the empire since 1913, issued an official communiqué expressing "sympathies for the establishment of a religious and national Jewish center in Palestine by well-organized immigration and colonization" and offering to promote this enterprise "by all means" provided it "does not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population."[8]
Largely modeled on the Balfour Declaration and formulated in a similar process of lengthy discussions with prominent Jewish leaders, Talaat's proclamation came too late to have real significance—two-and-a-half months after its issuance, the Ottomans surrendered to the Allies—and was apparently designed to improve the Muslim empire's bargaining position in the looming postwar peace talks. Yet its issuance was nothing short of extraordinary given the violent Ottoman reaction to anything that smacked of national self-determination, from the Greek war of independence in the 1820s, to the Balkan wars of the 1870s, to the Armenian genocide of World War I. Indeed, only a year before the declaration, the Jewish community in Palestine (or the Yishuv) faced a real risk of extinction from the Ottomans for the very same reason, only to be saved through intervention by Germany, Istanbul's senior war ally.

Arabs Embrace the Declaration

Emir Faisal. Talaat was hardly the only regional potentate to accept the Jewish right to national revival. The leaders of the nascent pan-Arab movement were perfectly amenable to endorsing the Balfour Declaration so long as this seemed to be conducive to their ambitions. And none more so than the Hashemite emirs Faisal and Abdullah who, together with their father, the Sharif of Mecca Hussein ibn Ali, perpetrated the "Great Arab War" against the Ottoman Empire. They were, as it happened, generously rewarded for their endeavors in the form of vast territories several times the size of the British Isles. Yet since these spectacular gains (which comprise the current states of Iraq, Jordan, and parts of Saudi Arabia) only served to whet their appetite, the emirs continued to pursue their imperial ambitions under the pan-Arab guise.
The Hashemite emirs continued to pursue their imperial ambitions under the pan-Arab guise.
Even during the revolt, Faisal began toying with the idea of establishing his own Syrian empire, independent of his father's prospective regional empire. In late 1917 and early 1918, he went so far as to negotiate this option with key members of the Ottoman leadership behind the backs of his father and his British allies. As his terms were rejected by Istanbul, Faisal tried to gain great-power endorsement for his imperial dream, and it was here that his interests seemed to converge with that of the Zionist movement.
On June 4, 1918, Faisal met Chaim Weizmann, the Russia-born, Manchester-based rising head of the Zionist movement. The two struck up an immediate rapport, and the emir readily acknowledged "the necessity for cooperation between Jews and Arabs" and "the possibility of Jewish claims to territory in Palestine." Yet he refused to discuss Palestine's future until such a time "when Arab affairs were more consolidated."[9]
When they met again six months later, Faisal was prepared to take his general affinity a major step further. By now, he had established a foothold in Syria under the protective wing of Sir Edmund Allenby, commander of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, which had driven the Ottoman forces from the Levant. The emir hoped to expand this opening into a full-fledged empire with U.S. backing and support. Were the Zionists to help swing American public opinion behind his cause, he was "quite sure that he and his followers would be able to explain to the Arabs that the advent of the Jews into Palestine was for the good of the country, and that the legitimate interests of the Arab peasants would in no way be interfered with."[10]
"It [i]s curious there should be friction between Jews and Arabs in Palestine," Faisal told Weizmann after hearing his exposition of Zionist aims. "There was no friction in any other country where Jews lived together with Arabs. He was convinced that the trouble was promoted by intrigues. He did not think for a moment that there was any scarcity of land in Palestine. The population would always have enough, especially if the country were developed."[11] Faisal reiterated this benevolent observation at a dinner held on his behalf by Lord Rothschild, to whom Balfour sent the letter containing his famous declaration. "No true Arab can be suspicious or afraid of Jewish nationalism," Faisal stated, "and what better intermediary could we find anywhere in the world more suitable than you? For you have all the knowledge of Europe, and are our cousins by blood."[12]
On January 3, 1919, shortly before giving evidence to the Paris peace conference, Faisal signed an agreement with Weizmann supporting the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine in accordance with the Balfour Declaration and pledging the adoption of all necessary measures "to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale." In a letter to a prominent American Zionist a couple of months later, Faisal amplified this pledge:
We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement ... and we regard [the Zionist demands] as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.[13]
For several months, the emir seemed to be working to this end. So much so that in April 1919, Weizmann maintained that "between the Arab leaders, as represented by Faisal, and ourselves, there is complete understanding, and therefore complete accord" and that Faisal "has undertaken to exercise all his influence towards having his estimate of the Zionist cause and the Zionist proposals as 'moderate and proper' shared by his following." Nearly six months later, Weizmann still considered Faisal a staunch ally who fully understood the immense potential of Arab-Zionist cooperation. "He is ready to take Jewish advisers and is willing, even anxious, to have Zionist support in the development and even administration of the Damascus region," he wrote to Balfour in September 1919. "We, of course, would be willing to make a very great effort to help Faisal, as it would help us very much towards establishing good relations with the Arabs both in Palestine and Syria."[14]
This upbeat prognosis failed to consider the instrumental nature of Faisal's behavior. When his efforts to gain international recognition for his imperial dream came to naught, the emir quickly changed tack and reneged on his historic agreement with the Zionist movement. On March 8, 1920, he was crowned by his supporters as King Faisal I of Syria "within its natural boundaries, including Palestine," and the newly installed monarch had no intention of allowing the Jewish national movement to wrest away any part of his kingdom. The coronation was thus followed by riots in Palestine as rumors spread regarding the country's imminent annexation to Syria. These culminated in early April 1920 in a pogrom in Jerusalem in which five Jews were murdered and more than two hundred were wounded. "[I]n spite of his momentary success, obtained also partly by British gold—[Faisal] is in the long run a broken reed," a disillusioned Weizmann wrote his colleagues.[15]
Emir Abdullah. This disillusionment did not prevent the Zionist leaders from pinning their hopes on Abdullah, who resented his marginalization by his younger brother and resolved to win his own "Greater Syrian" empire. Like Faisal, the emir viewed Zionism as an influential and affluent movement that could help both rally great-power support behind his imperial dream and bankroll its implementation. In the words of his protégé and Transjordan's prime minister, Samir Rifai: "The enlarged Transjordan State with the support of Jewish economy would become the most influential State in the Arab Middle East."[16]
Emir Abdullah made his first overture in autumn 1921, indicating his readiness to recognize the Balfour Declaration.
Abdullah made his first overture to the Zionist movement in the autumn of 1921, indicating his readiness to recognize the Balfour Declaration and to allow Jewish settlement in Transjordan, which he had come to rule several months earlier, provided the Jews agreed to be incorporated into a unified kingdom under his headship. In the meantime, he had a small favor to ask. The £3,500 monthly subsidy from his father was paid through the Zionist-owned Anglo-Palestine Bank in Jerusalem. Would the bank be prepared to advance him £7,000 to be repaid by the remittance from his father? The bank's evasive reply did little to deter the emir. In November 1922, he traveled to London, where at a secret meeting with Weizmann and a number of Zionist officials, he reiterated his proposal and asked that they use their good offices with the French government, which by then had expelled Faisal from Damascus, to secure him the Syrian throne.[17]
Egypt. Neither were the Hashemites the Zionists' only conduit to the Arabic-speaking world. With contacts with some of the secret, pan-Arab societies operating in the Ottoman Empire already established by the Zionist movement prior to World War I, a few months after the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, Weizmann led a Zionist commission to the Middle East to explore ways and means for its implementation, including "the establishment of good relations with the Arabs and other non-Jewish communities in Palestine." In Cairo, he managed to convince a number of leading Syrian and Palestinian activists, living at the time in the Egyptian capital, that "Zionism has come to stay, that it is far more moderate in its aims than they had anticipated, and that by meeting it in a conciliatory spirit, they are likely to reap substantial benefits in the future." He also succeeded in allaying the fears of the Egyptian sultan Fuad of Zionism's alleged designs on Islam's holy places, especially its supposed intention to destroy the Dome of the Rock and to reestablish the Jewish temple on its ruins.[18]
Egypt was conspicuously indifferent to the anti-Zionist struggle in Palestine led by Hajj Amin Husseini.
It was indeed in Egypt that the Jewish national aspirations seemed to garner some genuine sympathy, albeit for the opposite reasons of those articulated by Zionist champions of the "pan-Arab connection." Given its physical detachment from the eastern part of the Arabic-speaking world on the one hand, and its illustrious imperial past dating back to pharaonic times on the other, Egypt was seen by early pan-Arabists as "not belonging to the Arab race." For their part, Egyptians looked down on the rest of the Arabs, using the term "Arab" in a derogatory fashion to denote a shiftless and uncultured nomad, someone to be viewed with contempt by a people with a millenarian tradition of settled cultivation. "If you add one zero to another, and then to another, what sum will you get?" Saad Zaghlul, the doyen of modern Egyptian nationalism, said, dismissing the pan-Arab ideal of unity.[19]
During the 1920s and the early 1930s, Egypt was conspicuously indifferent to the anti-Zionist struggle in Palestine led by Hajj Amin Husseini. So much so that a prominent Palestinian Arab journalist, living in Egypt, recalled in his memoirs how he was asked by ordinary Egyptians who "Mr. Palestine" was, while others thought that Zionism was the name of a certain woman with whom Mr. Palestine had quarreled and, therefore, hated.
Ziwar Pasha, the governor of Alexandria, was certainly better informed, though his knowledge did not prevent him from participating in the celebrations of the local Jewish community upon the issuance of the Balfour Declaration. Eight years later, as Egypt's prime minister, Ziwar sent an official representative to the inauguration of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, which he applauded as a contribution to mankind. By contrast, the Egyptian government refused to send a delegation to the ceremonies celebrating the restoration of the al-Aqsa mosque, contenting itself with the attendance of its Jerusalem consul. Likewise, no Egyptian official bothered to meet Husseini during his visits to Cairo in 1926-28; on one occasion, he was directly snubbed by the Egyptian prime minister, who would not see him despite staying in the same hotel—this at a time when Weizmann had already conferred with Fuad in 1918, and other Zionist officials met Egyptian counterparts as a matter of course. As late as 1928, the king could still hold discussions on the merits of Zionism with the chief rabbi of the Egyptian Jewish community. Even the 1929 charges of Jewish designs to destroy the al-Aqsa mosque, spread by the mufti by way of stirring mass massacres of Jews throughout Palestine, left the Egyptian masses largely unmoved.[20] It was only in the mid-1930's that these sentiments began to change due to the growing pan-Arab sentiments among educated Egyptians and now-King Faruq's (1937-52) ambition to establish himself as the leader of all Arabs, if not the caliph of all Muslims.

Arab-Jewish Coexistence in Palestine

The Egyptian attitudes to the Balfour Declaration, ranging from indifference to endorsement, were largely mirrored in Palestine. Up to its conquest by the British, the country did not exist as a unified geographical or political entity but was divided between the Ottoman province of Beirut in the north and the district of Jerusalem in the south. Its local inhabitants, like the rest of the Arabic-
speaking communities throughout the empire, had not experienced the processes of secularization and modernization that preceded the development of European nationalism in the late 1700's.

It took one full year for the first manifestation of local opposition to the Balfour Declaration to emerge in the form of a petition by a group of Palestinian Arab dignitaries and nationalists.
Hence, they considered themselves Ottoman subjects rather than members of a wider Arab nation, let alone a Palestinian one. Their immediate loyalties were parochial—to one's clan, tribe, village, town, or religious sect—which coexisted alongside their overarching submission to the Ottoman sultan-caliph in his capacity as the religious and temporal head of the world Muslim community. As late as June 1918, less than three months before the end of hostilities in the Middle East, Gilbert Clayton, chief political officer of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, noted the absence of "real patriotism amongst the population of Palestine." Two months later, a British report stated that "the Muslim population of Judea took little or no interest in the Arab national movement. Even now, the Effendi class, and particularly the educated Muslim-Levantine population of Jaffa, evince a feeling somewhat akin to hostility toward the Arab movement very similar to the feeling so prevalent in Cairo and Alexandria. This Muslim-Effendi class, which has no real political cohesion, and above all, no power of organization, is either pro-Turkish or pro-British.[21]
As late as August 1947, al-Wahda newspaper advocated the incorporation of Palestine into "Greater Syria."
Against this backdrop, it was hardly surprising that it took one full year for the first manifestation of local opposition to the Balfour Declaration to emerge in the form of a petition by a group of Palestinian Arab dignitaries and nationalists. Yet rather than protest the declaration's encroachment on Palestinian Arab national rights, the petition demanded the incorporation of Palestine into Syria[22]—a demand repeated by the Palestinian Arab leadership throughout the 1920's, 1930's, and 1940's. As late as August 1947, three months before the passing of the U.N. resolution partitioning Mandate Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, al-Wahda newspaper, mouthpiece of the Arab Higher Committee, the mufti-dominated umbrella organization of the Palestinian Arabs, advocated the incorporation of Palestine (and Transjordan) into "Greater Syria."[23]
Palestinian Arab demonstrators, 1920. Faisal was crowned king of Syria in March 1920. The coronation was followed by riots in Palestine, which culminated in early April 1920 in a pogrom in Jerusalem in which five Jews were murdered and more than two hundred wounded.
For years after the declaration's issuance, many Palestinian Arabs remained ignorant of its actual substance, with the name Balfour instead denoting an idea—power, money to promote Jewish settlement, or, more so, an opportunity for self-enrichment. In the words of a sheikh in the vicinity of Gaza: "Tell Balfour, that we in the South are willing to sell him land at a much lower rate than he will have to pay in the North."[24]
The sheikh knew what he was talking about. An inflow of Jewish immigrants and capital after World War I had revived Palestine's hitherto moribund condition. If prior to the war some 2,500-3,000 Arabs, or one out of 200-250 inhabitants, emigrated from the country every year, this rate was slashed to about 800 per annum between 1920 and 1936.
Palestine's Arab population rose from about 600,000 to some 950,000 owing to the substantial improvement in socioeconomic conditions attending the development of the Jewish National Home.[25] Small wonder that the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs sought to take advantage of the unprecedented opportunities afforded by the growing Jewish presence in the country, which raised their quality of life and standard of living well above those in the neighboring Arab states.[26] In the words of a 1937 report by a British commission of enquiry headed by Lord Peel:
The general beneficent effect of Jewish immigration on Arab welfare is illustrated by the fact that the increase in the Arab population is most marked in urban areas affected by Jewish development. A comparison of the Census returns in 1922 and 1931 shows that, six years ago, the increase percent in Haifa was 86, in Jaffa 62, in Jerusalem 37, while in purely Arab towns such as Nablus and Hebron it was only 7, and at Gaza there was a decrease of 2 percent.[27]
Jewish and Arab workers wrapping oranges in Rehovot. Throughout the mandate era, periods of peaceful coexistence were far longer than those of violent eruption, and the latter were the work of a small fraction of Palestinian Arabs.
As a result of this state of affairs, throughout the mandate era (1920-48), the periods of peaceful coexistence were far longer than those of violent eruption, and the latter were the work of a small fraction of Palestinian Arabs.
In the 1920s and 1930s, Jewish representatives held hundreds of formal meetings with their Arab counterparts in Palestine and the neighboring Arab states and were frequently invited to social gatherings and official events as well as to the homes of prominent Arab families. Joint Arab-Jewish projects and enterprises sprang throughout the country—from the association for orange growers in Jaffa, to mixed committees for the building of the Haifa port; from active Jewish-Arab cooperation in anti-malarial drainage and the improvement of water supplies, to a joint organization for the benefit of the poor and the aged, to Arab-Jewish professional unions. In 1923, about a hundred Arab children attended private Jewish schools while 307 Jewish children attended private Arab schools. Three years later, the number of Jews attending Arab schools grew by some 50 percent to 445—including 315 Jewesses in Arab all-girl schools.[28]
Even Clayton, a prominent champion of the pan-Arab cause who in 1923 became Palestine's chief political secretary, acknowledged that "on non-political matters, such as taxation, agriculture, etc., the Jewish colonies and Arab villages speak the same voice and sometimes from the same hall." He once recalled how he had arrived in a Jewish village to deliver a speech on the National Home, only to find a mixed gathering of Jews and Arabs engaged in an animated discussion, which necessitated a complete change in the nature of his own remarks.[29]
In a valedictory report summing his term in office (1920-25), Sir Herbert Samuel, the first high commissioner for Palestine, painted an upbeat picture of the development of Arab-Jewish relations:
In the first place, the people discovered that the disasters, which they had been told were about to fall upon them, did not in fact occur. The attacks upon their villages by well-armed Jewish colonists, which some of the agitators had announced, did not take place. The day when a hundred thousand Jews were to disembark in Palestine in order to occupy their lands, came and went, and there was no such invasion. Month followed month and year followed year, and no man had his land taken from him. So far from the mosques closed and turned into synagogues, a new, purely Moslem, elected body was created to which the control of all Moslem religious buildings, and of their endowments, was transferred; it rebuilt those that were in ruins and began to restore those that needed restoration. It is difficult, under such conditions, to maintain indefinitely an attitude of alarm; people cannot be induced to remain constantly mobilized against a danger which never eventuates.[30]
Even the most protracted period of Palestinian Arab violence in 1936-39, with its paralytic atmosphere of terror and a ruthlessly enforced economic boycott, failed to dent Arab-Jewish coexistence on many practical levels, including defense cooperation. Contrary to its common depiction as a nationalist revolt against the ruling British and the growing Jewish presence in the country, this was a massive exercise in violence that saw far more Arabs than Jews murdered by Arab gangs, which repressed and abused the general Arab population.[31] And while thousands of Arabs fled the country in a foretaste of the 1947-48 exodus, others preferred to fight back against their oppressors, often in collaboration with the British authorities and the Hagana, the largest Jewish underground defense organization. Still others sought shelter in Jewish neighborhoods.
Prior to the Arab "revolt" of 1936-39, thousands of Jews were able to make the traditional pilgrimage to Rachel's Tomb, near Bethlehem. Coexistence between Arabs and Jews persisted into the World War II years.
This coexistence persisted into the World War II years. While Hajj Amin Husseini, who had fled Palestine in 1937, was busy making himself "the most important Arab Quisling in German hands" (to use the words of a contemporary British report)[32]—broadcasting Nazi propaganda to Arabs and Muslims worldwide, recruiting Arab prisoners of war and Balkan Muslims for the Nazi fighting and murder machine, and urging the extermination of Jews wherever they could be found—ordinary Palestinian Arabs sought to return to normalcy and reestablish coexistence with their Jewish neighbors.
Arab and Jewish citrus growers joined forces in demanding the cancellation of customs duty and the extension of government loans to cultivators for the duration of the war. Large quantities of Arab agricultural produce reappeared in Jewish markets, and this phenomenon expanded in subsequent years as both communities enjoyed the unprecedented spending and investment boom attending Palestine's incorporation into the British war effort.[33] Land sales continued as far as possible with Arabs often acting as intermediaries for Jewish purchases in the zones that had been prohibited and restricted by the British authorities in 1939. Thousands of Jews made the traditional pilgrimage to Rachel's Tomb, near Bethlehem, while Jewish students visited this exclusively Arab town for the Christmas celebrations. And in April 1940, on the eve of the Jewish holiday of Passover, chief rabbis Isaac Herzog and Benzion Uziel visited Hebron at the head of a large congregation and prayed at the entrance to the Tomb of the Patriarchs—the first visit of Jews to the city without an escort in four years. Jews rented accommodation in Arab villages and opened restaurants and stores with the villagers' consent; the Nablus municipality initiated talks with senior Zionist officials on linking the city to the Jewish electricity grid; and former rebel commanders and fighters made their peace with their Jewish neighbors. Even the German foreign office grudgingly conceded, at the end of 1940, that "conditions [in Palestine] are entirely peaceful. Jewish-Arab conflict is no longer apparent. The people are in need of tranquility."[34]

Conclusion

Mahmoud Abbas's rejection of the Jewish right to national self-determination, which was acknowledged a hundred years ago by the international community, including the world's foremost Muslim power, leaders of the pan-Arab movement, and ordinary Palestinian Arabs, affords a sad testament to the unchanging nature of the Palestinian leadership's recalcitrance.
It was Hajj Amin Husseini's predication of Palestinian national identity on hatred of the "other" rather than on a distinct shared legacy that "paved the road for the Nakba of Palestinian people and their dispossession and displacement from their land." And it was Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas's persistence in this zero-sum approach, despite their feigned moderation in the Oslo peace charade, which ensured the perpetuation of Palestinian dispersal and statelessness to date. It is only by shedding their century-long revanchist dreams and opting for peace and reconciliation with their Israeli neighbors that Palestinian leaders can end their people's suffering. And what can be a better starting point for this sea change than endorsement of the Balfour Declaration rather than its atavistic denigration?
Efraim Karsh, editor of the Middle East Quarterly, is emeritus professor of Middle East and Mediterranean studies at King's College London and professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University, where he also directs the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

[1] "Full text of PA President Mahmoud Abbas's speech at the UN,The Times of Israel, Sept. 22, 2016.
[2] "Draft Resolutions in Reference to Mandatories," Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), Paris Peace Conference 1919 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1942-47), vol. 3, pp. 795-6.
[3] For the text of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, see The Avalon Project, Yale Law School.
[4] For the making of the postwar agreements, see Efraim Karsh and Inari Karsh, Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), chaps. 15,18.
[5] Walter Laqueur, ed., The Israel-Arab Reader (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970), p. 55.
[6] See, for example, President Truman to King of Saudi Arabia (Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud), Oct. 25, 1946, FRUS, 1946, pp. 714-16; Truman to Ibn Saud, Jan. 27, 1947, FRUS, 1947, vol. 5, p. 1012.
[7] The British Mandate for Palestine, San Remo Conference, Apr. 24, 1920, Council of the League of Nations, July 24, 1922; Laqueur, The Israel-Arab Reader, p. 54.
[8] Wolfgang Schwanitz, "The Ottoman 'Balfour Declaration,'" Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2018.
[9] Jeremy Wilson, Lawrence of Arabia. The Authorized Biography of T. E. Lawrence (London: Minerva, 1990), pp. 512-13.
[10] "Dr. Weizmann's Interview with Emir Faisal at the Carlton Hotel, December 11th 1918. Colonel Lawrence Acting as Interpreter," FO 371/3420, British National Archives, London.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Jon Kimche, There Could Have Been Peace (New York: Dial Press, 1973), p. 70.
[13] Laqueur, The Israel-Arab Reader, pp. 37-9.
[14] Weizmann to Balfour, Apr. 9, Sept. 27, 1919, The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann. Series A, vol. 9, October 1918-July 1920 (New Brunswick and Jerusalem: Transaction Books and Israel Universities Press, 1977), pp. 129-30, 230-1.
[15] Weizmann to the Zionist Executive (London), Mar. 25, 1920, The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann. Series A, vol. 9, October 1918-July 1920, p. 329.
[16] Clayton to Foreign Office, Dec. 12, 1947, FO 371/62226/E11928.
[17] Haprotokoim shel Havaad Hapoel Hazioni 1919-1929. Vol. 3: Sep. 1921-June 1923 (Jerusalem: Zionist Library, 2003), pp. 165-9, 211-17; The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann. Series A, vol. 10, July 1920-December 1921, p. 338.
[18] Kinahan Cornwallis, "Zionists and Syrians in Egypt," Arab Bulletin, Apr. 30, 1918, FO 882/27; Chaim Weizmann to Nahum Sokolow, Apr. 18, July 17, 1918, The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann. Series A, vol. 8, November 1917-October 1918, pp. 137, 233-4.
[19] Negib Azury, Le Réveil de la Nation Arabe dans l'Asie Turque (Paris: Libraire Plon, 1905), p. 246; Sylvia G. Haim, ed., Arab Nationalism: An Anthology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964), pp. 46-7.
[20] Thomas Mayer, Egypt and the Palestine Question, 1936-1945 (Berlin: Klaus Schwartz, 1983), pp. 9-40; Israel Gershoni and James P. Jankowski, Egypt, Islam, and the Arabs: The Search for Egyptian Nationhood, 1900-1930 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 247-54.
[21] Memorandum by Brig. Gen. Gilbert Clayton, June 16, 1918, FO 371/3395/130342, p. 3 (179); "Report on the Existing Political Condition in Palestine and Contiguous Areas by the Political Officer in Charge of the Zionist Commission, Aug. 27, 1918," FO 371/3395/147225, p. 5 (231).
[22] For early protests over the Balfour Declaration see Bayan Nuwaihid al-Hut, Watha'iq al-Haraka al-Wataniyya al-Filastiniyya 1918-1939: Min Awraq Akram Zu'aytir (Beirut: Palestinian Research Center, 1984; 2nd ed.), pp. 4-34; Emile Ghouri, Filastin Abra Sittin Aman (Beirut: Dar al-Nahar, 1972), pp. 36-40.
[23] The New York Times, Aug. 25, 1947. See also Jamal Husseini, "Report of the State of Palestine during the Four Years of Civil Administration, Submitted to the Mandate's Commission of the League of Nations through H.E. the High Commissioner for Palestine, by the Executive Committee of the Palestine Arab Congress—Extract," Oct. 6, 1924, Central Zionist Archives (CZA), S25/10690, p. 1; "Minutes of the Ninth Session, Held at Geneva from June 8th to 25th, 1926, including the Report of the Commission to the Council," 22nd meeting, Permanent Mandates Commission, League of Nations, Geneva, June 22, 1926; "The Arabs Reject Partition," quoted from Palestine and Transjordan, July 17, 1937, p. 1, CZA.
[24] J.H. Kann, Some Observations on the Policy of the Mandatory Government of Palestine with Regard to the Arab Attacks on the Jewish Population in August 1929 and the Jewish and the Arab Sections of the Population(Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1930), p. 10.
[25] Aharon Cohen, Israel and the Arab World (London: W. H. Allen, 1970), p. 225.
[26] See, for example, A Survey of Palestine. Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry (reprinted 1991 in full with permission from Her Majesty's Stationary Office by the Institute for Palestine Studies, Washington, D.C.), vol. 2, pp. 708-15; Palestine Royal Commission, Report. Presented to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in Parliament by Command of his Majesty, July 1937 (London: HMSO; rep. 1946), p. 94, 157-8; Z. Abramowitz and Y. Guelfat, Hameshek Haarvi Beeretz Israel Uveartzot Hamizrah Hatichon (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuhad, 1944), pp. 5-7, 48-50.
[27] Palestine Royal Commission, Report, p. 93 (vii).
[28] See, for example, Colonial Office, Palestine. Report on Palestine Administration, 1923 (London: HMSO, 1924), p. 26; Colonial Office, Palestine. Report on Palestine Administration, 1924 (London: HMSO, 1925), pp. 28, 32, 50; Colonial Office, Palestine. Report on Palestine Administration, 1926 (London: HMSO, 1927), p. 33; Chaim Weizmann, "Progress and Problems," Confidential Report to Colonial Office, Feb. 15, 1922, The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann. Series B, vol. I, August 1898-July 1931, p. 366; Cohen, Israel, pp. 249-51.
[29] Frederick H. Kisch, Palestine Diary (London: Victor Gollancz, 1938), pp. 48-9, 54, 73.
[30] Colonial Office, Palestine: Report of the High Commissioner on the Administration of Palestine 1920-1925(London: HMSO, 1925), pp. 40-1.
[31] According to official British statistics, in 1936-39 1112 Arabs were murdered by their Arab brothers, compared with 151 British and 429 Jews. Some Palestinian Arab sources put the number of murdered Arabs at a staggering 3,000-4,500. A Survey of Palestine, vol. 1, pp. 38, 46, 49; Yuval Arnon-Ohana, Herev Mibait: Hamaavak Hapnimi Batnuah Haleumit Hafalestinit (Tel Aviv: Yariv-Hadar, 1981), p. 286; Kenneth Waring, "Arab against Arab: Evidence of Rebel Documents," The Times (London), Jan. 18, 1939.
[32] G.3/D. (C. & D.), "Intelligence report on the Mufti," Dec. 16, 1943, KV 2/2085, British National Archives, London.
[33] A Survey of Palestine, vol. 1, pp. 337-8; "Note on Potential Arab Political Violence in Palestine," Apr. 1946, FO 141/1090; The Palestine Post (Jerusalem) Nov. 21, 1939, Sept. 11, Nov. 14, 1940, May 7, 1941.
[34] Director of Land Registration to Statistician, Jewish Agency for Palestine, Apr. 9, 1944, Ben-Gurion Archive, Sde Boker; The Palestine Post, Apr. 12, 25, 1940; Mar. 4, Apr. 15, May 20, 1941; Memorandum by the Head of Political Division VII, Dec. 9, 1940, Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918-1945 (London: HMSO, 1949), Series D, vol. 11, p. 827.

The "Ottoman Balfour Declaration" "A Jewish National Home," 100 Years On by Wolfgang G. Schwanitz


The "Ottoman Balfour Declaration"
"A Jewish National Home," 100 Years On

by Wolfgang G. Schwanitz
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2018
On August 12, 1918, Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha issued an official Ottoman declaration expressing sympathy "for the establishment of a religious and national Jewish center in Palestine by well- organized immigration and colonization."
In October 1917, as British forces knocked at Jerusalem's gates, the Ottoman authorities declared a string of draconian steps aimed at destroying the Jewish community in Palestine (the Yishuv). Should the Turks be driven from Palestine, threatened Djemal Pasha, governor of the Levant and one of the triumvirs who ran the Ottoman Empire during World War I, no Jews would live to welcome the British forces.[1]
Less than a year later, on August 12, 1918, Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha, Djemal's co-triumvir, issued an official declaration in the name of the Ottoman government abolishing these restrictions and expressing sympathy "for the establishment of a religious and national Jewish center in Palestine by well-organized immigration and colonization."[2]
Though issued far too late to have any concrete effect—nearly half a year after the British conquest of Palestine and some eighty days before the Ottoman surrender—the significance of the declaration cannot be overstated. Here was the world's foremost Muslim power mirroring the British government's recognition (in the November 1917 Balfour Declaration) of the Jewish right to national revival in Palestine, something that many Muslim states refuse to acknowledge to date.

The Ottoman Declaration

In a meeting in Istanbul on August 12, 1918, Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha gave Leopold Perlmutter, a German Jewish businessman and a personal acquaintance, an official statement on behalf of the Ottoman government. Formulated during a month-long negotiation with a 16-member Jewish delegation, headed by Perlmutter and comprising Zionists and non-Zionists from Germany, Austria and the Ottoman Empire,[3] the statement acknowledged the Jewish right to national and religious revival in Palestine. "I am happy to be able to tell you that my negotiations with delegates of several Jewish organizations some time ago have led to a real result," Talaat wrote. The statement continued:
The Council of Ministers has just decided, following my statements to the Jewish delegation, to lift all restrictive measures on Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine. Strict orders have been given to the relevant authorities to ensure a benevolent treatment of the Jewish nation in Palestine based on complete equality with the other elements of the population.
Regarding my invitation to several Jewish organizations, I declare once again, as I already did to the Jewish delegation, my sympathies for the establishment of a religious and national Jewish center in Palestine by well-organized immigration and settlement, for I am convinced of the importance and benefits of the settlement of Jews in Palestine for the Ottoman Empire. I am willing to put this work under the high protection of the Ottoman Empire, and to promote it by all means that are compatible with the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire and do not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population. It is my solid conviction that the special commission, which will be appointed to lay out a detailed project for this work, shall shortly complete its work. I will be happy to see the delegation here again thereafter to continue the conversations.[4]
In a letter to the German ambassador in Istanbul, Johann-Heinrich von Bernstorff, Perlmutter claimed that the wording of the statement (which he attached for the ambassador's perusal) was roughly identical to the original communiqué proposed by the Jewish delegation with only minor modifications.[5] He also revealed that Talaat asked that the statement be published in the Western press, and indeed, on September 6, the London newspaper, The Jewish Chronicle, ran a short version of the declaration:
Addressing a conference, at Constantinople, of representatives of Jewish organizations in Central Europe, Talaat Pasha (Grand Vizier) said:
I am very glad that my negotiations with the delegates of the various Jewish organizations have already yielded a definitive result. We have resolved to do away with all restrictive measures, and definitely to abolish the restrictive regulations regarding the immigration and settlement of Jews in Palestine. I assure you of my sympathy for the creation of a Jewish religious centre in Palestine by means of well-organized immigration and colonization. It is my desire to place this work under the protection of the Turkish government. I cherish the firm hope that the labors of the Special Commission which has been sent out to work out a detailed plan will shortly be terminated.[6]
While this short version was substantially toned-down from Talaat's original declaration, speaking about "the creation of a Jewish religious centre in Palestine" rather than "a Jewish religious and national center," the newspaper doubted whether the grand vizier would make good his pledge to have the statement adopted as a parliamentary bill,[7] given the widespread opposition to this move.[8] As it was, this discussion proved purely academic, for the Ottoman Empire surrendered to the Allies on October 30, 1918, before the bill could be dealt with. The Turkish leaders fled to Berlin, where in March 1921, an Armenian nationalist murdered Talaat in revenge for his role in the 1915 Armenian genocide.

Why the Declaration?

Its non-implementation notwithstanding, Talaat's original statement was extraordinary in two key respects: the religious and the national. On the former level, the pledge to treat Palestine's Jewish community on the basis of "complete equality with the other elements of the population" ran counter to the sociopolitical order of things underpinning the House of Islam, whereby political power was vested with the Muslim majority whereas non-Muslim minorities were tolerated subjects (or dhimmis), who enjoyed protection and autonomy in the practice of their religious affairs yet were legally, institutionally, and socially inferior to their Muslim rulers.
Likewise, the sympathetic allusion to "the Jewish nation," let alone to the creation of a "Jewish national center in Palestine," was antithetical to the millenarian perception of Jews as a religious community rather than a national group. Moreover, having been squeezed out of their European colonies in the nineteenth century by the rising force of nationalism (resulting in the independent states of Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, and Albania), the Ottomans were resolved to prevent the recurrence of this phenomenon in their Afro-Asiatic provinces. Hence their brutal repression of the Armenian national awakening in the 1890's—in which some 200,000 people perished and thousands more fled to Europe and America—was a taste of the genocidal horrors that awaited the Armenians during World War I.[9] These atrocities also foreshadowed the repression of the Yishuv throughout the war, which was demonstrated most starkly by mass expulsions of Jews from Palestine and the sustained attempt in the spring through autumn 1917 to uproot the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa community.
The declaration provided Istanbul with a potentially valuable card for the postwar peace talks.
Given this backdrop, it is possible that Talaat knew full well that he would never have to implement the declaration, especially as Palestine had been under British occupation for eight months. Yet in view of Russia's March 1918 departure from the war on highly favorable terms to the Triple Alliance (German-Austrian-Ottoman), and the spring 1918 German offensive along the front in western Europe, the outcome of the war remained undecided for some time.
Accordingly, Talaat's declaration was politically relevant rather than purely hypothetical. Apart from ensuring the safety of Jewish communities in those parts of the empire still in Ottoman hands, it provided Istanbul with a potentially valuable card for the postwar peace talks.
The Ottomans worked to repress the Yishuv and initiated mass expulsions of Jews from Palestine during World War I.
More than that, Talaat's readiness to break with Islamic and Ottoman taboos, if only declaratively, by putting the Jews on a par with their Muslim counterparts and viewing them as a nation deserving of self-determination, indicated his likely expectation of a substantial quid pro quo. It was no coincidence that, prior to the U.S. entry to the war in April 1917, Talaat had rebuffed all Zionist overtures. His position began to change after the U.S. entry as he envisaged the potential gains of rallying the real or imagined "international power of world Jewry"[10] (believed to be particularly omnipotent in the United States) behind the Ottoman cause. These ranged from preventing Washington, which did not declare war on Turkey upon joining the war, from doing so; to encouraging the new Bolshevik regime in Russia to leave the war; to obtaining a better deal in the postwar negotiations, perhaps even regaining control of Palestine in return for the proposed concessions to the Jews. In the words of then German ambassador to Istanbul Johann-Heinrich von Bernstorff: "If we cannot get back Palestine by weapons, we will attain this goal diplomatically."[11]
Yet it is doubtful whether Talaat would have been able to make this conceptual leap without the incessant prodding by Istanbul's senior war ally—Berlin.

The German Connection

Kaiser Wilhelm II was well disposed to Zionism, which he considered "a question of huge importance." He favored its main goal—the revival of the Holy Land by the "capital mighty and industrious Israel"—and tried to impart his enthusiasm to Sultan Abdulhamid II during his visit to Istanbul in 1898, to no avail.[12] After the outbreak of hostilities, the kaiser had to strike a balance between this general sympathy and the need to avoid antagonizing the Ottoman leadership, which treated its national minorities with outright repression.
In April 1917, Djemal Pasha ordered the expulsion of the Jewish community of Jaffa and Tel Aviv for "military reasons" and also sought to remove the Jerusalem Jews.
He also needed to avoid rocking the German-Austrian-Ottoman Triple Alliance. Thus, for example, his order to the German consuls throughout the empire to protect the Yishuv, including the new Jewish immigrants arriving from enemy states (notably Russia), was presented as being in Istanbul's best interest: It was likely to boost the Triple Alliance's standing in Washington where Jews were believed to wield disproportionate influence while repression of Ottoman Jewry was certain to attract sharp criticism.[13]
Whenever this reasoning failed to impress the Ottoman authorities, as it often did, the Germans stepped into the ring. One such notable intervention took place in December 1914 when the Jaffa governor ordered the deportation of all Jews who had not become Ottoman subjects (many of whom were German citizens). At the initiative of the prominent German Zionist leader Richard Lichtheim, then residing in Istanbul, Ambassador Hans von Wangenheim approached Talaat with the request that the deportations be halted as did the U.S. ambassador to Istanbul, Henry I. Morgenthau. The Ottoman leadership complied: The expulsions were suspended, and foreign nationals were granted permission to stay in Palestine and encouraged to be Ottomanized.[14]
A no less crucial intervention took place in April 1917 when Djemal Pasha ordered the expulsion of the 9,000-strong Jewish community of Jaffa and Tel Aviv for "military reasons," informing the foreign consuls of his intention to vacate the Jerusalem Jews on similar grounds. At the urging of his chief of staff, Friedrich Kress von Kressenstein, Djemal abandoned the Jerusalem plan, yet refused to return the Jaffa deportees, who continued to languish in the Galilee.[15]
In October 1917, Djemal (right) tried again to destroy the Yishuv. But former German chief-of-the-general-staff Erich von Falkenhayn (beside Djemal) arrived in Jerusalem to take command of the Ottoman Yilderim Force, preventing Djemal from carrying out his genocidal plans.
When Djemal unleashed his ire yet again on the Yishuv in October 1917, following the exposure of a pro-British Zionist spy ring, a much higher-level intervention was required to restrain him. This time it was the former German chief-of-the-general-staff, Erich von Falkenhayn, who arrived in Jerusalem to take command of the newly established Ottoman Yilderim Force, thus ending Djemal's military command of the Levant and preventing him from carrying out his genocidal plans.[16]
Keenly aware of the precariousness of their national enterprise, the Zionist leaders intensified their efforts to obtain great-power declarations of support for their cause. In July 1917, they presented British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour with a proposal for the official statement. Nearly four months later, on October 31, having discussed the matter twice and having ascertained the views of U.S. president Woodrow Wilson and ten "representative [British] Jewish leaders," both Zionist and anti-Zionist, the cabinet approved the text of the official statement and authorized the foreign secretary to have it published. He did so two days later in what came to be known as the Balfour Declaration.
While Berlin resented leaving the Zionist cause to London, its bargaining position was fundamentally weaker than that of its great-power rival: It could not issue a unilateral declaration affecting the territorial integrity of its war ally without obtaining Ottoman acquiescence in this move. Thus, when on October 23, the German ambassador to Copenhagen received the text of the proposed German declaration from the director of the local Zionist bureau—probably the "communiqué" that was later submitted to Talaat—the idea went no further. Instead, the Germans sought to persuade their Ottoman allies to make their own concessions to the Zionists. In August 1917, for example, they attempted to win over Djemal to the idea with mixed results during his visit to Berlin: Though insisting that Jews could settle anywhere in the empire but not in Palestine, the pasha, nevertheless, indicated that the Ottoman leaders, including himself, might change their minds in the future.[17]
The Germans sought to persuade their Ottoman allies to make concessions to the Zionists.
The German persuasion attempts gained momentum in September 1917 with the arrival of a new ambassador to Istanbul. Fresh from a ten-year ambassadorial assignment in Washington, Johann-Heinrich von Bernstorff had a high opinion of U.S. Jewry and its role in American society and politics. He needed little prodding when instructed by Foreign Minister Richard von Kühlmann to obtain Ottoman concessions on the Palestine question. In October, as the British cabinet deliberated the text of the Balfour Declaration, von Bernstorff met Talaat and suggested that Istanbul offer the Jews a national home under its auspices after the war. In his diary, the ambassador recorded that the pasha was ready to comply with this wish provided Palestine remained in Ottoman hands.[18]
Once the Balfour Declaration was announced, Berlin and Istanbul sought to exploit it to drive a wedge between Britain and its Arab supporters by accusing London of selling out to the Jews at the Arabs' and Muslims' expense. Vienna, by contrast, issued a statement (on November 21, 1917) supporting the Zionist efforts in Palestine,[19] and before long, von Bernstorff resumed his efforts to convince the Ottomans to respond in kind to the British declaration.
On December 31, 1917, the ambassador scored a major success when Talaat announced in an interview with a German newspaper that Istanbul viewed the Jewish settlement of Palestine with benevolence, including free immigration according to the country's absorptive capacity, economic development, and the advancement of Jewish culture and local autonomy in accordance with existing laws.[20]
Capitalizing on the interview, on January 5, 1918, the German undersecretary of state met Zionist leaders and told them of Berlin's readiness to support the Zionist enterprise with a view to a prosperous autonomous Jewish community in Palestine in line with Talaat's statement. This message was amplified on the same day in a letter from Foreign Secretary Kühlmann to the German Zionist leaders Otto Warburg and Artur Hantke, welcoming the alleged Ottoman support for a blooming Jewish settlement in Palestine.[21]
In the following months, von Bernstorff continued his efforts to translate Talaat's statement of intent into a concrete agreement with the Zionist movement. On July 20, 1918, he reported to his superiors—with an undisguised sense of satisfaction—that the negotiations between the grand vizier and the 16-member delegation of German and Austrian Jewish leaders was heading toward conclusion. He noted the existence of a powerful anti-Zionist movement that brought Turks and Arabs together, yet assessed that the undeniable economic advantages of the Zionist project in Palestine would eventually tilt the scales as the Ottomans were, above all, interested in self-enrichment and had no qualms about filling their coffers with money earned from Jewish tax revenues. This observation proved prescient, as within two weeks, Talaat made his historic declaration.[22]

Conclusion

In a great, historical irony, ninety-nine years after the Ottoman Empire, the then-temporal and religious leader of the world's Muslim community and Palestine's longtime imperial master, voiced support for "the establishment of a religious and national Jewish center in Palestine," the Palestinian leadership demanded an official apology from Britain for endorsing the same idea at about the same time.
It is true that the Ottoman declaration came too late to make a real impact on the course of regional events and quickly faded into oblivion, in contrast to the 1917 Balfour Declaration which was endorsed by the entire international community. It is also true that the Ottoman pronouncement was largely driven by ulterior motives, notably the desire to harness the real or imagined "international power of the Jews" and the economic fruits of the Zionist project in Palestine to the Ottoman imperial interests—as was the Balfour Declaration as well. Yet the fact that support for the Jewish national revival in Palestine was considered the natural quid pro quo for these prospective gains underscores both the pervasive recognition of the historic Jewish attachment to this land and the ability to transcend millenarian Muslim dogmas regarding non-Muslim communities.
If only for these reasons, and having been an alternative option at a time when the war's outcome was yet to be decided and diplomacy was to be foreseen, the "Ottoman Balfour Declaration" needs to be re-examined and highlighted, especially at a time when Islamist intolerance and supremacism rear their heads.
Wolfgang G. Schwanitz is a Hochberg Family Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, author of Islam in Europe, Revolts in the Middle EastMiddle East Mosaics 2013-15, and co-author of Nazis, Islamists and the Making of the Modern Middle East.

[1] Efraim Karsh and Inari Karsh, Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East 1789-1923(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), pp. 166-70.
[2] Leopold Perlmutter to Johann von Bernstorff, B62–64, Talaat-Declaration, Constantinople, 12.08.1918, signed Perlmutter, Political Archive of the Foreign Office (hereafter, PArchAA), Berlin, R14144, Konstantinopel, 394.
[3] To Reichskanzler Grafen von Hertling, Jewish Palestine Efforts, 52-56, Pera, 20.07.1918, Bernstorff, PArchAA, R14144, B Konstantinopel, 394.
[4] Leopold Perlmutter to Johann von Bernstorff, B62–64 Constantinople, 12.08.1918, signed Perlmutter, PArchAA, R14144, Konstantinopel, 394.
[5] Ibid.
[6] "Talaat Pasha and the Future of Palestine," The Jewish Chronicle (London), Sept. 6, 1918.
[7] "The Turkish Government and Zionism, Talaat Pasha's Promises: An Ominous Interview," The Jewish Chronicle, Sept. 20, 1918.
[8] Muhammad Amin al-Husaini, Mudhakkirat al-Hajj Muhammad Amin al-Husaini (Damascus: al-Ahali, 1999), pp. 338, 388.
[9] See, also, Taner Akçam, The Young Turks' Crime against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012).
[10] Karl Friedrich Schabinger von Schowingen, ed. Consul General in Jerusalem and Consul in Jaffa (1916-18);Karl Emil Schabinger Freiherr von Schowingen, Weltgeschichtliche Mosaiksplitter (Baden-Baden: Manuscript, 1967), pp. 182-3.
[11] An Reichskanzler Grafen von Hertling, Jüdische Palästina-Bestrebungen, Istanbul, July 20, 1918, PArchAA, B Konstantinopel, 394; Johann-Heinrich von Bernstorff, Deutschland und Amerika (Berlin: Ullstein, 1920), p. 414. For pre-WWI Ottoman subscription to anti-Semitic tropes of "international Jewish power," see Daniel Pipes, "A Benign Antisemitism," Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From (Greenwich, Conn.: Touchstone, 1999).
[12] Max Bodenheimer and Henriette H. Bodenheimer, Die Zionisten und das kaiserliche Deutschland (Bensberg: Schäuble, 1972), pp. 82-4.
[13] Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, Islam in Europa, Revolten in Mittelost (Berlin: Weist, 2014), pp. 107-11; facsimile of Talaat's declaration, p. 118.
[14] Karsh and Karsh, Empires of the Sand, pp. 166-7.
[15] Karl Emil Schabinger Freiherr von Schowingen, Weltgeschichtliche Mosaiksplitter (Baden-Baden: Manuscript, 1967), p. 183; Friedrich Freiherr Kress von Kressenstein, Mit den Türken zum Sueskanal (Berlin: Schlegel, 1932), p. 264; Jacob Landau, "A Bibliographical Note on Jews and Dönme-s in the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey," in Philippe Geley and Gilles Grivaud, eds., Les Conversions á l'Islam (Athens: École Française D'Athéns, 2016), pp. 109-15.
[16] Holger Afflerbach, Falkenhayn (München: Oldenbourg, 1994), p. 485; Hansjörg Eiff, "Die jüdische Heimstätte in Palästina in der deutschen Außenpolitik, 1914-1918," Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, 3 (2012): 205-27.
[17] Leonard Stein, The Balfour Declaration (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1961), pp. 439-41, 538-42.
[18] Johann-Heinrich Graf von Bernstorff, The Memoirs of Count Bernstorff (London: Heinemann, 1936), p. 171.
[19] Francis R. Nicosia, ed., Nazi Germany and the Arab World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 23-4.
[20] Gespräch mit Talaat Pascha, Konstantinopel, Dec. 12, 1917, gez. Dr. Julius Becker, PArchAA, B Konstantinopel, Bd. 394, pp. 1-7; Vossische Zeitung (Berlin), Dec. 31, 1917.
[21] Richard Lichtheim, Rückkehr (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1970), p. 376; Jüdische Rundschau(Berlin), Jan. 11, 1918; Josef Cohn, England und Palästina (Berlin: Vowinckel, 1931), p. 69.
[22] An Reichskanzler Grafen von Hertling, Jüdische Palästina-Bestrebungen, Istanbul 07/20/18, PArchAA, B Konstantinopel 394; von Bernstorff, Deutschland und Amerika, p. 414; Lionel Gossman, The Passion of Max von Oppenheim (Cambridge: Open Book, 2013), pp. 99-105.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

NAPOLEON'S BALFOUR DECLARATION 1799


NAPOLEON'S BALFOUR DECLARATION 1799

by F. M. Loewenberg (1999/2006)[1]
               

Napoleon as Emperor at the moment of his corononation,
wearing the collar of the Legion of 
The Jews of Jerusalem would have prayed for the defeat of Napoleon when he invaded Eretz Yisrael nearly two hundred years ago.  Had they not heard that Napoleon had freed Italian Jews from their ghettos a year earlier?  Did they know that he had promised to recognize a Jewish state in Palestine, almost two thousand years after the last independent Jewish state had existed there?  Were they so happy with their Turkish rulers who continued to deprive them of full citizenship?  What was going on in Jerusalem at the end of the eighteenth century?

"The Rightful Heirs of Palestine" - that is how Napoleon Bonaparte, commander-in-chief of the French armies in Africa and Asia, addressed the Jews of the world in a proclamation he issued nearly two hundred years ago. In this proclamation he urged them:           

            Arise! Show that the once overwhelming might of your oppressors has not repressed the courage of the descendants of those heroes ... Hasten! Now is the moment which may not return for thousands of years to claim the  restoration of your rights...


How genuine was this proclamation? Moniteur, the official newspaper of the French government, published on May 22, 1799, a news item from Constantinople which stated,

            Bonaparte caused to publish a proclamation in which he invites all the Jews        of Asia and Africa to come and range themselves under his banners in order       to reestablish ancient Jerusalem.

The same news also appeared on the same day in another Paris newspaper, the Gazette de France.  A few weeks later the story was also published in the Berlin Vossische Zeitung. Why did Napoleon issue this proclamation? How did the Jewish world respond to it?  What was the reaction of non-Jews? What was the world situation in which this proclamation was issued?
                       
              
Napoleon's armies invade Italy and Egypt

In the last decade of the eighteenth century Napoleon was in command of a mighty French army that invaded and occupied Italy.  The Jews of Italy remember Napoleon as the general who liberated the Jewish communities of Ancona, Venice, Verona and Padua where for centuries Jews had been confined to ghettos and had been deprived of all of their rights. The medieval anti-Jewish laws had been abolished in all other Italian cities, but the Jews of these four cities were still required to wear the yellow badge whenever they moved outside of their homes. No wonder that Italian Jewry welcomed Bonaparte as their savior and believed that he had Messianic qualities. Many called him helek tov, the Hebrew translation of his name Bonaparte. 

After the successful invasion of Italy, Napoleon's armies moved on.  An armada of 55 warships and about 300 other ships, carrying an army of 43,000 soldiers, sailed secretly out of Toulon harbor in May 1798 in the direction of Malta.  Secrecy and favorite winds enabled the fleet to reach Malta without being detected by the English navy.  Once he had occupied Malta Napoleon brought to an end the humiliating condition endured for centuries by the local Jews who had been enslaved by the Knights of St. John since 1553. Jews captured by these warrior-monks were generally sold as slaves all over the Mediterranean world. The situation of those Jews who were kept as slaves in Malta was especially pitiful.  Now Napoleon decreed that all Jews in Malta were free persons and expressly permitted them to build and maintain a synagogue.
        
From Malta Napoleon's fleet sailed to Alexandria in Egypt. As his mighty fleet crossed the Mediterranean, Napoleon issued a proclamation to his soldiers:              

            Soldiers! You are about to undertake a conquest whose effects on the  
            world's civilization and trade are incalculable.  You will inflict upon        
            England a blow which is certain to wound her in her most sensitive spot...

            The people among whom we shall live are Mohammedans....Act toward them as           in the past you have acted toward the Jews and the Italians.  Respect        
            their muftis and imams, as you have respected the rabbis and the bishops....


Napoleon's army landed in Egypt on July 1, 1798, eleven days after leaving Malta. Alexandria was taken by storm on the following day. A few days later the French armies started to move toward Cairo which was captured some weeks later.  But at the very time when Napoleon and his armies succeeded in capturing the capitol of the Mamluk empire, the British navy, commanded by Admiral Nelson, scored a significant victory in the Battle of the Nile.  Almost all of the French ships that were anchored in Alexandria were destroyed in this battle. As a result, the French forces under Napoleon were now virtually isolated. From this time on, the Mediterranean became a British sea. Napoleon now found it   difficult to communicate with his government in Paris.  English warships could attack the French forces at will, as they did when they came to the aid of the besieged Turkish forces in Acres in the following year.  But Napoleon was a land-based general and failed to understand the implications of Nelson's victory.
                  
                         
Napoleon in Egypt

Napoleon's military victory over the Egyptian forces was complete, but he was unable to win the allegiance of the local population.  He tried very hard to be liked by them. Thus, he began to wear a turban, surround himself with native counselors, and accommodate his language and style of behavior to what he thought was Egyptian standards. But all of his efforts failed.  Instead of winning the allegiance of the natives, an insurrection of dangerous proportions broke out in October 1898.  Napoleon was forced to use heavy guns against the rebels in order to suppress this revolt.  Having failed to win the support of the Egyptian Muslims, Napoleon now tried to win the allegiance of those non-Mohammedans who had not participated in the revolt, primarily the Christian Copts and the Jews of Cairo.

The Jews had tried to remain neutral during the rebellion, even though they had much for which to be thankful. Napoleon had extended full equality to them, just as he had done to Italian Jewry a year earlier.  In an attempt to equate their status with that of the majority Muslim population, he appointed two rabbis, Sabbato Adda and Tolbi di Figura, as "high priests of the Jewish nation" (grand-pretres de la nation juive). Except for their appointment we know very little about these rabbis or their activities in the Cairo Jewish community.


Invasion of Palestine

Early in 1799 Turkey declared war on France. When news of the declaration of war reached elements of the Turkish army stationed in Palestine, their commanders decided to stop Napoleon by invading Egypt.  Napoleon became aware of this plan and hastened to implement his own plan to invade the Ottoman empire from the east by way of Palestine and Syria. In a letter to the Directory in Paris he outlined his strategy.   He ended his letter to the government in Paris with the hope that "When you read this letter, it is quite possible that I shall be standing on the ruins of the city of Solomon ..." Did he have plans to capture Jerusalem or was this merely a propaganda ploy?

Even before this letter reached Paris, Napoleon's armies had started to cross the Sinai desert on their way to Palestine. Success crowned the early phases of the invasion.  El Arish was captured ten days after the start of the campaign, Gaza was occupied five days later and Ramle fell in the first days of March.  
                 
From Ramle Napoleon could either continue his northward drive to Jaffo or he could bear eastward to Jerusalem. Many of his soldiers were eager to enter Jerusalem, but he noted in his personal diary that he had decided against this diversion because he did "not wish to be annoyed by mountaineers on difficult roads."  Despite many legends to the contrary, Napoleon never attempted to enter or occupy Jerusalem.  But throughout the world there were many who believed that he did, just as there were many who were convinced that his purpose in conquering Palestine was to reestablish a Jewish state.
                  

A Jewish State in the Holy Land

How did the world, and particularly the Jewish world, react to Napoleon's efforts to establish a Jewish state in the Holy Land? Rumors that Napoleon had conquered Palestine in order to reestablish a Jewish state spread rapidly throughout Europe and beyond.   In Hungary, the Hatam Sofer (Rabbi Moses Sofer,1763-1839) heard the news that Napoleon was about to proclaim a Jewish nation in Palestine. He urged his students to settle in Jerusalem and preached several sermons in which he made favorable allusions to the proclamation. He could not be more explicit in his admiration of Napoleon because the Hapsburgers, under whose rule he lived, were the traditional enemies of the French and would consider more explicit praise as treasonous.

Many European Christians believed that Napoleon had conquered Jerusalem in order to give it to the Jews.  A pamphlet published in Berlin in 1799 noted with satisfaction that many newspapers had carried the report that Napoleon had conquered Jerusalem for the sake of the Jews. The English were particularly intrigued by Napoleon's proclamation and saw in it both a religious and political threat to British hegemony in the Middle East.

Even in far off New York, Rev. Seichez, the rabbi of New York's only synagogue, preached a number of laudatory sermons about these events and compared Napoleon to the Messiah.              
             

Jerusalem's Jews respond
   
The report that Napoleon and his army intended to occupy Jerusalem and to proclaim the "Kingdom of Jerusalem" as a Jewish state also received wide circulation throughout Palestine. But the response of Palestine's Jews to Napoleon's reported plans was anything but warm.  The reactions of Jerusalem's Jews were different from those of their brethren in other parts of the world.  Napoleon's invasion of Palestine had created fear and panic among all elements of the local population, but especially among the Jews.

There is one report that after the fall of Jaffo a delegation of Jews visited Napoleon to offer their support and to tell him that they looked upon him as their Messiah. If this report is true, it is an exception because most Palestinian Jews wanted to support Napoleon.  This was especially true in Acres where Jews were forced and joined the Arab and Turkish forces in defending the city against Napoleon's armies.  At the head of Acre's Jewish community was Hayim Pirchi who served as finance minister to Ahmad al G'esar, pasha of Acres. Napoleon sent several messengers to Pirchi, trying to persuade him with all kinds of promises to defect to the French side. But Napoleon failed and Pirchi reluctantly remained loyal to the Turks.

The Jews of Jerusalem also accepted Napoleon's promises. They had suffered already greatly because the Muslims of Jerusalem suspected that they would side with Napoleon. This suspicion became even stronger when it was discovered that among the French invaders was a "Jewish legion," made up of twelve thousand North African Jewish solders.  The Arabs of Jerusalem decided to kill all Jewish residents once Napoleon's armies reached the vicinity of the city.  An informer told the Rishon L'zion, Jerusalem's chief rabbi, Rabbi Yomtov Algazi, and his assistant, Rabbi Mordecai Meyuhas (who would later succeed Algazi as Rishon L'zion),about this plan.  The two rabbinical leaders who were affraid of the demise of the Jews by the Ottoman's, immediately assembled all of Jerusalem's Jews, men, women and children, at the Wailing (Western) Wall in order to demonstrate their loyalty to the Ottoman Empire and to offer prayers for the defense of Jerusalem.  They prayed to the Almighty that He might save the Holy City and prevent its fall to the French.

After the special prayer service at the Western Wall Rabbi Meyuhas met with the Turkish governor of Jerusalem to suggest that the city walls be strengthened and that trenches be dug in front of them. He offered Jerusalem's Jews as volunteers for this work. The city authorities accepted this offer readily and ordered all residents to report for work at the city walls.  The chief rabbi, together with all of the city's Jews, was among the first to answer the city's call.  The governor then asked the Jews to continue to pray for the city's welfare, but the chief rabbi assured him that the Almighty had already heard their prayers and that Napoleon would not come to Jerusalem.

Jerusalem's Jews did not rely only on their prayers or on their volunteer work.  They knew that their Muslim neighbors were still intent on harming them.  As long time residents of the city, they were familiar with the tradition of baksheesh and did not hesitate to pay-off all those officials whose cooperation was essential for their continued protection.  A letter, signed by all of Jerusalem's rabbis, was sent to the European Jewish communities to describe the troubles experienced by Jerusalem Jews during these difficult years:              

            Our troubles started from the day that Egypt was occupied [by Napoleon]. Our evil                               neighbors started to accuse us and suspect our loyalties, saying        
            that there were twelve thousand Jewish soldiers among his troops. This
            they used as a pretext to persecute us until this very day.  For an entire
            year, every day, they attacked and almost killed all those who live in     
            Zion.  They keep up their attacks at all hours of the day. ... we cannot   
            really tell you how bad things are for us. ... we have been forced to sell
            all synagogue silver decorations in order to meet the payments they have           
            demanded from us... we have taxed ourselves until there was nothing left.                                      

    
There was great joy in Jerusalem when Napoleon's armies retreated after their failure to take Acres.  The Jews assembled at the Wailing Wall to give thanks for the miracle. The Turkish governor let it be known that he believed that Jerusalem was saved only because of the prayer of the Jews at the Wailing Wall.


Rabbi Nachman's pilgrimage

Another victim of Napoleon's invasion of Palestine was Rabbi Nachman of Breslov who just at this time had planned to undertake a pilgrimage to the Holy Land.   When he reached Instanbul he found that he was unable to continue to Palestine. Jews were not permitted to travel to the Holy Land because of the great dangers involved in such a trip at this time.  But Rabbi Nachman paid no attention to the dangers.


After much difficulty he found a small boat that took him to Palestine. When he arrived in Jaffo, the Muslims refused to give him permission to land since they suspected that he was a French spy. They had never seen a person who was wearing long ֹpֹeֹyֹoֹt as Rabbi Nachman did.  Nothing he said or did persuaded them to permit him to disembark in Jaffo.  Instead he was forced to head for Haifa where he was able to land. 

His followers received him with great joy when he visited Safed and Tiberias. But he was unable to visit Jerusalem because of the fighting that prevailed at that time throughout the land. Instead he went to Acres and spent some weeks there.  As the fighting came closer to the city, the Turkish defenders ordered all civilians to leave that city by boat within a few hours. Rabbi Nachman was evacuated aboard a Turkish warship that brought him to Rhodes and from there he returned to Constantinople without ever having stepped foot in Jerusalem.



--- -
First published in Queens College of Jewish Studies, 2 (2000), 116-124.



[1] Revised version of article published in Queens College of Jewish Studies, 2, 116-124, 2000.


Appendix 1



Prayer of the Children of Israel


Citizens of France and Italy
for the success and prosperity of our Mater's Army
The Emperor, the King Napoleon the Great
(may his glory shine)
Composed in the month of Cheshvan, year 5567 (1807)
Psalms chapter 20,21,27, 147

I implore Thee, Creator of Heaven and the Universe and all who inhabit it. Thou hast established all boundaries and limitations of the world and each nation with its respective language. Thou didst give the Sceptre of power into the hands of their kings to lead the people under their reign with righteousness, justice, an uprightness; that each person in his own place should live in peace.
How fortunate we are, how good is our lot, that from Thy hand glory and beauty were poured out upon the head of a powerful man, full of vibrancy, NAPOLEON the Great, to sit on the Throne of France and Italy. Could another be found as worthy as NAPOLEON deserving of such honors and kingship, who shepherds his people with sincerity and with the understanding of his heart? Thou, GOD, hast wondrously bestowed Thy kindness upon him. As other Kings of the world approached to fight him, Thou didst protect him on the day of war, Thou didst save him from those who stood up against him, until he subdued them and they sought peace from him. With his kind spirit, he spoke words of peace to them.
Kings have now untied to break their treaty and replace peace with the blood of war. They have gathered armies to fight against him and against all those who admire him. They have come to our borders, and our master, the Emperor, the King, is standing with the might of his army to confront them.
O GOD, master of greatness, strength, power and beauty, we implore Thee to stand next to his righteousness; help him, support him with Thy mighty arm: guard him as the apple of Thine eye with an abundance of strength and health. Save him from all evil and tell him "I am your salvation."
Send Thy light and truth, that they may lead him. Render foolish all those who rise against him for evil. Let Thy light shine upon his plans. Strengthen his armies and those of his allies.
May he succeed in all his endeavors and reign over his enemies. May they seek peace from him, for he is a man who loves peace, and peace he will exercise among his nation.
Father of compassion, Master of Peace, implant in the heads of all Kings and their advisers thoughts of peace and tranquility for the benefit of all mankind. Let the Sword not pass through our land and spill the blood of our brethren. Let all nations unite in total peace and tranquility forever. Amen.
(May the words of our prayers be acceptable to Thee.)

Appendix 2


Letter to the Jewish Nation from the French Commander-in-Chief Buonaparte
(translated from the Original, 1799)
General Headquarters, Jerusalem 1st Floreal, April 20th, 1799,
in the year of 7 of the French Republic
BUONAPARTE, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE ARMIES OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC
IN AFRICA AND ASIA, TO THE RIGHTFUL HEIRS OF PALESTINE.
Israelites, unique nation, whom, in thousands of years, lust of conquest and tyranny have been able to be deprived of their ancestral lands, but not of name and national existence!
Attentive and impartial observers of the destinies of nations, even though not endowed with the gifts of seers like Isaiah and Joel, have long since also felt what these, with beautiful and uplifting faith, have foretold when they saw the approaching destruction of their kingdom and fatherland: And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. (Isaiah 35,10)
Arise then, with gladness, ye exiled! A war unexampled In the annals of history, waged in self-defense by a nation whose hereditary lands were regarded by its enemies as plunder to be divided, arbitrarily and at their convenience, by a stroke of the pen of Cabinets, avenges its own shame and the shame of the remotest nations, long forgotten under the yoke of slavery, and also, the almost two-thousand-year-old ignominy put upon you; and, while time and circumstances would seem to be least favourable to a restatement of your claims or even to their expression ,and indeed to be compelling their complet abandonment, it offers to you at this very time, and contrary to all expectations, Israel's patrimony!
The young army with which Providence has sent me hither, let by justice and accompanied by victory, has made Jerusalem my headquarters and will, within a few days, transfer them to Damascus, a proximity which is no longer terrifying to David's city.
Rightful heirs of Palestine!
The great nation which does not trade in men and countries as did those which sold your ancestors unto all people (Joel,4,6) herewith calls on you not indeed to conquer your patrimony; nay, only to take over that which has been conquered and, with that nation's warranty and support, to remain master of it to maintain it against all comers.
Arise! Show that the former overwhelming might of your oppressors has but repressed the courage of the descendants of those heroes who alliance of brothers would have done honour even to Sparta and Rome (Maccabees 12, 15) but that the two thousand years of treatment as slaves have not succeeded in stifling it.
Hasten!, Now is the moment, which may not return for thousands of years, to claim the restoration of civic rights among the population of the universe which had been shamefully withheld from you for thousands of years, your political existence as a nation among the nations, and the unlimited natural right to worship Jehovah in accordance with your faith, publicly and most probably forever (Joel 4,20).

Bibliography

  1. Anchel, Napoléon et les juifs, 1928
  2. Roth, C. The Jews of Malta in: Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England, XII (1931).
  3. The Jewish Press Magazine, April 1998, page 69
  4. The Memoirs of Dr. Barry O'Meara
  5. The New Judea, vol 16, September 1949
  6. Schwarzfuchs, Simon. Napoleon, the Jews and the Sanhedrin
  7. The Memoirs of Baron Fain, First Secretary of the Emperor Cabinet, Proctor Jones Publishing, 1998.
  8. Kobler, Frans. Napoleon and the Jews (1975).
  9. Yahuda, A.S. Conception d'un état juif par Napoléon, Evidences publication, 1951, no 19, May-June.