Britain betrayed the Palestinians at the start and is doing so again as the actions of Israel pass without censure, writes Amin Howeidy* We all know that Arthur Balfour, the British foreign secretary, made the ill-fated promise issued on 2 November 1917 to give the Jews a national homeland on part of the land of Palestine. And we all know that Jack Straw is the British foreign secretary these days. The statements he issues are acceptable, but some of his actions contradict them. We must look at them in the context of him representing the state that created the problem by giving what it did not own to a group who did not deserve it. Let us start with Balfour. He met Haim Weizmann, the young Zionist, at the start of the last century; this has a story of its own. Following the death of Theodor Herzl -- the prophet of Zionism as they call him -- Weizmann moved his residence from Geneva to London, where the Jewish community gave him a tepid reception. Most of them were enthusiastic about the project for making Uganda a homeland for bringing together their Diaspora, while Weizmann did not accept an alternative to Palestine as a national homeland for the Jews. His isolation drove him to move to Manchester, the main centre for studying chemistry, in which he specialised alongside his interest in the Zionist movement. There he met Balfour. At that time, Balfour was a proponent of the Uganda project, but following Weizmann's repeated discussions with him, grew convinced to change his favour to that of the Palestine project. Weizmann once said to Balfour, "We refuse to talk about Uganda. My dear Arthur, if it were within my ability to offer Paris to you as a replacement for London, would you accept?" It was as though Palestine were his homeland although he had not yet visited it. The two men's friendship grew. Time passed and Weizmann never stopped promoting his project. Then fate struck its blow on 22 March 1917 when his friend Balfour became foreign secretary within the wartime cabinet. After numerous manoeuvres, Balfour asked Weizmann to prepare a draft of the declaration he wanted presented to the wartime cabinet. On 18 September 1917, Weizmann submitted the draft declaration that included the British government's acknowledgment of all of Palestine as a national homeland for the Jews and granted them sovereignty under British protection. On 2 November 1917, the Balfour Declaration was issued. The ill-fated promise stated that "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The promise was in the form of a letter addressed to Lord Rothschild, a Zionist of fame and wealth. To quote from Weizmann's memoirs: "While the wartime cabinet was putting together a report on the final text of the declaration, I was waiting in one of the cabinet's rooms. Sir Mark Sykse came to me with the historical document and said with joy, 'Dr Weizmann, it's a baby boy.' I did not love the newborn at first glance because it was not the child we wanted, but I knew that what had happened was something great in our history." It is noteworthy that Weizmann wanted to say that he was the main person responsible for the issue of the declaration, distancing the name of Rothschild and other Zionists in doing so. The Jews welcomed the declaration despite it not giving them all of Palestine as a national homeland, sufficing with only part of it. Most unfortunately, however, it was not only the Jews who welcomed it; some prominent Arabs did as well. But what is the story these days of Jack Straw concerning this difficult problem? Some diplomats prepared a report that criticises Israel for its actions by which it will seize control of Jerusalem and isolate it from its Arab-Palestinian hinterland -- the near completion of the construction of barriers around East Jerusalem far from the Green Line, the construction and expansion of illegal settlements, the demolition of Palestinian homes, measures to separate East Jerusalem residents from those of the West Bank, discriminatory policies the Jerusalem municipality employs in imposing taxes and construction permits, and the Maale Adumim settlement, which splits the West Bank into two geographically separate areas. The diplomats' report made it clear that these measures threaten completion of the "roadmap" because there is no Arab that would consent to losing East Jerusalem. On the contrary, Arab residents will be driven to more violence, which will put an end to attempts at peace. The report recommends that the European Union -- which does not acknowledge East Jerusalem's annexation to Israel since 1980 when the Israeli government declared it annexed and Jerusalem the capital of Israel -- declare its opposition to these measures and call on Israel to halt all plans to prevent the issue of Jerusalem being negotiated between the two parties. The diplomats presented their report to the European Union in the final days of its British presidency. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, instead of presenting the report to EU members, ordered for it to be put on hold and for no measures to be taken to prevent the continuation of Israeli violations. This move incensed many of those who knew about the report, including British writer Patrick Seale. He addressed an open letter to the British foreign secretary that was published in the London Al-Hayat newspaper. In it he wrote, "by your decision [to quash the report], you betrayed the Palestinian people, so often betrayed by Britain in the past; you betrayed the EU diplomats who wrote the report; and you betrayed all those who still believe in a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict." He went on to say, "You had a chance to mobilise the EU's full weight behind this message, to help Europe carry weight in world affairs ... It is often said that Britain cleaves to America through thick and thin, because this gives Britain influence over American policy, especially regarding Palestine. Can you point to any visible result of this influence? By deciding not to give full publicity to the crucial Jerusalem question ... you have contributed to instability and violence in the region. Britain would do better to publish the report, add muscle to its recommendations and, in doing so, seek to save its battered international reputation." He mentions that Jack Straw was an ardent supporter of military action in Iraq and that he had held on to his position even after it became clear that the war had been built upon a foundation of lies and forged evidence. Indeed, the British are partners in drawing a new roadmap, one other than that declared. Akin to US President Bush, what Straw openly declares covers him while others carry out actions with impunity. In politics, what is important is not what is said but what is done. Last century, Balfour gave part of Palestine as a national homeland for the Jews and erased facts. Today, at the beginning of the 21st century, the situation is reversed to giving Palestine a disfigured part of Israel besieged from land, sea and air. Some call this a small prison and others a detention centre. What else to say? Politics is said to be the art of the possible. Is it not more accurate to say that politics is about getting away with as much as possible? * The writer is former minister of defence and chief of General Intelligence.
