Al-Ahram Weekly | Opinion | From Balfour to Blair

		17 - 23 October 2002 Issue No. 608 Opinion	Current issue Previous issue Site map
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875		Recommend this page

From Balfour to Blair

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's recent statements in support of the creation of a Palestinian state should receive full Arab backing, writes Osama El-Ghazali Harb*

Almost 85 years after British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour's letter to Lord Rothschild, containing his famous declaration of the sympathy of His Majesty's Government for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced several times over the past few weeks his support for the Middle East peace process and "the establishment of a viable Palestinian state." And, just as the Balfour Declaration of 1917 included the British government's assurance that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine," so too did the "Blair Declaration" of 2002 link the commitment of his government -- "Her Majesty's" this time -- to the security of the State of Israel.
While Lord Balfour had addressed his promise of a Jewish homeland to a Jewish aristocrat sympathetic towards the Zionist movement, Blair made his call for the establishment of a Palestinian state to Arab ambassadors to the UK on the fringes of the annual Labour Party conference in the English town of Blackpool on 1 October.
Some might suggest that Blair's current initiative has received more attention than it deserves. The UK, independently and through EU statements, has already declared its support for Palestinian rights and the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. However, there are reasons why the recent position-statement of the British PM is more significant than its predecessors, and why it should therefore compel us, as Arabs, to respond to it with a commensurate level of earnestness and sensibility.
It was therefore no coincidence that, during the 6 October anniversary celebrations, President Hosni Mubarak lauded Blair's stance. After referring to the Bush Administration's initiative regarding the creation of a Palestinian state, Mubarak said that "the British prime minister has courageously supported the statement of the US president. He did so in a very strongly worded speech to the annual Labour Party conference, saying that by the end of this year negotiations must have begun towards the establishment of a Palestinian state." The president added that "I salute this statement. It was powerful indeed."
That the UK should adopt such a position is significant in its own right. Great Britain still bears the primary historical responsibility for the creation of Israel at the expense of Palestinian national rights. The Balfour Declaration, in fact, gave the official starting signal for the implementation of the Zionist project to colonise Palestine, even if the Zionist movement had taken preliminary steps on the ground beforehand. It was no coincidence that the Declaration was issued at a time when Palestine had fallen to British forces in World War I, and when Ottoman forces had been driven out of the Levant. However, more pertinent still was the fact that under the League of Nations mandate granted to Great Britain over Palestine in 1922, the mandate power was committed to the implementation of Balfour's promise -- hardly surprising in that the mandate was drafted by the allied powers, foremost among which was Great Britain.
Although the League's mandate reiterated the responsibility of the mandate power to protect the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, regardless of race or religion, it made no reference to the political rights of the indigenous peoples. Now, eight decades later, London has pledged itself to the political rights of the Palestinian people.
Yet, an even more significant dimension of Blair's recent pledge is that the UK is now Washington's number one ally in the pursuit of its strategic vision for the Middle East. In this regard, it gives some cause for hope that Britain's long experience in this region, together with its diplomatic savoir-faire, may compensate for the simultaneously astounding and pitiful naiveté and insensitivity of the US. In spite of Britain's definitive support for the Zionist enterprise, it has historically been more aware of the opinions and sensitivities of the Arabs. We should recall, here, that Great Britain abstained in the vote on the UN resolution on the partition of Palestine in 1948. In other words, it did not officially recognise Israel at the moment of its creation, unlike the US and the Soviet Union. This recognition only came in 1949, and then it was linked to the need to adjust the de facto borders between the Arabs and Israel and to respect the UN resolution on Jerusalem.
Moreover, diplomatic relations between the UK and Israel were not brought up to the ambassadorial level until 1952. Prior to this, London had approved the Bernadotte plan for a settlement, although Bernadotte himself did not live to see its publication, as he was assassinated before its submission to the Security Council by Zionist extremists. We should also recall that the UK sponsored the famous UN Security Council Resolution 242, calling for Israel's withdrawal from the territories it occupied in 1967, in exchange for Arab recognition of its right to live in peace, and for a just solution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees.
The importance of the British position also emanates from the nature of the current situation in global politics and the current phase in the development of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The events of 11 September 2001 worked to place "terrorism" at the top of the international agenda. Because the attacks against the US were attributed to Arab and Muslim elements, it has become impossible to disassociate these terrorist acts from US policy, and Western policy in general, towards the Arab and Islamic worlds and towards the Palestinian issue in particular. Fortunately, the link between terrorism, the floundering Middle East peace process and the application of double standards, especially with regard to Iraq, were strikingly apparent to Blair. In his address to the British House of Commons on 24 September he said, "we can condemn the terrorism and the reaction to it. But, frankly, that gets us nowhere. What we need is a firm commitment to action and a massive mobilisation of energy to get the peace process moving again, and we will play our part in any way we can."
In his speech to the Labour conference in Blackpool, Blair said, "I agree that the UN resolutions must apply here [to the Arab-Israeli conflict] as much as to Iraq. But, they don't just apply to Israel. They apply to all parties." On 3 October he said, "It is important that we make it clear to the entire world, and to the Arab and Islamic World in particular, that we do not favour one side over another, but that we are balanced in our approach... We are ready to achieve peace in the Middle East, just as we are ready to deal with the threat of weapons of mass destruction."
Blair's recent statements, thus, may have taken on more weight than they had before, rendering them, with regard to the fate of the Palestinian state, an approximation of what the Balfour Declaration was with regard to the Jewish state.
If the Balfour Declaration -- contrary to what is commonly believed -- received the approval of US President Woodrow Wilson before it was announced, and then the approval of France afterwards, Blair's statements on Palestine were also anticipated by President Bush's commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state within three years and similar declarations by the EU. Simultaneously, if the UK was in a position to implement its pledge for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine because it was the mandate power in Palestine at the time, Arab opposition never presenting a major obstacle to its plans, the greatest obstacle before the creation of a Palestinian state is Israel. Israel, especially under Sharon, has used every ploy at its disposal to undermine the peace process and to thwart the creation of a Palestinian state.
In this context, experts have aired various ideas on a form of international supervision over the Palestinian territories during the interim period preceding statehood. In the Washington Post of 29 June, Martin Indyke, Director of the Middle East Studies Department at the Washington-based Brookings Institute, proposed a US-led trusteeship for Palestine for the interim period preceding statehood, whereby the trustees would assume responsibility in the occupied territories instead of the Israeli army. The author observed that this system had been used before in Bosnia, East Timor and Afghanistan, and "perhaps soon again in Iraq."
At all events, and regardless of the theoretical prospects of translating the Blair initiative into practice before the end of this year, the US stance towards it remains crucial. According to the British Guardian newspaper earlier this month , Tony Blair's drive for Middle East peace talks suffered "an embarrassing setback" at the hands of the US president, George Bush, who "blocked the initiative and made it clear to Blair that he does not want such talks to be held in the near future."
The article continues: "Mr Blair has staked a great deal of political capital on his relationship with Mr Bush. But Downing Street and the Foreign Office are exasperated by the American leader's attitude. According to officials, in spite of the setback, Mr Blair is to continue to pursue the idea of peace talks over the next few months. Mr Bush's rebuff highlights a fundamental division between the US and Britain over the Middle East: the US sees dealing with Iraq as the priority, whereas Britain sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the priority, either to be tackled first or, at least, alongside Iraq."
Adding impetus to the British position is that the Quartet Group, consisting of the UN, the US, the EU and Russia, has raised the prospect of final-status negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis, although no date has been set for the next meeting of this group. In addition, the Guardian indicates that the British Foreign Office is eager to get the ball rolling by hosting an international conference on the Palestinian-Israeli dispute in London chaired by Tony Blair. Meanwhile, Israel sharply criticised the British leader's call to revive the peace process, as well as its appeal to all countries of the region -- Israel as well as Iraq! -- to honour UN resolutions.
And what about us? The ultimate lesson to be learned from the Balfour "promise" is that it did not succeed under its own steam. Rather, it was implemented through the determination and persistence of the Zionist forces that appropriated it and transformed it into a tangible reality on the ground in Palestine. Moreover, this took place at a pace that the British had never anticipated, while the British were the first to taste "terrorist" practices in the Middle East at the hands of the Zionists. True, Great Britain then was the superpower, whereas today it is the junior partner of the American colossus. However, the special nature of the US-British relationship compels us to respond positively to, and to encourage, the Blair initiative. Perhaps President Mubarak's response will set a model in this regard for other Arab countries and for the Arab League.
There is much we can do to advance the Blair initiative. But, at the very least we should make our approval incontrovertibly clear and rally our not insignificant capacities towards supporting and developing it. Such efforts could do much to channel US attitudes more effectively towards a just and lasting peace.
* The writer is the editor in chief of the quarterly journal, Al-Siyassa Al-Dawlia (International Politics), issued by Al-Ahram and a member of the Shura Council.

Send a letter to the Editor Recommend this page

ARCHIVES
Letter from the Editor
Editorial Board
Subscription
Advertise!

WEEKLY ONLINE: weekly.ahram.org.eg
Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time
weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg

Al-Ahram Organisation