Editing Balfour Declaration (section)

== Long-term impact ==
[[File:Falastin newspaper front page 2 November 1932 on the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration (cropped).jpg|thumb|Falastin newspaper edition in 1932 featuring a caricature lamenting Balfour declaration's impacts on Palestine, showing Jewish immigration, and dispossession of Arab peasants]]

The declaration had two indirect consequences, the emergence of Israel and a chronic state of conflict between Arabs and Jews throughout the Middle East.{{sfn|United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights|1978|ps=: "It ultimately led to partition and to the problem as it exists today. Any understanding of the Palestine issue, therefore, requires some examination of this Declaration which can be considered the root of the problem of Palestine."}}{{sfn|Watts|2008|p=190|ps=: "indirectly&nbsp;... led to"}}{{sfn|Ingrams|2009|pp=IX, 5|ps=: "Probably no other scrap of paper in history has had the effect of this brief letter, the cause of a conflict&nbsp;..."}}{{sfn|Schneer|2010|pp=370, 376}}{{sfn|Shlaim|2005|p=268}}{{sfn|Tucker|2017|pp=469–482}} It has been described as the "[[original sin]]" with respect to both Britain's failure in Palestine{{sfn|Shlaim|2009|p=23}} and for wider events in Palestine.{{sfn|Cohen|Kolinsky|2013|p=88}} The statement also had a significant impact on the traditional anti-Zionism of religious Jews, some of whom saw it as [[divine providence]]; this contributed to the growth of [[religious Zionism]] amid the larger Zionist movement.{{efn|group=lower-roman|Israeli professor of sociology [[Menachem Friedman]] wrote: "...&nbsp;one cannot overestimate [the declaration's] dramatic influence on the Jewish masses, especially those living in Eastern Europe. Metaphorically speaking, they felt as if they actually heard the beating wings of Redemption. From the theological point of view, the Balfour Declaration was even more significant than Zionist activities in Palestine at that time. Although Zionist enterprise in Palestine was defined as "rebellion" against God and traditional faith in Redemption. Yet the Jew who believes in Divine Providence was almost compelled to believe that the Balfour Declaration was a manifestation of God's Grace. This political phenomenon – which was issued as a result of Zionist lobbying and was addressed to the Zionist Executive – shook the foundations of traditional religious [[anti-Zionism]] as much as it encouraged religious Zionism."{{sfn|Friedman|2012|p=173}}}}

Starting in 1920, [[intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine]] broke out, which widened into the regional [[Arab–Israeli conflict]], often referred to as the world's "most intractable conflict".<ref>[https://divinity.duke.edu/about/contact-duke-divinity-school/faculty/staff/chris-rice Chris Rice] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160206181425/https://divinity.duke.edu/about/contact-duke-divinity-school/faculty/staff/chris-rice |date=6 February 2016 }}, [[Epigraph (literature)|quoted in]] Munayer Salim{{nbsp}}J, Loden Lisa, [https://books.google.com/books?id=pSsmAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT1 Through My Enemy's Eyes: Envisioning Reconciliation in Israel-Palestine], quote: "The Palestinian-Israeli divide may be the most intractable conflict of our time."</ref><ref>[https://polisci.columbia.edu/content/virginia-page-fortna Virginia Page Fortna], [https://books.google.com/books?id=7MXPOz95A_IC&pg=PA67 Peace Time: Cease-fire Agreements and the Durability of Peace], p.{{nbsp}}67, "Britain's contradictory promises to Arabs and Jews during World War{{nbsp}}I sowed the seeds of what would become the international community's most intractable conflict later in the century."</ref><ref>Avner Falk, [https://books.google.com/books?id=4CNVmZIen3AC&pg=PA8 Fratricide in the Holy Land: A Psychoanalytic View of the Arab-Israeli Conflict], Chapter{{nbsp}}1, p.{{nbsp}}8, "Most experts agree that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the most intractable conflict in our world, yet very few scholars have produced any psychological explanation—let alone a satisfactory one—of this conflict's intractability."</ref> The "dual obligation" to the two communities quickly proved to be untenable;{{sfn|Renton|2007|p=151}} the British subsequently concluded that it was impossible for them to pacify the two communities in Palestine by using different messages for different audiences.{{efn|group=qt|For example, in 1930, on learning that King [[George V]] had requested his views about the state of affairs in Palestine, [[John Chancellor (colonial administrator)|John Chancellor]], the [[High Commissioners for Palestine and Transjordan|High Commissioner for Palestine]], wrote a 16-page letter via [[Arthur Bigge, 1st Baron Stamfordham|Lord Stamfordham]], the [[Private Secretary to the Sovereign|King's Private Secretary]]. The letter concluded, "The facts of the situation are that in the dire straits of the war, the British Government made promises to the Arabs and promises to the Jews which are inconsistent with one another and are incapable of fulfilment. The honest course is to admit our difficulty and to say to the Jews that, in accordance with the Balfour Declaration, we have favoured the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine and that a Jewish National Home in Palestine has in fact been established and will be maintained and that, without violating the other part of the Balfour Declaration, without prejudicing the interests of the Arabs, we cannot do more than we have done."{{sfn|Shlaim|2005|pp=251–270a|ps=: Shlaim quotes: Sir John R. Chancellor to Lord Stamfordham, 27&nbsp;May 1930, Middle East Archive, St.&nbsp;Antony's College, Oxford.}} Renton wrote: "The attempt to create different messages for different audiences regarding the future of the same place, as had been attempted since the fall of Jerusalem, was untenable."{{sfn|Renton|2007|p=151}}}} The Palestine Royal Commission – in making the first official proposal for partition of the region – referred to the requirements as "contradictory obligations",{{sfn|Palestine Royal Commission|1937|p=363}}{{sfn|Cleveland|Bunton|2016|p=244}} and that the "disease is so deep-rooted that, in our firm conviction, the only hope of a cure lies in a surgical operation".{{sfn|Palestine Royal Commission|1937|p=368}}{{sfn|Rose|1973|p=82}} Following the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, and as worldwide tensions rose in the buildup to the Second World War, the British Parliament approved the [[White Paper of 1939]] – their last formal statement of governing policy in Mandatory Palestine – declaring that Palestine should not become a Jewish State and placing restrictions on Jewish immigration.{{sfn|Lewis|2009|p=175}}{{sfn|Berman|1992|p=66}} Whilst the British considered this consistent with the Balfour Declaration's commitment to protect the rights of non-Jews, many Zionists saw it as a repudiation of the declaration.{{sfn|Lewis|2009|p=175}}{{sfn|Berman|1992|p=66}}{{efn|Principal protagonists' perspectives on the 1939 White Paper: The British, paragraph 6 of the White Paper: "His Majesty's Government adhere to this interpretation of the Declaration of 1917 and regard it as an authoritative and comprehensive description of the character of the Jewish National Home in Palestine."; The Zionists, Response Statement by the Jewish Agency: "The new policy for Palestine laid down by the Mandatory in the White paper now issued denies to the Jewish people the right to rebuild their national home in their ancestral country&nbsp;...";{{sfn|Laqueur|Schueftan|2016|p=49}} The Arabs, from the 1947 UNSCOP discussions: "Since the proposal did not measure up to the political demands proposed by Arab representatives during the [[London Conference (1939)|London Conference]] of early 1939, it was officially rejected by the representatives of Palestine Arab parties acting under the influence of [[Haj Amin Husseini|Haj Amin Eff el Husseini]]. More moderate Arab opinion represented in the National Defence Party was prepared to accept the White Paper."{{sfn|UNSCOP|1947|p=II, Art. 110}}}} Although this policy lasted until the British surrendered the Mandate in 1948, it served only to highlight the fundamental difficulty for Britain in carrying out the Mandate obligations.{{sfn|UNSCOP|1947}}

Britain's involvement in this became one of the most controversial parts of its Empire's history and damaged its reputation in the Middle East for generations.{{efn|group=lower-roman|name=Rose2|Norman Rose noted: "... for the British the Balfour Declaration inaugurated one of the most controversial episodes in their imperial history. Undone by the complexities of wartime diplomacy, unable to bridge the gap with either of the interested parties, the Declaration impaired their relations with both Palestinian Arabs and Zionists. And no less, it stained Britain's reputation throughout the Arab Middle East for generations to come."{{sfn|Rose|2010|p=18}}}} According to historian [[Elizabeth Monroe (historian)|Elizabeth Monroe]]: "measured by British interests alone, [the declaration was] one of the greatest mistakes in [its] imperial history."{{sfn|Monroe|1981|p=43}} The 2010 study by [[Jonathan Schneer]], specialist in modern British history at [[Georgia Institute of Technology|Georgia Tech]], concluded that because the build-up to the declaration was characterized by "contradictions, deceptions, misinterpretations, and wishful thinking", the declaration sowed [[Dragon's teeth (mythology)|dragon's teeth]] and "produced a murderous harvest, and we go on harvesting even today".{{efn|group=lower-roman|Schneer's conclusion, stated twice in his work, was that: "Because it was unpredictable and characterized by contradictions, deceptions, misinterpretations, and wishful thinking, the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration sowed [[Dragon's teeth (mythology)|dragon's teeth]]. It produced a murderous harvest, and we go on harvesting even today".{{sfn|Schneer|2010|pp=370, 376}}}} The foundational stone for modern Israel had been laid, but the prediction that this would lay the groundwork for harmonious Arab-Jewish cooperation proved to be wishful thinking.{{sfn|Schneer|2010|p=361}}{{efn|group = lower-roman|The implementation of the declaration fed a disenchantment among the Arabs that alienated them from the British administrators in Mandatory Palestine.{{sfn|Watts|2008|p=190a}} Palestinian historian [[Rashid Khalidi]] has argued that following the Balfour Declaration there ensued "what amounts to a hundred years of war against the Palestinian people".<ref>{{cite news|last=Black|first=Ian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/on-the-middle-east/2015/dec/30/middle-east-still-rocking-from-first-world-war-pacts-made-100-years-ago|title=Middle East still rocking from first world war pacts made 100 years ago|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|date=30 December 2015|access-date=8 October 2017}}</ref>}}

On the bicentenary of its foundation, the British newspaper ''[[The Guardian]]'', reflecting on its major errors of judgment, included the support the paper's editor, [[C. P. Scott]], gave to Balfour's declaration. Israel had not become, it said, 'the country the Guardian foresaw or would have wanted.'<ref>Randeep Ramesh, [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/07/guardian-200-what-we-got-wrong-the-guardians-worst-errors-of-judgment-over-200-years 'What we got wrong: the Guardian's worst errors of judgment over 200 years,'] [[The Guardian]] 7 May 2021.</ref> The [[Board of Deputies of British Jews]] through its president [[Marie van der Zyl]] denounced the column as 'breathtakingly ill-considered', declaring that the Guardian appeared "to do everything it can to undermine the legitimacy of the world's only Jewish state".<ref>[https://www.timesofisrael.com/guardian-backing-balfour-declaration-among-papers-worst-errors-of-judgment/ 'The Guardian: Backing Balfour Declaration among our 'worst errors of judgment','] [[Times of Israel]]  8 May 2021</ref>