Opinion

Feeney on Friday: Is it any wonder there’s so much sympathy in Ireland for Palestinians?

The Balfour declaration sowed the seeds of what has become the most violent, bitter and enduring conflict of the last century

Brian Feeney

Brian Feeney

Historian and political commentator Brian Feeney has been a columnist with The Irish News for three decades. He is a former SDLP councillor in Belfast and co-author of the award-winning book Lost Lives

British politician Lord Arthur Balfour (1848-1930) points out a feature of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to Governor Sir Ronald Storrs during a visit to Jerusalem in 1925. The city's Arab residents were on strike as a protest against the Balfour Declaration supporting plans for a Jewish homeland in Palestine
British politician Lord Arthur Balfour (1848-1930) points out a feature of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to Governor Sir Ronald Storrs during a visit to Jerusalem in 1925. The city's Arab residents were on strike as a protest against the Balfour Declaration supporting plans for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Picture: Topical Press Agency/Hulton Archive/Getty Images (Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)

You might have learnt at school that the Treaty of Versailles ended World War I. It did settle the immediate peace terms between the US, Britain, France and Germany, but there were more than half a dozen other treaties and conferences dealing with the debris of the empires which collapsed in 1918.

Most complicated were the arrangements for the former lands of the Ottoman empire, initially allocated by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. That provoked a nationalist backlash in Turkey and disputes continued until the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

Meanwhile, even before the war ended, the British and French were busily implementing their secret Sykes-Picot agreement to divvy up the Arab lands of the empire.

British and French diplomats, Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot
British and French diplomats, Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot

When the British army defeated the Ottoman Turks in Palestine at the battle of Beersheba in October 1917, the British hastened to take control as per the agreement.

However, it wasn’t simply a matter of preventing the establishment of an independent Arab kingdom in the region, as the British and French had agreed in 1916. The British had a much more controversial plan up their sleeve which they had been contemplating since at least 1915.

Herbert Samuel, Postmaster-General, a prominent British Jew and fervent Zionist, had sent a memorandum to his cabinet colleagues entitled ‘The Future of Palestine’. He proposed Britain take control of Palestine to safeguard the Suez canal for passage to India and the Far East and, secondly, become the home for the Jewish people as Zionists advocated.

The British government mulled over the ramifications of his proposal for a couple of years. The Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, asked Sir Mark Sykes of the Sykes-Picot deal to negotiate with British Zionists in 1917 about the terms of a public declaration.

A map signed by Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot in May 1916 showing areas of control and influence in the Middle East agreed between the British and the French
A map signed by Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot in May 1916 showing areas of control and influence in the Middle East agreed between the British and the French

By autumn 1917, after many drafts, what became the Balfour Declaration supporting “a national home for the Jewish people” was published in November.

The British were intentionally vague so that it wouldn’t be a state and would not be Palestine, but “in Palestine”. Nevertheless, the damage was done.

There was widespread opposition in Britain and elsewhere, but nothing like the furious reaction from Arabs in Palestine where there were riots in Jerusalem.

Despite all opposition and predicted warnings the British pressed on, insisting what they called “the principles” of the Balfour Declaration be included in their League of Nations mandate terms in 1920. The declaration wilfully sowed the seeds of what has become the most violent, bitter and enduring conflict of the last century.

Why did they do it? Out of concern for the welfare of the Jewish people? No.

Sir Ronald Storrs, “the first military governor of Palestine since Pontius Pilate”, as he described himself, let the cat out of the bag. The aim was to set up a totally dependent settler colony, instead of stationing a garrison trying to rule a resistant Arab population.

The flag of Palestine flying outside Leinster House on Tuesday
The flag of Palestine flying outside Leinster House in Dublin (Niall Carson/PA)

As Storrs put it in his memoirs, Balfour decided to establish “a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism”. As well as opposing the natives, the Jewish settlers would provide pretext and support for British occupation. The British could claim they were, all together now, keeping both sides apart. Familiar?

Balfour had form. He knew whereof he spoke. In Ireland, as chief secretary, he was known as ‘Bloody’ Balfour having ordered the RIC to open fire on a land protest in 1887.

Samuel too, knew about Ireland having been Home Secretary in 1916 when he oversaw the internment of those suspected of involvement in the Rising and signed off Casement’s execution.



In 1920, incredibly, Britain appointed Samuel the first High Commissioner of the Palestine mandate. He faced intense disturbances from the inhabitants. He knew what to do.

In 1921 he declared a state of emergency and called in airstrikes on Palestinian rioters. The Colonial Secretary Churchill sent a “picked force of white gendarmerie”. Who were they? Henry Tudor, commander of the Auxiliaries in Ireland, assured Churchill that up to 800 “absolutely reliable men” could be made available: Black and Tans and Auxiliaries redundant after Ireland’s War of Independence.

Is it any wonder there’s so much sympathy in Ireland for the Palestinians the Israelis are massacring today?