Annoying, but worth listening to
On Tuesday, almost 97 years after the British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour wrote a 130-word letter to Baron Rothschild stating that Britain would facilitate the creation of a Jewish national home in the land of Israel, the House of Commons voted to endorse the establishment of "Palestine" on that very strip of land.
The 1917 Balfour Declaration was a culmination of a protracted diplomatic campaign. When Balfour asked Dr. Chaim Weizmann whether Jewish sovereignty could be established somewhere else, the Zionist leader retorted, "Supposing I were to offer you Paris instead of London, would you take it-" to which Balfour responded, "But Dr. Weizmann, we have London." "That is true," Weizmann persisted, "but we had Jerusalem when London was a marsh."
The Balfour Declaration was initially met with ambivalence. Only later did it get the recognition it deserved, having become the basis for the Zionists' claim on the land; it is this declaration that created the notion that the Jews were entitled to a state in the land of Israel, as per the Law of Nations (a term Herzl often used).
We shouldn't fret too much about resolutions that call for the establishment of "Palestine." Despite the vote on Tuesday, which was elaborated on by British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould in his interview on Army Radio, what matters is how this effects day-to-day foreign policy.
The bad blood between Israel and the U.K. dates back to the pre-state era. Score-settling has been part and parcel of our relations ever since the British Mandate for Palestine was announced. But the importance of Britain in the eyes of Jews has never been discounted, even when Zionist leader (and future Prime Minister) David Ben-Gurion made a historic decision to focus the Zionist Movement's diplomatic heavy lifting on the U.S. rather than on London. Even the Jewish underground movements that fought to end Britain's rule did so while admiring its greatness. Irgun leader Menachem Begin, another future prime minister, was among those admirers.
That Britain is a force to be reckoned with is an established fact. Unlike some unimportant Latin American countries, it does not seek to bully Israel. And despite the similarities on the question of Palestine, it should not be compared to Sweden, who has only moderate influence on European policy. Britain is on a league of its own. That is why whenever Westminster makes a controversial move, however small, this generates concern among Israeli policymakers. The pointless resolution was sponsored by Labour, which has been historically more anti-Israeli than the Conservatives. Prime Minister David Cameron, the leader of the Conservatives, did not cast a vote and his office said he was not in favor of the resolution. This de-facto rejection offsets the overwhelming support for the resolution in Parliament.
Israel should keep calm and carry on. It should not attribute this resolution to the rising numbers of Muslims in the kingdom (although this claim is not unwarranted). Israel should not speak ill of the world's first parliament. The U.K. has been a good friend, and the benefits of the bilateral relations are undeniable, despite occasional disagreements.
Israel should make sure its response is polite, in British terms. Rather than just making its case, it should listen to the sound of the Big Ben, which can often serve as a harbinger of a historical shift. Only the merits of the resolution should be rejected, not Britain itself. As we celebrate Sukkot this week, we would be well advised to revisit Weizmann's memoirs. Weizmann, who became Israel's first president, understood Britain more than any other Zionist leader (with the exception of Revisionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinksy).
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו