Talk:Balfour Declaration

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Clarifying the Balfour Treaty

Wherever the Balfour Treaty/Declaration is ment"The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" inioned in Wikipedia, the brief description following always just says something like: Palestine". This, however, is only part of the declaration and is taken out of context, as there was a condition which always seems overlooked but which is critical for a cursory understanding of the declaraition. This is that "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". I believe all brief descriptions of the Balfour Declaration should link the intent and condition together e.g. "The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people whilst not prejudicing the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". This would ensure those reading the brief description are not mislead. 193.17.86.196 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Please read the whole article. This is made very clear throughout. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 19 July 2025

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

Ubu-cocu (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I would find very illuminating to add a passage on the 1919 Balfour memorandum addressed to Lord Cuzon in august.

The main excerpts can be found here: https://www.un.org/unispal/history2/origins-and-evolution-of-the-palestine-problem/part-i-1917-1947/

With footnote 53 as the source.

I would place it in chapter : Evolution of British opinion

“The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation’ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American Commission has been going through the form of asking what they are.

“The four Great Powers are committed to zionism. And zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.

“In my opinion that is right. What I have never been able to understand is how it can be harmonized with the (Anglo-French) declaration of November 1918, the Covenant, or the instructions to the Commission of Enquiry.

“I do not think that zionism will hurt the Arabs, but they will never say they want it. Whatever be the future of Palestine, it is not now an ‘independent nation’, nor is it yet on the way to become one. Whatever deference should be paid to the view of those living there, the Powers in their selection of a mandatory do not propose, as I understand the matter, to consult them. In short, so far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate;…”

Is it possible ?

Hmm. Seems to me like use of a primary source. -- JMC (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

It is already there in footnote ak. This quote is well known – it has always stood out to me as encapsulating how conflicts are often started by ignorance rather than malice. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Already done since it was included in the footnotes — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 20:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2026

The last sentence of paragraph three under Long-term impacts has two spelling mistakes, emergance should be emergence and approache should be approach, if someone with the correct permissions could fix this. Thank you, have a nice day. Composaurus (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for identifying this. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Replacing Zionist reaction newspaper

I am having trouble adding this file

First issue of the official Zionist magazine The Maccabaean after the Balfour Declaration

in place of the current Times article. Can anyone do it? I think this page will look better and be more informative if it displayed the front page of the magazine instead of just the declaration but in a newspaper unaffiliated with Zionism. بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Maccabaean,_first_issue_after_the_Balfour_Declaration_(1_December_1917).pdf بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Change Language to reflect current Language Standards

In the Note AF

People of Muslim faith are referred to as MUSLEMS. This is an outdated word and considered offensive by some.

Can this be changed?

Thank you

jGb Jbaca59 (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

No, it can't be changed because it is in a direct quotation. Zero^talk 06:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

French and Italian approval

To editor Sperxios: The approval of the French and Italian governments for the establishment of a Jewish entity in Palestine is a fact. The given source is indirect but there are plenty of other sources. I will add the source Edy Kaufman (1979). "The French Pro-Zionist Declarations of 1917-1918". Middle Eastern Studies. 15 (3): 374–407. which also mentions the Italians, but I'll remove the precise dates as they are a bit fuzzy. Each declaration involved an official letter to Nahum Sokolow (see volume 2 of his "History of Zionism" for transcripts) that was published in the press. See here for the French announcement and here for an Italian announcement (maybe not the only one). Zero^talk 04:53, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Who are "Shuckburgh" and "Cavendish"?

In this excellent Featured Article, I notice two surnames that appear without any apparent earlier mention in the article and wonder if they are of wikilinked people, in which case there should be a link.

The "Drafting" section ends:

Huneidi wrote that William Ormsby-Gore, in a report he prepared for Shuckburgh, claimed authorship, together with [Leo] Amery, of the final draft form.

In "Reaction" section, subsection "British opinion", is this sentence, with a block quote following. I have omitted the quote with ellipses but kept in the citation at its end in case it helps:

In February 1923, following the change in government, Cavendish, in a lengthy memorandum for the Cabinet, laid the foundation for a secret review of Palestine policy:...

Is Cavendish by any chance one of the Duke of Devonshire's family?Cloptonson (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Shuckborough was John Evelyn Shuckburgh, head of the Middle East Department at the Colonial Office. Cavendish was Victor Cavendish, 9th Duke of Devonshire, the Colonial Secretary in 1923. I spotted Huneidi also, she is Sahar Huneidi, a historian. I've edited the article accordingly. Thanks for spotting these, I hate the practice of throwing unexplained surnames into articles. DuncanHill (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. As Victor Cavendish didn't become Duke of Devonshire until his father's death in 1938, would it not be correct to refer to him under the courtesy title Marquess of Hartington?Cloptonson (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Victor was the duke who died in 1938! He had been duke since his uncle's death in 1908. DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I stand corrected. I had forgotten the fact he was in the cabinet at that point despite no longer being a member of the House of Commons. I had been thinking of the 10th Duke (an alleged victim of serial killer Dr John Bodkin Adams), the latter's son.Cloptonson (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

References