The 2nd Finnish Colloquium
of Middle East and North Africa Studies
Tampere Hall, Tampere, Finland, 24-25
August 2012
Apologies and World Politics:
The case for a UK apology to the
Palestinian People on the Balfour Declaration
A keynote address by:
Professor George Jabbour
President, UN Association, Syria
The Balfour Declaration
"His Majesty's Government view
with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of
this object. It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may
prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish
communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by
Jews in any other country". (Emphasis
added).
I—A summary of the basic thesis: An apology for the
Balfour Declaration
It is the contention of the
present writer that an apology from the UK government to the Palestinian People
based on the disrespect of their human rights shown by the Balfour Declaration
will contribute to overall peace in the ME and in particular to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict. A moral upper-hand Palestinian position will
be a balancing act to the factual upper-hand Israeli position.
It is also the contention of this
paper that the sooner this apology is offered the better. The 2nd of
November 2012 is a timely date, especially because 90 years ago, in 1922, the League
of Nations approved the Mandate over Palestine. However, if the circumstances
do not warrant such optimism—and it warrants it—it becomes the duty of all
concerned to make the demand a rallying cry to try to achieve this objective by
a date not later than 2017, the centennial anniversary of the Balfour
Declaration.
Towards achieving its announced
objective, this paper will, I hope, further your interest in the history of the
Palestinian tragedy, and will sharpen the world’s efforts to implement the UN
resolutions concerning the rights of the Palestinian people.
II – Apologies in World Politics: 14 points
In my files is a list of some 40
propositions regarding apology. They need to be thoroughly looked at. Here I
present 13 propositions that I thought are the most essential, while reserving
the 14th point for a proposal. Also, for the purpose of this paper,
I will not differentiate among apology and its neighboring synonyms such as
excuse, sorrow, regret, repentance, self-criticism, purification of conscience,
and so forth. For the purpose of this paper, apology is an overall expression
that refers to all aspects of retraction, irrespective of the addressee or
other circumstances.
Again, each case of apology is
unique. While generalizations are at times useful – and the propositions
here pretend to be-- their usefulness is not absolute. Case histories of
individual apologies are very instructive in this domain.
1 – It is axiomatic that
apologies contribute to the lessening of tension in world politics. Thus they
are becoming more fashionable. Though my intention is not to trace the history
of apologies and their contemporary range, it is noticeable that the “quantity”
of apologies offered are those made by the late Pope, and by Germany and Japan.
Noticeable also is the quantity offered to the Jews and Israel regarding not
only the Holocaust, but also regarding the way Christians looked to the Jews
and Judaism throughout the centuries.
2. Apologies have been imposed,
especially in modern history, on an aggressive state that was vanquished in
war. This is the case of the Axis powers subsequent to WWII.
3. Apologies are also offered at
times by states and by non-state bodies out of a moral feeling of guilt,
irrespective of whether they are made from a position of factual strength or
weakness. The desire to purify the soul is an important aspect of the Pope’s
apologies, and in some cases regarding the indigenous people of the New World.
4. Apologies vary in their
wordings. There are categorical apologies, such as those offered by Germany and
Japan. There are also vague apologies that are closer to expressions of sorrow,
clarification, or explanation.
5. Depending on a particular situation,
an apology is considered as such by a certain party. At the same time a
considered apology by a first party would not be considered as such by the
second party. A classic example is Mr. De KlerK's regarding Apartheid. The Afrikaners considered
what he said at that time to be a factual statement. On the other hand, the non-white
South Africans considered that same statement as a clear apology and they were
satisfied by it.
6. Apologies vary in the way they
are reached. The best apologies are those that are negotiated by the two
parties: the party which is offering the apology and the party to which the
apology is offered. In case of an un-negotiated apology, there is a risk that
the apology will not be accepted.
7. Apologies pre-suppose that a
wrongful act was committed in the past. This wrongful act may be judged by the
criterion of its permissibility at some earlier stage in history. Present state
boundaries are the result of past armed victories and occupation. Past military
victories and the subsequent land occupation are usually considered normal
before the advent of international law and international organizations. However
there are past wrongful acts that are not judged by past moral criteria but by
present day moral criteria. Colonialism, slavery and various acts of racism are
examples of such wrongful acts that are not tolerated according to present-day
moral standards, especially when their repercussions are still being felt.
8. The distinction between a past
wrongful act that warrants asking for an apology and a similar act that does
not warrant asking for an apology is a delicate one. An effect of a past
wrongful act that continues to disrupt local, regional or international peace
and security is an act that warrants asking for an apology. A neglected past
wrongful act, if its consequences re-emerge with vitality, subsequent to various
factors, could be considered in a manner that warrants asking for an apology. A
strong example of this case is St. Paul’s commandment that the bride obeys her
husband. Glory to the late Pope because
he appears to have challenged this commandment. Also, a certain understanding
of a verse in the Acts of the Apostles regarding preaching in Asia, the logical
consequence of which is to regard Europe as more akin to Christianity than
Asia, warrants asking for an apology. I am proud that I raised a demand for an
apology on this in various forums, including within a special group established
by the UNHR Council.
9. What does apology entail? Is
it a moral pronouncement with no practical effects? “No crime without
punishment” is a valid legal dictum. The punishment is not necessarily
physical. It can be an economic compensation. The Italian apology to Libya is a
case in point. Many parties who are asked to offer apologies abstain from doing
so on account that they are not willing to pay. In my opinion: it is useful
not to tie apology to compensation.
10. Wide dissemination of
apologies is required, so that its effects could be largely felt. It is not
fair for a person to privately apologize to another person after he had
publically insulted him. How wide should that dissemination be? Let me draw on
a personal experience. In the International Herald Tribune, spring 2002, I read
about an apology offered by Belgium to the Congolese. In the summer of 2005 I
was in Belgium as a member of the People of African Descent’s Expert Group,
established by the UNHR Council. I asked our hosts about the 2002 apology.
Their answers left me with the impression that most of them were ignorant of
it.
11. Tied to the question of wide
dissemination is the underlying intention of the party offering apology. Is
there real sincerity in the apology? An apology lacking in sincerity does not usually
enjoy wide dissemination. Even if it is widely disseminated by its recipients,
the absence of a reaction from the other side detracts from its value. Wide
dissemination coupled with repetition is a proof of sincerity.
12. Apologies may result in two
contradictory outcomes. Either an apology will result in a final settlement
of a wrongful act, or it will result in maximizing the demands for further
apologetic steps coupled with all sorts of compensations. The circumstances
determine which path the apology will take.
13. Some apologies are made by
all to all. Such apologies can be very humanistic in their intention and
nature. They can also aim at obliterating the identity of the wrong-doers. UN resolutions
on the Holocaust do not refer to the Germans or to Christianity. An impression
is created the effect of which is to consider that all humanity is responsible
and should apologize. Also in Hiroshima there is a very controversial wording
on a statue commemorating the first atomic bomb that was dropped. Inscribed
are the following words: “Let us not repeat this crime.” This wording is more
fitting to be advertized in the White House, not in Hiroshima. Let us
notice that the grandson of President Truman was present in Hiroshima on 6
August 2012. This is a progressive step after the one that was taken few years
ago when the American Ambassador in Tokyo participated in the annual
commemoration with his colleagues. I had my efforts in this regard starting
from 1990, and I am proud of them. Hence, history is very much present in some
apologies. But history is very much distorted in others.
14. I would like to conclude these
propositions with a proposal that you may like to discuss here. It is useful to
deepen our dealings with apologies. It is useful to convene meetings. It is
useful to establish an association. But what is your reaction to the UN setting
up, perhaps within the framework of the HR Council, an independent expert
group on apologies that may have the authority to investigate claims and to
evaluate the seriousness of the demands?
III—The case for a UK apology to the Palestinian
people on the Balfour Declaration.
1. Judging the Balfour Declaration by today’s moral standards:
At an academic conference a few
years ago, I asked a British professor of ME studies who teaches at a
respectable British university if he recalled the wording of the Balfour
Declaration. He acknowledged ignorance. I believe the Declaration has to be read
anew bay all of us, especially by those working for peace. In the Declaration
there are three immoral and abhorrent formulations that contradict present-day
moral standards.
a. The place is Palestine. According to the Belford Declaration,
the 95% of its inhabitants are not Palestinians, but non-Jewish communities.
Those non-Jewish communities have been recognized, since the first half of the
1970s as the Palestinian People who deserve a state.
b. The non-Jewish communities, identified by what they are not, do
not have political rights. They are entitled only to religious and civil
rights. The UN Human Rights Covenants, presently in force, dismiss the Balfour
Declaration as being against basic human rights.
c. Why should there be a homeland in Palestine for the Jewish
people? The Balfour Declaration is silent on that. It does not specify whether
the Jewish homeland is predicated on historical or religious grounds. The
Mandate privileges history. But history shows 1400 years of Arab-Palestinian
occupancy. Religion is never mentioned neither in the Declaration nor in the
Mandate. But it is clear that it was a religious belief that was present in the
minds of the framers of the Declaration and the Mandate. The same religious
belief was the basis of the Declaration as the Palestinian understood it. What
this meant in terms of freedom of religion is an imposition of religious Jewish
beliefs on the Palestinians, Muslims and Christians. This Balfourian
imposition of a Jewish religious belief on the Palestinians, the Arabs and the
Muslims poisoned the whole political landscape of the ME and continues to do
so.
d. Last but not least. The idea on which Mandates were predicated
is that the mandatory power will help the local population achieve a degree of
civility to run their country. Contrary to this idea, the Balfour Declaration
was tailored for the benefit of imported population. It violates the raison
d'être of the Mandates system.
2. The
rationale for a UK apology
In addition to
the immorality of the Balfour Declaration from the standpoint of present-day
standards, which by itself justifies an apology, there are numerous other
elements that support the demand. I have chosen to single out only a few of
them.
a. The religious and civil rights of the Palestinians were guaranteed
by the Balfour Declaration and by the Mandate. Now, after 90 years of the
Mandate, nobody can claim that these rights were not “prejudiced”—to use the
term inscribed in the Declaration and the Mandate.
b. Israel stands in overall violation of many UN resolutions on the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Its bad faith regarding the Palestinians is so
evident that it needs not to be reiterated. Some colonial states are racist by
nature (see: G. Jabbour: "Settler Colonialism in South Africa and the
Middle East, University of Khartoum, 1970).While some thinkers, such as
Rabbi Henry Seigmann, hold that Zionism is not racism, in reference to UNGA
resolution 3379, yet they confess that “Zionists are racists”. Israel’s record
justifies asking the UK for an apology because it was the original sponsor of
an enterprise lacking the essentials to be fair.
c. Because Zionism is widely looked at as a very lofty ideal, and
because the founding of Israel is widely described as miraculous, as if it is
“God-ordained”, this gives Israel, as a state subject to international law, an
added moral advantage vis-à-vis the Palestinians. This state of moral
superiority enjoyed by Israel in the Western culture and in countries
influenced by that culture, should be morally balanced by a clear avowal by the
UK and the West generally, that the Palestinians were utterly unconsidered at
that time. Hence an apology will be quite in order on moral grounds. Added to
this is Israel's factual strength on the ground, and its tendency to become
more religiously exclusive. A balancing act will enhance the possibility of
peace between Palestine and Israel. This balancing act can take, among other
possible or additional, alternatives, the shape of an apology. It is my
considered view that a UK apology offered to the Palestinian people will help
reconciliation.
IV- The Record:
The Balfour Declaration was abhorred by the
Palestinians, the great majority of the Arabs, and also by some moral international
authorities such as the Vatican. The revocation of the Declaration was a
constant Palestinian and Arab demand. Protests were numerous. One of the
brightest moments in the anti-Balfour Declaration struggle was that shown by
Damascus in April 1925, when Lord Balfour was forced out of the city when he
visited it coming from the opening of the Hebrew University. All to no avail.
The Mandate Commission of the League of Nations was at times quite outspoken
about the immorality of the Declaration and its inapplicability. Yet nothing
serious took place to right a wrong. So here we stand. There is a factually
strong Israel. Revocation is impossible. An apology may contribute to the
healing of wounds. The history of ideas is an interesting field, though at
times, it may be elusive. In my version of the history of apology I present
these demarcations:
1.
March 2000, Rome:
The late Pope offered his famous and numerous apologies from St. Peter's
Cathedral. He clearly referred to the Crusaders' wars. He expressed regrets
regarding certain aspects of their behavior. It was not an apology. It was an
explanation bordering on apology, close to what I demanded in my letter to his
Holiness on 29 July 1992. On 11 March 2000 I received tens of communications
facilitating me on the partial Papal
reply. I felt encouraged to go further: to Palestine.
2.
Human Rights Day, 2000,
Damascus: An effort was made, supported by a friend, Dr.Souhail Malazi, to
establish an "Arab Anti-Racism Association". The main concern was to
advocate the cause of the Palestinians in preparation for the upcoming Durban
Conference. The effort failed; the Regional Command of the ruling party did not
approve it for reasons unknown. It was a
set-back. But the general public reception, then, was very positive.
3.
February 2001, Amman:
The Arab NGOs regional meeting was held in preparation for Durban. The echoes of
the African demand for an apology resulted in parallel Arab demands.
4.
August-September 2001,
Durban: The conference was dominated by the African-European Foreign
Ministers' meetings on apology. The rumor as I heard it, there and then, was
that the Belgian Foreign Minister was the closest, among his European
colleagues, to the African viewpoint. But no apology was forthcoming.
5.
March 2002, Geneva:
During the HR committee meeting I gave five minutes talk on racism representing
the Arab Human Rights Organization. I talked about the 100th
anniversary of the passing away of Cecil Rhodes, whom Theodore Hertzel
considered his guru. Ambassador Tawfik Salloum of Syria and I discussed over
dinner at the embassy house what should be done regarding the 100th
anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. Agreed: something need be done.
6.
May 2002, Brussels: According
to an article in the International Herald Tribune, the Belgian government
offered its apologies to the Congolese people.
7.
October-November 2002,
Damascus and London: The Baath newspaper (3 October 2002) published an open
letter to the UK PM asking him to imitate the Belgian government by offering an
apology to the Palestinian people. On 16 November 2002, The New Statesman
published an interview with Mr. Straw, the UK FM, in which he said that the
Balfour Declaration was not "very honorable". Perhaps the
UK ambassador to Damascus played an active role in this respect. He conveyed to me his praise of the letter
published by the Baath newspaper .
8. December 2006, Doha, Qatar: During the biannual session
of the Nationalist-Islamist Conference, I presented a proposal that met with
approval. The essence of it was to advocate, during the tenth decade of the
Balfour Declaration, the idea of an apology. I was charged with implementation.
Some modest steps have since been accomplished:
a-
The League of Arab States started, beginning in 2007, to issue an annual
statement on the 2nd of November day.
b-
The Conference of Arab Parties adopted in 2009 the idea. It sent a
letter to that effect addressed to the House of Commons. It also published the
fifth edition of my book on the Balfour Declaration.
c-
Certain Arab TV channels have also shown interest in the idea, including
Al-Jazeera, as well as various Palestinian, Syrian, and Arab TV channels. Also,
the idea is rather well-regarded by the press and other cultural media.
d-
Damascus University has recently established an academic follow-up
committee on the occasion of the 90th year anniversary of the UK
Mandate over Palestine.
V: How to Proceed:
Almost ten years have
passed since I openly addressed a letter to the UK PM asking for an apology and
since Mr. Straw, the UK FM at the time, pronounced a few critical words on the
Balfour Declaration in what appears to be a reply to my letter. Since then, the
idea has been gaining more positive reactions, especially because it is widely
believed that the Palestinian-Israeli stalemate should not be left to
degenerate into something worse.
But while the
idea is gaining strength on its own, it will be more useful to try to establish
an organizational framework that will carry it further. I believe that regional
organizations interested in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict should carry the
idea even further. Three such regional organizations come to my mind as I am
writing: the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation,
and the EU. Political organizations apart, it is the NGOs working in the field
of human rights that should carry the flag.
Damascus, 15 August, 2012. George
Jabbour
