Skip to main content

The Balfour Declaration

has been on my mind lately, a foundational document for the State of Israel, maybe the foundational document. With the little I know about the workings of the British civil service and Government, the account in Haaretz of the document seems about right: its main purpose was to bring the US into the First World War. More broadly, other commentators have described the purpose of the Balfour declaration as being about securing British interests in the middle east.

Which is not to say that the Balfour Declaration didn't intend the establishment of a Jewish homeland, or that the injustice visited on the Palestinian people was intended.

But it isn't difficult to see that injustice against the resident population was the more or less inevitable result of the endorsement in the letter, and so in historical terms, Britain can be seen as a key actor in the genesis of lasting geopolitical damage through the pursuit of its interests.

Balfour is credited with saying that 'nothing matters very much', but this is clearly not the case. The Balfour Declaration is short - 67 words - written with customary precision with no detail but possibly with a latent clarity of purpose, as if the details were something for someone else to deal with. And as we know it was the people who saw the possibilities of how the detail might work out who took up the running, who were able to shape events leading up to the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 in the face of declining British power in the region.

Zionism was/is rooted in nineteenth-century nationalist struggles, and sought to reclaim Judaism from those who wanted to see it as simply a religion. One way of looking at recent history, not necessarily the best way, is to look at the three great Abrahamic religions and the extent to which they have tried to combine territorial and spiritual claims.

one book

one video


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Brexit

Brexit no deal panic feels much like the Y2K bug - more induced than real. I wish with all my heart that the UK wasn't undertaking this act of national humiliation in the name of an imagined past. But today I said to myself 'there are bigger prizes than stopping Brexit'. The Guardian and the Observer came out yesterday in favour of a binary referendum (Chequers or stay in). Even if this was an acceptable scheme for a ballot, which it isn't, it's far too late in the day to be possible to hold a meaningful referendum. The Guardian posts up a picture of Saddiq Kahn, which means this is, as ever, part of the proxy war against Corbyn.

The work of art ...

From the introduction: Theses defining the developmental tendencies of art can therefore contribute to the political struggle in ways that it would be a mistake to underestimate. They neutralize a number of traditional concepts-such as creativity and genius, eternal value and mystery-which, used in an uncontrolled way (and controlling them is difficult today), allow factual material to be manipulated in the interests of fascism. In what follows, the concepts which are introduced into the theory of art differ from those now current in that they are completely useless for the purposes of fascism. On the other hand, they are useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art. (Walter Benjamin) Art is the most deep seated response

The work of art...

In the end, Walter Benjamin's Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction  relies on a series of oppositions that one may simply agree with or disagree with. The critical ideas are introduced early, and so that the rest of the essay is built around them: authority, authenticity, aura. ' The authenticity of a thing' Benjamin writes, 'is the quintessence of all that is transmissible in it'. This is connoisseurship, and of course in Benjamin, it meets Brecht's Marxism.