Deklarasi Balfour: Perbedaan antara revisi

Klausa pengaman pertama Deklarasi Balfour mengatur perlindungan terhadap [[hak asasi manusia|hak-hak sipil dan keagamaan]] orang-orang bukan Yahudi di Palestina. Klausa ini disusun bersama-sama dengan klausa pengaman kedua oleh Leo Amery sambil berkonsultasi dengan Lord Milner, dengan maksud untuk "sebijak mungkin menenangkan pihak-pihak penentang, baik orang Yahudi maupun pihak pro-Arab, tanpa mencederai substansi dari deklarasi yang diikhtiarkan tersebut".{{sfn|Lieshout|2016|p=221}}{{efn|group=qt|Amery meriwayatkan saat-saat tersebut dalam memoarnya sebagai berikut: "Setengah jam sebelum pertemuan dilangsungkan, Milner melongok dari bilik kerjanya di gedung kabinet, tepat di sebelah bilik kerja saya, lalu menyampaikan kepada saya kesulitan-kesulitan, dan menunjukkan satu dua usulan draf alternatif, yang tak satu pun memuaskan hatinya. Dapatkah saya menyusun sebuah draf yang dapat sebijak mungkin menenangkan para penentang, baik orang Yahudi maupun pihak pro-Arab, tanpa mencederai substansi dari deklarasi yang diikhtiarkan tersebut?"{{sfn|Amery|1953|p=116}}}}

 

 

Balfour stated in February 1919 that Palestine was considered an exceptional case in which, referring to the local population, "we deliberately and rightly decline to accept the principle of [[self-determination]],"{{efn|group=qt|19 February 1919, Balfour wrote to Lloyd George that: "The weak point of our position of course is that in the case of Palestine we deliberately and rightly decline to accept the principle of self-determination. If the present inhabitants were consulted they would unquestionably give an anti-Jewish verdict. Our justification for our policy is that we regard Palestine as being absolutely exceptional; that we consider the question of the Jews outside Palestine as one of world importance, and that we conceive the Jews to have an historic claim to a home in their ancient land; provided that home can be given them without either dispossessing or oppressing the present inhabitants."{{sfn|Friedman|1973|p=325|ps=: Friedman quoted F.O. 371/4179/2117, Balfour to the Prime Minister, 19&nbsp;February 1919}}}} although he considered that the policy provided self-determination to Jews.{{sfn|Balfour|1928|pp=14, 25}} Avi Shlaim considers this the declaration's "greatest contradiction".{{sfn|Shlaim|2005|pp=251–270}} This principle of self-determination had been declared on numerous occasions subsequent to the declaration{{snd}}President Wilson's January 1918 [[Fourteen Points]], McMahon's Declaration to the Seven in June 1918, the November 1918 [[Anglo-French Declaration]], and the June 1919 [[Covenant of the League of Nations]] that had established the [[League of Nations mandate|mandate system]].{{efn|group=qt|Wilson's January 1918 [[Fourteen Points]] stated a requirement for "free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the population concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined",{{sfn|Haiduc-Dale|2013|p=40}} McMahon's June 1918 [[Declaration to the Seven]] stated that "the future government of these regions should be based upon the principle of the [[consent of the governed]]",{{sfn|Khouri|1985|p=527}} the November 1918 [[Anglo-French Declaration]] stated that the local "national governments and administrations [will derive] their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations,"<ref name="Khouri" /> and the June 1919 [[Covenant of the League of Nations]] stated that "the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of a Mandatory" and described a "sacred trust", which was later interpreted in 1971 by the [[International Court of Justice]] that "the ultimate objective of the sacred trust was the self-determination and independence of the peoples concerned".{{sfn|Dugard|2013|p=294}}}} In an August 1919 memo Balfour acknowledged the inconsistency among these statements, and further explained that the British had no intention of consulting the existing population of Palestine.{{efn|group=qt|name=Balfour1919q|In an August 1919 memo discussing the [[Covenant of the League of Nations]], Balfour explained: "What I have never been able to understand is how [our policy] can be harmonised with the [Anglo-French] declaration, the Covenant, or the instructions to the Commission of Enquiry... 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,"{{sfn|Lewis|2009|p=163}}{{sfn|Lieshout|2016|p=405}} and further that: "The contradiction between the letter 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 [[King–Crane Commission|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."{{sfn|Lewis|2009|p=163}}<ref name="Balfour1919">[https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/60431057?access_key=key-136ulpy32ssl2l27p8nb Memorandum by Mr. Balfour (Paris) respecting Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia], 132187/2117/44A, August 11, 1919</ref>}} The results of the ongoing American [[King–Crane Commission|King–Crane Commission of Enquiry consultation]] of the local population – from which the British had withdrawn – were suppressed for three years until the report was leaked in 1922.{{sfn|Gelvin|1999|pp=13–29}} Subsequent British governments have acknowledged this deficiency, in particular the 1939 committee led by the [[Lord Chancellor]], [[Frederic Maugham, 1st Viscount Maugham|Frederic Maugham]], which concluded that the government had not been "free to dispose of Palestine without regard for the wishes and interests of the inhabitants of Palestine",{{sfn|Khouri|1985|p=9}} and the April 2017 statement by British Foreign Office minister of state [[Joyce Anelay, Baroness Anelay of St Johns|Baroness Anelay]] that the government acknowledged that "the Declaration should have called for the protection of political rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine, particularly their right to self-determination."{{efn|group=qt|This statement was first made during a debate regarding the upcoming [[centennial|centenary]] of the Declaration;<ref name="HL2017">[[Hansard]], [https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2017-04-03/debates/632A5268-21B5-4F91-884A-B339C52A0109/BalfourDeclaration Balfour Declaration]: 3&nbsp;April 2017, Volume&nbsp;782</ref> the Foreign Office subsequently repeated the statement in response to a petition on the [[UK Parliament petitions website]], which had called for an official apology for the Declaration.<ref>{{cite news |last=Dearden|first=Lizzie|date= 26 April 2017|title= UK refuses to apologise to Palestinians for Balfour Declaration and says it is 'proud of role in creating Israel'. |url= https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/palestinian-authority-uk-balfour-declaration-israel-sue-israel-zionism-refuse-apologise-lawsuit-a7702866.html|work= The Independent |access-date= 30 April 2017}}</ref>}}{{efn|group=qt|The [[United Nations Special Committee on Palestine]] acknowledged the same in 1947, noting that: "With regard to the principle of self-determination... it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the 'sui generis' Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."{{sfn|UNSCOP|1947|p=II, Art. 176}}}}-->