The Balfour Declaration and the Creation of the State of Israel: A Colonial Alliance

The ongoing genocide of Palestinians perpetrated by the state of Israel is best contextualized by the early 20th-century intersection of British colonial projects and Zionist aims. The Balfour Declaration served as Britain’s wartime commitment to establishing a Jewish homeland, later providing the framework for the partition of Palestine. These colonial origins continue to inform the structural characteristics of the Israeli state today. Today, Israel has occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, all of which lie outside of the UN-recognized borders. This continues an intentional plan to exterminate the Palestinian state, demonstrating how its history of colonial practices has continued to inform its policy. 

The Zionist ideology was fathered by Austro-Hungarian journalist and lawyer Theodor Herzl in response to the rampant antisemitism throughout Europe in the 19th century. The distinct European nature of Zionism—a European Jewish response to European antisemitism—frames much of the ideological and political moves made by the Zionist organization, a group founded by Herzl in 1897. Not only were the Zionists European, but they also thought of the whole of the Jewish community as a nation, highlighting not only their foreignness to the land of Palestine they would eventually settle on, but also the intent to create a whole new social, political, and territorial order within the region by implanting a “nation” onto an already existing society (Husan 1). The statement of intent released after the first Zionist Organization conference, “to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law”, revealed the nature of support the Zionists expected from the Western world, and the colonial characteristics of the group (United Nations 1980). In stating the desire for a “home secured by public law”, the Zionists imagined the support of one, if not several, European nations in the creation of the Jewish state. Herzl himself would state that these nations would offer support due to three main reasons: selfish imperialistic goals, ridding themselves of Jewish migration and thus antisemitism, and finally using a Jewish state to secure a presence in the Middle East (Husan 1). The relationship described by Herzl is a colonial one. A Western power supports a colony in a foreign region of interest through economic and political means while the “metropole” reaps benefits. Although perhaps the relationship is not in the standard colonial format, the Jewish state was marketed to these nations as such. Herzl’s framework proved prophetic; in 1917, these exact imperial and strategic motivations culminated in the British government’s support for Zionist aims via the Balfour Declaration.  

World War I irrevocably shaped the regional borders of the Middle East, largely due to the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 made between the French and the British. This agreement promised to carve out the Levant region with the supposed intention of creating independent Arab states in the wake of the fall of the Ottoman Empire (“A Century On: Why Arabs Resent Sykes-Picot”). Instead, it laid the groundwork for a mandate system that placed Lebanon, Syria, and southeastern Turkey under French control, and Iraq and Transjordan under British rule. Palestine was designated in this agreement as an “international zone” in which both the French and the British maintained some control. While both nations held deep imperial interests, Britain’s strategy was specifically driven by the necessity of securing a land bridge to India. By 1917, the year of the Balfour Declaration, Britain had started considering the Zionists as key to their wartime tactics, especially as their Russian Allies were exiting the conflict, and their American allies refused to enter it. The British held the antisemitic belief that the Zionists represented all of “Jewry” and believed that in offering support to the group, the Russian and American Jews abroad would join the war effort once more (Kedourie and Sykes 4). The alliance that the British found in the Zionist Organization was spurred on by their own imperialist ideals and wartime decisions. The possession of Palestine by the British was of utmost importance regarding the war, alongside maintaining a presence in the region, containing the French spheres of influence, and guaranteeing access to the Suez Canal (Al Tahhan). Palestine represented a political and economic advantage to the British, and their understanding of how the region would benefit them highlights how the creation of the Jewish state was a Western, colonial project contextualized by a war where territories were being split up and handed out as the Allied powers saw fit. It would be in this context that the British accepted the Jewish Homeland within Mandated Palestine, and in November 1917, in a letter from Arthur Balfour to the unofficial leader of the British Jewish Community Lord Rothschild, the following statement: 

His Majesty’s Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours 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. (United Nations 1980) 

This letter cemented the alliance between the British and the Zionist Organization, who continued to work together to codify the Declaration within the British Mandate of Palestine. Although there is a clear reference to the protection of the indigenous population, the British support of the Jewish settlement of Palestine still proved to be quite the colonial endeavor, and in the following years, it faced criticism on a global scale.  

This wartime promise between the British Crown and the Zionist Organization would not take effect until 1920, when Palestine was officially under British mandate, and the war was over. The legality of this decision is questionable in many respects. Under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the French and British decreed that their mandated territories would eventually achieve independence; Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan would become independent following World War II. Palestine, however, remained under British mandate and was treated as a colonial possession for the entirety of its time under British control (Husan 5). Between the Allies and the League of Nations, the Balfour Declaration was contested; in 1919, the Commission of the League of Nations would state in an assessment of the wishes of indigenous Palestinians regarding Jewish immigration, that “serious modification of the extreme Zionist programme for Palestine of unlimited immigration of Jews” was necessary (United Nations 1980). The League of Nations would not be alone in its doubts about the success of a Jewish state in Palestine. The question of the indigenous population was on its mind: How would the British be able to contain the fallout of transplanting a whole people into a region where hundreds of thousands had already lived and died for decades?  

In April 1920, the San Remo Conference was held by the Allied powers, and France officially ceded the previous international zone of Palestine to the British. The conference implemented the Balfour declaration into the Mandate of Palestine and recognized the Zionist Organization as the Jewish Agency, whose role was to establish the Jewish homeland by organizing settlement and immigration on the land purchased or stolen by the Agency (United Nations 1980). Following this conference, mass European Jewish immigration to Palestine was legalized, protected, and funded by the British and the Zionist Organization. The Balfour Declaration created an avenue for a colonial European power to offer inhabited land to its allies to further their wartime and expansionist goals. The Palestinians would see the incoming Jewish immigrants as a colonizing force, and this would in turn cement a Palestinian identity in the region as they collectively fought against the threat of Zionism.  

The colonial shift in Palestine in 1917 would set the tone for the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine and would bring about the violent occupation of land and the expulsion of Palestinians, known as the 1948 Nakba. The British mandate of Palestine, featuring a military and governmental presence within a colonial possession, limited Palestinian political growth and independence. With the addition of mass Jewish immigration and settlement, Palestinians were stripped of their legal personality and their land. The colonial presence of the British and the growing strength of the Jewish settlers served as a two-headed colonial entity. As the Jewish settlers and immigrants gained more land in Palestine, they began forming militias whose goal was to “protect from Arab attacks”. These Zionist militias, such as the Hagana, would serve as paramilitary operators supported by the British. As WWII dawned, the rise of antisemitism in Europe bolstered the Zionist movement and spurred right-wing tendencies within the Zionists, leading to a new sect of Zionism, led by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the Revisionist movement (Masalha 55). The Revisionists would lay the groundwork for much of today’s Israeli political rhetoric. They believed in a “Greater Israel” and believed that within the Balfour Declaration, the British had given them not just Palestine as a homeland, but Transjordan as well (Masalha 55). This belief in a Greater Israel promised by the British would lead the Revisionists and their militia, the Irgun, to view the British as betrayers and enemies. By the 1930s, tensions were incredibly high between the Zionists, the Palestinians, and the British. The Zionist goal had always been to have a state with a Jewish majority; to accomplish this, the Zionist militias would begin forcefully displacing Palestinians. In 1936, the conflict culminated in a full-scale revolt referred to as the Palestinian Uprising. This revolt, an overall response to the theft of land, displacement, and violence by the Zionist militias and dissatisfaction with the British governance, would last until 1939, until the Palestinian uprising was defeated (Qumsiyeh 78). However, the conflict between the Palestinians and the Zionists was too intense for the British to ignore, and in 1939, the British would put a stop to Jewish immigration to Palestine for five years. In 1947, the British, unable to mediate the conflict any longer, would put the question of Palestine to the UN. The British proposed two solutions: one being the creation of a Democratic secular state, the other a partition plan. In November of 1947, the UN voted yes on the partition plan, which gave 55% of the land to the 34% Jewish minority, and the remaining 45% of land to the 66% Palestinian majority. The adoption of the partition plan signaled the end of the British Mandate, effectively facilitating the birth of the Israeli state while leaving the Palestinian people with a fragmented territory and an unfulfilled promise of sovereignty. 

The British mandate officially ended in May of 1948, and the freshly independent Israel would waste no time in disregarding the UN partition plan. Using the Hagana, the Israeli forces would begin carving out the “borders “of their new state. Immediately after the UN partition plan, the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, known as the Nakba, began. The violent expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and lands would last until 1949, when the Israeli military had taken over 78% of the territory, leaving Palestinians with the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem (IEMU). The violation of the UN partition plan and the horrific exodus of Palestinians would be and is, the legacy of the Israeli State, and in the modern continuation of this conflict, the Israeli government continues to annex and occupy Palestinian land illegally.  

Palestine has been undeniably altered by the Balfour Declaration and its consequences. The declaration, made during WWI as the British fumbled for support, would irreversibly and legally allow for a Jewish homeland to exist in Palestine. The disregard for the Palestinians who live and have lived in the region for decades would ultimately lead to the conflict between Zionist settlers and Palestinians. The Zionist and Revisionist ideology tactfully ignored the UN partition plan, perpetrating an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people to illegally seize and annex land as part of an Israeli state-building project. Israeli expansionism remains tethered to a specific interpretation of the Balfour Declaration, viewing the document as a foundational mandate for a Jewish state that extends beyond the borders established in 1947. 

Works Cited:

Husan, Shamir. “THE ZIONIST PROJECT AND THE BRITISH MANDATE IN PALESTINE.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol. 75, 2014, pp. 967–74. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44158480. Accessed 19 Jan. 2026. 

Masalha, Nur. “Zionist Revisionism and the Likud: From Jabotinsky to Netanyahu.” Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion, 1st ed., Pluto Press, 2000, pp. 55–104. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt18fs7dk.6. Accessed 19 Jan. 2026. 

“The Palestine Question: A Brief History - Question of Palestine.” United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-206581/. Accessed 18 Jan. 2026. 

Al Jazeera. “A Century On: Why Arabs Resent Sykes-Picot.” Interactive.aljazeera.com, 2016, interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2016/sykes-picot-100-years-middle-east-map/index.html.

Kedourie, Elie, and Mark Sykes. “Sir Mark Sykes and Palestine 1915-16.” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, 1970, pp. 340–45. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4282341. Accessed 19 Jan. 2026. 

Al Tahhan, Zena. “More than a Century On: The Balfour Declaration Explained.” Aljazeera, 2 Nov. 2018, www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/11/2/more-than-a-century-on-the-balfour-declaration-explained. 

Qumsiyeh, Mazin B. “The Great Revolt of 1936–39.” Popular Resistance in Palestine: A History of Hope and Empowerment, 1st ed., Pluto Press, 2011, pp. 77–89. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt183p294.10. Accessed 19 Jan. 2026.