Leading Christian antisemites ‘defending Jews’ in the service of imperialism has been a cruel joke successfully plied with the assistance of Zionism for generations. Lord Balfour’s maiden speech in the British House of Lords on the mandate in Palestine is remarked on by Fedor Kapeliush, Bolshevik and pioneering Marxist historian of religion.

‘English Imperialism in Palestine’ by F. Kapeliush from International Press Correspondence. Vol. 2 No. 65. August 4, 1922.

Lord Balfour delivered his maiden speech in the House of Lords, on the subject of the British “mandate” in Palestine. Balfour defended Zionism with great eloquence and spoke of the genius of the Jewish race”. In his opinion, Christendom is in duty bound to redeem its debt to Jewry. Under these picturesque phrases is hidden the imperialist appetite, which England knows to conceal so well behind beautiful words on the protection of small nations. It is, however, of interest to note that the Lords did not accept Lord Balfour’s program.

Balfour stated: “I do not deny that our plan is of a somewhat adventurous nature. But have we never ventured, have we never made new experiments?” But this was of no avail. And the Lords accepted the motion for rejection by 60 to 29 and the Government suffered a complete defeat.

What was the motive that induced Balfour to appear as the benevolent defender of the “genius of the Jewish race”?

Zionist Palestine was to serve England as a means of defense of the Suez Canal and as a mercenary force against the Egyptians and the Arabs. In accordance with the British plan, British influence is to be all powerful on both banks of the Suez. Besides, Britain had already realized during the war, on account of the ever increasing Egyptian nationalist movement, that Egypt would stand in enmity against her; now England has been compelled to recognize Egypt as an “independent” kingdom. In order to make a gap between Egypt and the Arabs occupying the other bank of the Canal, British imperialism has been busy preparing a plan for the creation of a “Hebrew Fatherland” in Palestine.

The hard facts, however, condemned the chimerical idea of Zionism to complete defeat. The Arabs (who according to the latest statistics of 1921, outnumber the Jews by 700,000 to 100,000) have shown themselves to be decidedly inimical to the Zionists, in whom they see the instruments of Britain. It even came to a bloody pogrom on Jews. Under the pressure of the Arabs, Sir Herbert Samuel, the High Commissioner for Palestine, was compelled to state that “no mass influx of Jews would be allowed”. In the first twenty months beginning with the 1st of August 1921, 30,000 Jews will be allowed to enter Palestine. In accordance with this, it will take 50 years to settle 1 million Jews in Palestine.

After Britain had exploited Zionist ideology, this extremely reactionary petty-bourgeois Utopia, for its own imperialist ends, it emphatically expressed its unwillingness to keep its promise. The creation of a Jewish State in Palestine did not at all agree with British plans.

Of primary importance in the Palestine question, was the so-called Rutenberg plan. This Rutenberg is a very old friend of ours; he is a Social Revolutionary, the murderer of Gapon, for which deed the Kerensky Government appointed him Chief of Police. As engineer he worked out the plan for the electrification of Palestine which was approved and supported in the British Parliament. The far-reaching character of this plan and its good intentions we do not contest. And it is charactristic that even the Utopian plans of the religious, national, territorial and governmental rebirth of the Jewry, were formulated in a purely practical and economic manner. In the House of Lords Balfour had to meet a series of attacks and emphasized that the plans of Mr. Rutenberg and the British policy in Palestine would in no way lead to the favoring of Jews at the expense of the Arabs, but was inspired by purely idealistic ends. This plan is “approved by the experts of the colonial authorities and is the cheapest and most effective for the Government”. Nevertheless, the Lords held to their decision. Lord Sydenham even voiced the heresy that the population of Palestine had a far greater measure of autonomy under the Turks than they have at present.

And so in reality, the Zionist ideal offers on the one hand, a strategic plan of British imperialism for the defense of the Suez Canal against the Arabs, on the other, the opening of a new market for international, especially Jewish finance capital to which the Rutenberg plan offers dazzling prospects.

The ECCI published the magazine ‘Communist International’ edited by Zinoviev and Karl Radek from 1919 until 1926 irregularly in German, French, Russian, and English. Restarting in 1927 until 1934. Unlike, Inprecorr, CI contained long-form articles by the leading figures of the International as well as proceedings, statements, and notices of the Comintern. No complete run of Communist International is available in English. Both were largely published outside of Soviet territory, with Communist International printed in London, to facilitate distribution and both were major contributors to the Communist press in the U.S. Communist International and Inprecorr are an invaluable English-language source on the history of the Communist International and its sections.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/inprecor/1922/v02n065-aug-05-1922-Inprecor.pdf