On October 3, 2025, the century-old Balfour Declaration—once a diplomatic letter of "sympathy" for a Jewish homeland—has found itself thrust back into the spotlight, not just as a historical artifact but as a flashpoint for the contemporary Israel-Palestine conflict and shifting global attitudes. Recent interviews, polling data, and historical retrospectives reveal that the roots of today’s turmoil are tangled in the promises, omissions, and evolving interpretations of this seminal document.
Lord Roderick Balfour, great-nephew of former British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour, recently sat down with Al Arabiya English to clarify what he sees as widespread misconceptions about the 1917 declaration. Holding a copy in his hand, he emphasized, “His Majesty’s government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. So there’s no ‘we will support the creation of a State of Israel’ as is, you know, under pressure to create for Palestine at the moment… It’s a declaration of sympathy, that’s all. Everything else is a wish.”
Lord Balfour is quick to point out the line he says is often forgotten, especially in Israeli discourse: “It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done, which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” For him, the present-day reality—marked by violence, displacement, and political deadlock—is “not what he or the government of the day would’ve wished.”
This nuanced distinction between sympathy and statehood is not merely academic. As Lord Balfour notes, the declaration was “a wish expressed by the British government and not a direct promise of state creation.” He describes his great uncle as a humanitarian and philosopher, acting within the constraints and attitudes of his era. “He was a great philosopher, and he was a great humanitarian and so obviously he was very influential within the cabinet,” Balfour told Al Arabiya English. Yet, he admits the document’s legacy is complicated: “I think in its original form and for the reasons it was written, there is pride. But we very much see Arthur as having done it as the foreign secretary.”
The declaration was, for much of Lord Balfour’s youth, a background detail—literally. “The Balfour Declaration you may have read before hung on the back of the lavatory door in our house in France. Nobody ever talked about it. It was just not a feature through the fifties and the sixties and the seventies when I was growing up,” he recalled. Only during the Six-Day War in 1967, while working in Paris, did he first grasp its significance, noting the then-unanimous pro-Israeli sentiment in France—a far cry from today’s polarizing debates.
But how did a letter of “sympathy” morph into the cornerstone of a state? The answer, in part, lies in the years following World War II. On October 2, 2025, ABC aired a program exploring the pivotal role of Herbert Vere "Doc" Evatt, Australia’s external affairs minister in 1947. Dr. Suzanne Rutland, a Jewish-Australian historian, explained that Evatt, as chair of the United Nations Ad-Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, was instrumental in wrangling the narrow two-thirds majority needed for the 1947 partition plan of Palestine—paving the way for Israel’s creation. “Evatt’s efforts at the UN were crucial in securing the two-thirds majority needed for the 1947 partition plan of Palestine and the creation of the Jewish state of Israel,” Dr. Rutland told ABC.
Australia’s role is often overlooked in Western narratives, but as Britain prepared to relinquish its mandate, it was Evatt’s diplomatic maneuvering that tipped the scales. The program underscored how the legacy of international involvement continues to shape the region’s fate, for better or worse.
Fast-forward to the present, and the legacy of these foundational moments is being re-evaluated—not just in the Middle East but around the globe. Two new polls released in early October 2025 show that support for Israel among U.S. voters has cratered. A Quinnipiac survey found that just 47% of voters think supporting Israel is in the U.S. national interest, down sharply from 69% in December 2023. Even more telling, only 21% of voters have a favorable view of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was in Washington this week to discuss Trump’s new Gaza plan, according to Politico and The New York Times.
The numbers from a New York Times and Siena University poll are even starker: only 34% of U.S. voters now support Israel, compared to 47% in the immediate aftermath of October 7, 2023. For the first time since the Times began polling on these issues in 1998, more Americans sympathize with Palestinians than Israelis. About 60% of voters now oppose sending more economic and military aid to Israel, and nearly 40% believe Israel is intentionally killing civilians.
The generational divide is especially pronounced. Nearly seven in ten voters under 30 oppose increased military aid to Israel. As Politico diplomatic correspondent Felicia Schwartz put it: “Public polling makes clear that generational change is coming that is set to reshape U.S. policy toward Israel in fundamental ways.” She adds, “On both the left and the right, young Americans are growing more skeptical of offering unconditional U.S. support to Israel, particularly as the death toll in Gaza rises and the possibility of Palestinian statehood dims.”
This shift is not confined to the electorate. Former U.S. Representative Cori Bush, ousted in the August 2024 primary, is mounting a comeback bid for Missouri’s 1st district. The Gaza conflict, and the broader question of U.S. support for Israel, is expected to be central to her campaign. Bush was previously targeted for her outspoken support of Palestinian rights, while her opponent, Wesley Bell, has been a consistent defender of Israel. Yet, even the once-mighty AIPAC lobby appears to be losing its grip. As Haaretz’s Ben Samuels observes, “The influence of hawkish megadonors and lobbies like AIPAC, as well as the potential electoral implications of publicly criticizing Israel, have long been a staple of the conversation. Alas, the ground is shifting, and the pro-Israel exceptionalism is much less tolerable in almost every wing of the Democratic Party.”
Meanwhile, Lord Balfour, reflecting on the current impasse, laments missed opportunities. “I’ve never understood why the Palestinians and the Jews did not all just get on and build the fabulous economy together. It’s been so one sided.” He contends that the original declaration’s intent was not to disadvantage anyone: “The Palestinians, if you like, for want of a better word, were not under persecution. Nobody was chasing them. Everybody was… basically an agrarian economy with sheep and goat herds, nothing, no sophistication. Very few people, as I say, you know. And therefore, I think they thought if a few Jews wanted to go and live there peaceably, why would there be a problem?”
As Britain recently recognized Palestine in a symbolic gesture, Lord Balfour sees it as a step toward a two-state solution—though he remains skeptical about its feasibility without sustained regional and international cooperation. “It shows that we are in favor of the two-state solution, but there’s got to be a lot more before it actually means anything,” he said.
From the drawing rooms of British diplomats to the polling booths of American voters, the legacy of the Balfour Declaration continues to ripple across continents and generations. As public opinion shifts and political alliances realign, the century-old document’s ambiguities and aspirations remain at the heart of a struggle that shows no signs of abating.