How a clash between a couple of toffs led to birth of Israel - The Jewish Chronicle

Just over 50 years after Theodore Herzl proclaimed Israel's right to exist in 1897, Israel existed. The steps that led to that historic moment are well documented: The Balfour Declaration in 1917; The League of Nations' Mandate in 1922; the Declaration of Independence in 1948.

But a less well known, though no less crucial part of Israel's story, unfolded not with pronouncements at podiums but with heated arguments behind closed doors. Many of them were in Whitehall. While the First World War raged in Europe, in the Middle East the Ottoman Empire was being kicked out of Palestine and in London Herbert Asquith's government was nearing a decision on what to do about the "Jewish question".

For the future state of Israel the question was as fundamental as to be or not to be. And in the wood-panelled meeting rooms in London, two of the most eloquent members of Asquith's government, one in favour of creating a Jewish country, the other against, prepared to square up to each other. Both were Jews. Herbert Samuel was decidedly for the establishment of Israel while Edwin Montagu, Samuel's cousin, was emphatically against.

"It was a defining moment in Jewish history and particularly modern Anglo-Jewish history," says Ben Brown, author of The Promise, which has opened in London.

The list of characters in Brown's play reads like a Who's Who of Britain's great and good in the early part of the last century. As well as Balfour (played by Oliver Ford Davis), there is Asquith, David Lloyd George and Lord Curzon too. Even the newspaper tycoon Max Beaverbrook makes an appearance. And so, perhaps unsurprisingly, does a Russian immigrant chemist called Chaim Weizmann. Though of course, this was before he became Israel's first president.

At the beginning of the period the play spans, 1914 to 1925, Weizmann's day job was working for the British government's war effort by increasing production of acetone, without which Britain would have run out of shells to fire at the Germans. During his time off he was lobbying Lloyd George to allow Jews to live in Palestine under their own flag and authority.

Each character in Brown's play has an opinion about whether a state for Jews is a good or a bad thing. But what fascinates Brown, who grew up in north London and now lives in Highgate with his wife and two children, is how two Jews, Montagu (Nicholas Asbury) and Samuel (Richard Clothier), did their utmost to influence British policy. And Montagu was not alone in opposing the Zionist cause.

"The president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews was very much against Zionism," says Brown. "And that tended to be the position of most of the Jewish establishment."

Zionists such as Weizmann represented the views of poorer Jews from eastern Europe. As Weizmann says in the play, the "rich, English Jew… has no need to support radical causes. I, on the other hand, am a poor Russian Jew… I represent people who have nothing to lose."

What makes this speech all the more pertinent in the play (at least on the page) is that Weizmann says this to Samuel, exactly the kind of rich, English Jew who Weizmann assumes will not want to rock the boat.

"Samuel was an exception to that rule," says Brown. "What interested me dramatically was that Jewish opinion was as divided as much as the British establishment. Asquith was against, Lloyd George was for."

Running parallel to the political plot is a tale of personal intrigue. Asquith was infatuated with the British aristocrat Venetia Stanley who became the Prime Minister's closest and most trusted confidante. This was a tad awkward for Montagu as he and Venetia were planning their marriage at a time when Asquith was declaring undying love for her.

There are many plays that purport to reveal the machinations and conversations that go on along the corridors of power. But few can claim to be based on such reliable documentation as Brown's. To establish what was said, and by whom and when, Brown embarked on a paper trail that led to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

"There are lots of Cabinet minutes and lots of letters as well," says the 40-year-old playwright. "Particularly from Asquith to Venetia Stanley. I wanted to be very sure of my ground historically."

He would need to be. Most of the events are beyond doubt, but there are contentious lines in the play, perhaps one of the most controversial spoken by Weizmann who, about the Arabs in Palestine, says to Balfour: "Sadly, despite all our efforts, the majority refuse to accept us. So… they will have to go elsewhere."

There is also some fascinating insight in the play too about how arguments are discussed. Amazingly, Montagu's case against the establishment of Israel resulted in him writing a memorandum to his own cabinet entitled The Anti-Semitism of the Present Government, his point being that Balfour's declaration - the British promise of the play's title - would result in an increase in anti-Jewish hatred. Once it was known that there was a homeland for Jews, they would be more likely to be driven out of their homes in European countries ill disposed to them, so the argument went.

"This was the last time in the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that there are agreed facts because of visible documentation," says Brown. "This is before there was any fighting and so it was an innocent time in that sense. No one had been demonised by any side. But also, it was the origin of the modern era."

The motivation to write the play, admits the writer, came partly from his own background which is part Jewish, part aristocratic, all upper class. Brown's father is Lord Justice Simon Brown, one of the nine Lords of Appeal in the Supreme Court. And Brown's mother, Jennifer, who used to work for publisher Victor Gollancz, comes from what her son calls "impoverished landed gentry".

So does the play in some way serve to explore his own attitudes to Israel and Englishness?

"It's very hard to analyse yourself," says the playwright. "The director, Alan Strachan, definitely seems to think the play comes partly from that. I'm sure there's an interest in exploring Anglo/Jewish history, especially because of my father's side. And it's likely that being exposed to pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian points of view has also resulted in this play."