Lord Islington argued that the provisions concerning the establishment of a Jewish national home were inconsistent with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which had laid the foundations of the mandatory system. Lord Islington continued that ‘the mandate imposes on Great Britain the reasonability of trusteeship for a Zionist political predominance where 90 per cent of the population are non-Zionist and non-Jewish … In fact, very many orthodox Jews, not only in Palestine but all over the world, view with the deepest misapprehension, not to say dislike, this principle of a Zionist Home in Palestine … The scheme of a Zionist Home sought to make Zionist political predominance effective in Palestine by importing into the country extraneous and alien Jews from other parts of the world … This scheme of importing an alien race into the midst of a native local race is flying in the very face of the whole of the tendencies of the age. It is an unnatural experiment … It is literally inviting subsequent catastrophe …
Answering this criticism, the author of the Declaration, Lord Balfour, said:
Zionism may fail…this is an adventure…Are we never to have adventures? Are we never to try new experiments?…I do not think I need dwell upon this imaginary wrong which the Jewish Home is going to inflict upon the local Arabs. (Lord Balfour 21st June 1922 – House of Lords)
Lord Sydenham replied that the Zionist experiment would fail, but the harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country – Arab all round in the hinterland – may never be remedied … What we have done is, by concessions, not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, to start a running sore in the East, and no one can tell how far the sore will extend.
(House of Lords, 21 June 1922)