The difference between a homeland and a state is?  (The answer is.... a way of not saying state even though that's the goal.)

It even says in your article

The "Balfour Declaration" was later incorporated into the Sèvres peace treaty with Turkey and the Mandate for Palestine.

It's simple what it means.  "Jewish State, however that doesn't mean that it will be allowed that arab people will not have their civil rights taken away while establishing it (won't be forced out.), nor does it mean that Jewish people in other countries will be forced to move to Israel.

That is the part that is a contradiction and an impossibility.

Not at all.

Compensating said people is all they'd really need to do to fufill it.  Since they don't really own the land nor were citizens of any state.

Basicially they wouldn't be mistreated whle they were being removed from the land that would later be given to the Jews.

Also it had nothing to do with racism against Arabs. It's just they didn't want the jews by them... and they didn't want to give up their land.

That land was land they had... AND it had a connection to ancient Israel... and was by far the most convient and acceptable place.

Most likely they were hoping it would be like Lincoln and Liebria.

That most of the Jews would just leave their countries to go there... problem solved.

In reality it had more to do with europeon anti-semitism then a want to help the jews.

@kasz216

Seriously nice spin man. You should do PR for Sony.

What spin?  That was obviously what it meant.

The original drafts basically just stated they were going to establish a homeland for the jews... and they had to soften it up.

Once again... your own link backs me up on that.

"he initial draft of the declaration, contained in a letter sent by Rothschild to Balfour, referred to the principle "that Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people."^[4] In the final text, the word that was replaced with in to avoid committing the entirety of Palestine to this purpose. Similarly, an early draft did not include the commitment that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of the non-Jewish communities.  These changes came about partly as the result of the urgings of Edwin Samuel Montagu, an influential anti-Zionist Jew and Secretary of State for India, who, among others, was concerned that the declaration without those changes could result in increased anti-Semitic persecution. "

In otherwords the british were saying as nice as they could "We're going to rob you of a lot of your land."

You can argue it all you want and see it through your own goggles.... but the british were the ones doing the "spinning."

The intent of the Balfour Declaration was simply to remove non jewish people out of areas of Palestne which they were planning to give to the Jews.

Probably even more then they ended up getting.

How could you possibly not prejudice the native populace and create a new state for a foreign group of people?

That is purely a contradiction regardless of how you spin it.

Both sides need to quit playing the victim before any real progress can be made. Both sides are obstinate, and neither side is going to be the first to capitulate and make real progress towards peace.

With that being said, I prefer the Israeli invasion of Gaza to the current blockade or air strikes. If they desire to remove Hamas, then a ground invasion is the tactic to use. Do not use indiscriminate blockades and air strikes. If I had to choose a peace initiative, I would choose the Geneva Initiative. It is fair to and demanding of both sides.

It was put in simply to make people happy while they removed the muslims.

As it wasn't in the original draft... and was added in... according to your source... so anti-semitism would rise.

Also the modern defintion wasn't concocted until the 1950's...

They were just softening their land grab.  I mean... look at your own link.  They specifically state they were considering giving the Jews Uganda.  The UK was detrimined to give the jews some land... and Israel was the place the Jews wanted.  The British really didn't care who they moved out.

back then it likely meant they simply wouldn't treat the people with undue harm or indignity in forcing them to move.

Actually looking at it.

"the primary goal of the ILO today is to promote opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and productive work, in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity."

Nothing there really would of been a problem.  Outside of equity... which again... would be more of a personal opinion whether or not things were equitable.

It's a good one.

It's probably as close it's gotten to where both sides populouses would agree on it.  It's about as close as it'd get to both sides being happy... or equally unhappy as the case may be i'd bet.