+1 and thank you for the detail and completeness. I still find it hard to believe the same anti-semitic garbage from forever ago keeps getting tossed around in the Internet age.

One question: Why should the Germans have cared about the Balfour declaration? They had, AFAIK, no interest in Palestine or any of the other possessions of the Ottoman Empire. If Germany (along with their Ottoman ally) had won the war, it would have been irrelevant; if they lost, they'd have other things to worry about.

Based on one of the comments on the question, it may be good to clarify the circumstances surrounding the Lusitania as well (I also remember reading at one point about the US possibly expecting an attack to use as casus belli, but it was not a primary source).

wiah I could give a second +1 for this "The British were then so determined to keep the document secret that they published it in The Times newspaper on 9 November 1917:"

@jamesqf Why should the Germans have cared? In 1917 Palestine was still an active front in the war. The Battle of Jerusalem was in November 1917. German intelligence would have been very interested in any intelligence relating to Palestine. A division in Palestine was one that couldn't be in Flanders. They were also just as aware as the British of the propaganda value of the declaration for Zionist groups around the world.

@Orangesandlemons Ah, I see. The issue is, how can you be sure that it is made up? Mind you, that the purpose of every hidden agenda is, well, to remain hidden or at least deniable. So, in accordance with the doctrine of even contemporary black ops, it could have been confined to private conversations and designed to leave as little trace as possible. I'm not describing it as a conspiracy (that would be illegal), but as a business deal behind closed doors, no different than any other. And, finally, just out of curiosity, why would it be anti-semitic instead of anti-British or anti-american?

@user3209815 " "The issue is, how can you be sure that it is made up?" oh dear "why would it be anti-semitic instead of anti-British or anti-american" because -> "promised a group of Jewish financiers (including German Jews) the land of Palestine in return for bringing the US into the war against Germany." it certainly can be taken as anti-British, but clearly the Jews are being portrayed as the traitors... Interesting to note that, as with many anti-semitic canards, this was heavily promoted by an apostatised Jew.

@user3209815 I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Instead of focusing on what circumstances in which something could be plausible, focus on what the facts say. If it leaves zero trace then you'd never know about it. If someone knows about it then there is at least some trace. What is that trace and do you personally find it plausible enough? In this specific case, no new verifiable evidence is brought forth, only unverifiable claims. If you don't know on what basis the claims are being made, how can you know if you should believe them?

@user3209815 also "The issue is, how can you be sure that it is made up?" in addition to my previous comment, the answer shows quite a few of the details are undeniably made up (such as the Germans 'surprise' at the widely-reported Balfour declaration.

@Orangesandlemons How can a Jew promoting the interests of the Jewish nation be "clearly portrayed" as a traitor? The fact that some or all details are made up, doesn't exclude the possibility that a private meeting was held where someone said: "Hey, isn't this a good opportunity to enhance our nation building efforts". The question was about evidence and the answer clearly states that there isn't any, which is fine, however, it is implied that this lack of evidence implies that no such efforts ever took place, which is a logical fallacy.

@user3209815 The fallacy is insisting on proving a negative when you just can't. You can only show you couldn't find proof and let Occam's razor lead you to the reasonable conclusion. Regardless, the guiding principle is extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The extraordinary claim here is "what if there was conspiracy to give that lands to the whomever". It's not on us to disprove it. You make the claim, you prove it.

The language for the Balfour declaration and the agreement itself was negotiated and agreed to in 1916

@CWill Do you have a source for that? The actual records in the UK National Archives seem to disagree.

@Orangesandlemons The surprise wasn't at the Balfour Declaration, it was at the reason the US entered the war (113,000 American dead).

@WesSayeed "Anti-semitic"? Are you saying some opinions are evil?

:50242755

@CWill Yeah, if you're going to cite sources in support of your claim, you might want to avoid citing sources that explicitly disprove it!

"Such were the chief considerations which, during the later part of 1916 and the next ten months of 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry"

So, it is clear that the language for the Balfour declaration and the agreement itself was NOT negotiated and agreed to in 1916.