Did you know that Thailand was the first country in Asia to endorse the proposal to establish a “Jewish State” to accommodate the migration of Jews from Europe to Palestine—a proposal that would eventually lead to the establishment of the modern State of Israel?

I would like to share an article published more than a century ago in Millard’s Review of the Far East, Volume 6, in 1918.

Siam Endorses Britain's Declaration For Jewish State

Since England issued a declaration through Mr. Balfour last November in favor of a National Home for the Jewish people being established in Palestine, the Jews of the Far East have been conducting propaganda in support of the movement. The Shang-hai Zionist Association, of which E. S. Kadoorie is president and N. E. B. Ezra secretary, assisted by David I. Sandelson, one of the younger English Zionist leaders from London who is now in the Far East, has been endeavoring to obtain the support of China, Japan, Siam and other Asiatic countries. The first of these countries to approve the aims of the organization was Siam. The local organization this week received from H. R. H. Prince Devawongse Varopaker, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Siam, the following message:

Foreign Office,

Bangkok, August 22, 1918.

I beg to acknowledge the receipt of the letter of the Shanghai Zionist Association of July 12, 1918, with reference to the establishment of Palestine as a National Home for the Jewish People. In reply, I have the honor to state that the Royal Siamese Gov-ernment expresses its accord with the sympathetic position taken by the Allies with reference to the establishment of Palestine as a National Home for the Jewish people and, in cooperation with the Allied Powers, will use its best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing will be done that may prejudice the civil or religious rights of existing non-Jewish Communities in Palestine.

I am,

Very truly yours, (Signed) Davawongse.

“Devawongse” refers to His Royal Highness Prince Devawongse Varopakar, who served as Siam’s Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1918, corresponding to 2461 BE (Buddhist Era), during the reign of King Vajiravudh (King Rama VI).

To reiterate, the article states that “the first country to approve the organization’s goals was Siam.”

Siam was the first country in Asia to publicly accept the Balfour Declaration, a statement issued by the British government in 1917 during World War I expressing support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. The following year, in 1918, Prince Devawongse Varopakar formally communicated Siam’s position in support of the declaration.

The Siamese government’s position was expressed not only by Prince Devawongse Varopakar but also by Joseph Hochman, a Jewish representative of King Vajiravudh in London, who was a rabbi and editor of the Jewish Review newspaper.

However, in expressing Siam’s support for a Jewish national home, Prince Devawongse Varopakar emphasized an important condition: “it being clearly understood that nothing will be done that may prejudice the civil or religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

If Prince Devawongse were alive today, he might be deeply disappointed by the subsequent history of the “homeland of the Jews” that the Siamese government initially supported. The State of Israel has been accused of severely violating the rights of Palestinians, the “existing non-Jewish communities” referred to in the original statement.

Nevertheless, it is also important to acknowledge that Palestinians have committed violence against Thai nationals. During the October 7, 2023 attacks, Thai workers in Israel were among those killed and abducted. The attacks subsequently contributed to the outbreak of the prolonged Gaza war.

This is one consequence of Siam and Thailand’s involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Was such involvement necessary? Absolutely.

The Siamese government’s initial support for a Jewish national home was likely driven largely by international political considerations. At the time, Siam was aligned with the Allied powers, whose position strongly influenced the emerging post-World War I international order.

By supporting the Jewish national home, Siam was effectively placing itself “on the same side” as the Allied powers. This could help Siam strengthen its position on the international stage and establish itself on more equal terms with what it regarded as the “civilized nations.”

More importantly, this diplomatic alignment could help Siam pursue the revision of unequal treaties and the abolition of extraterritorial rights that Western powers had imposed on the country.

In this sense, Siam’s support was not necessarily based solely on sympathy for the Zionist cause. It was also a strategic diplomatic decision shaped by Siam’s efforts to protect its sovereignty and secure a more equal position within the international system.

This was the political necessity that led Siam to support the establishment and existence of the State of Israel.

Even today, many Thai people continue to depend on Israel as a source of livelihood, with as many as 58,000 Thais residing there, most of them as workers.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Israelis enter Thailand each year, with approximately 30,000 staying for extended periods.

Could this be considered a symbiotic relationship?

In proportion to their respective populations, however, the relationship appears unequal, with the proportion of Israelis living in Thailand significantly higher than the proportion of Thais living in Israel.

And that is without even taking into account the vastly different sizes of Thailand and Israel.

Furthermore, some Israelis living in Thailand have been accused of adopting a self-serving attitude and isolating themselves from the wider Thai community. They establish their own spaces and networks, including religious sites such as Chabad Houses, as well as restaurants and other services. In some cases, there have also been reports of restrictions on Thai people entering or using these spaces.

This has contributed to resentment among some Thais, who feel that certain Israelis have settled in Thailand and behave as though they have a right to dominate or control parts of the country, sometimes even appearing to disregard the rights and presence of local communities.

Critics argue that this reflects a broader pattern of possessiveness that they associate with Zionism. They point to the displacement of Palestinians and Israel's treatment of Palestinian communities as evidence that the original inhabitants of the land have continued to face dispossession and oppression, as discussed earlier.

If Prince Devawongse Varoprakar of Siam were still alive and witnessed what some critics describe as the conduct of Zionists today, he might well question whether his support for the establishment of the State of Israel had been justified.

He might even be furious to learn that those whom he had once viewed as deserving of support in finding a homeland had, in the eyes of their critics, come to behave arrogantly and audaciously toward the people of another land.

King Rama VI, in his work The Jews of the East, observed that one reason for prejudice against Jews was:

“The most obvious characteristic of people based on race is their exclusiveness. A Jew, no matter what country they live in or what nationality they adopt, remains Jewish. They may follow the customs and traditions of the country in which they live, behaving and conducting themselves like the local people, but they never forget that they are Jewish. They refuse to let others forget this, no matter how long they live in a foreign country.”

This idea of “exclusiveness” can still be observed today, particularly among some Israelis in Thailand who form their own social groups and communities, sometimes avoiding or even ostracizing local people.

In fact, The Jews of the East was written partly as a warning to Thais to be cautious about the Chinese, whom King Rama VI compared to Jews. He initially portrayed Jews in negative terms before going on to explain the similarities he perceived between Jews and the Chinese.

However, we will not delve into the specifics of Chinese and Jewish ancestry here, as that is not the subject of this discussion.

Furthermore, I disagree with the concept presented in The Jews of the East, as it is an archaic idea that does not belong in the modern era. The work also contains elements of antisemitism, which are unacceptable today, just as prejudice or discrimination against any ethnic or religious group is unacceptable.

Nevertheless, I have cited these royal writings to illustrate how members of the Siamese ruling class, who were educated in a Western intellectual environment in which antisemitic attitudes were prevalent, viewed Jews at the time.

Whether Jews were truly as King Rama VI described them—and whether such characterizations have any relevance today—is ultimately for the reader to judge.

I would also like to cite Meron Medzini’s book, Japan, the Jews, and Israel: Similarities and Contrasts, which offers an interesting historical account of the Jewish community in Thailand since its early settlement:

“After the October 1917 revolution, a number of Jewish refugees arrived in Bangkok from Russia. In the 1920s, the number of Jews stood at 58 families, numbering around 200 people. They were led by the Gerson family, whose wealth played a pivotal role in the life of the community. There is no evidence of antisemitism among the local population, mostly because of its tolerant character, typical among those who espouse a Buddhist way of life. As in other Asian countries, Jews did not bother to learn the local language and could not participate in political, academic, or media activities.”

I believe that, with this historical background in mind, we can better examine the current situation and consider what the future may hold.

However, I would like to emphasize that Jewish identity is distinct from Zionist identity.

What I am discussing here is what I perceive as a lack of respect for Thai society among some Zionists and Israelis, rather than Jews as an ethnic or religious group.

“Zionism” and “Jew” are neither synonyms nor interchangeable terms. Zionists may or may not be Jewish. In general, Zionism is a political and national movement that supports the establishment and continued existence of a Jewish national homeland in the historic Land of Israel.

At the same time, not all Jews are Zionists. Some Jewish groups and individuals oppose Zionism, support Palestinian rights, or reject the idea of a Jewish state on religious or political grounds. Some religious anti-Zionist groups, for example, believe that Jews should not establish a sovereign state in the Land of Israel before the coming of the Messiah.

Therefore, Thai people should not equate Jews with Zionists. Criticism should be directed at specific political ideologies, governments, or individuals based on their actions—not at people because of their ethnicity or religion.

Another point worth noting is that the Israeli government and some political groups sometimes characterize opposition to Zionism as antisemitic, while some Western governments and institutions have adopted similar positions. I find it problematic to treat the two as automatically synonymous. Opposition to Zionism is not inherently antisemitic, just as criticism of the policies of the Israeli government is not inherently hostility toward Jews. At the same time, criticism of Zionism can cross into antisemitism when it relies on stereotypes, conspiracy theories, or hostility toward Jews as Jews.

If Thais can distinguish between Jewish identity, Israeli nationality, Zionist ideology, and the policies of the Israeli government, we will have a much clearer basis for deciding whom we should welcome, whom we should criticize, and what conduct should be regarded as unacceptable.

Even within Thailand, there is a wide range of opinion. There are people who support Israel, people who oppose Zionism, people who support Palestine, people who criticize Israel while respecting Jews, and people who oppose the existence of the State of Israel for political or religious reasons.

The relationship between Thailand, Israel, Jews, and Zionists is therefore far more complicated than it may initially appear.

I will conclude with a humorous anecdote from Poland in 1968. During the political crisis that year, Polish students and others protested against the government’s campaign against people identified as Zionists. One slogan reportedly used was “Syjoniści do Syjamu,” meaning, roughly, “Zionists, go to Siam.”

Why send Zionists to Siam?

Because the Polish word Syjoniści (“Zionists”) and Syjamu (“to Siam”) apparently lent themselves to a play on words, creating an ironic slogan suggesting that Zionists should be sent to the distant land of Siam.

It is a rather amusing linguistic coincidence.

Let us just hope that the joke does not become reality.

Opinion article by Kornkit Disthan, Assistant Managing Editor and Foreign News Editor, The Better.

Photo: Captured from video and enhanced with AI for sharpness and caption clarity. The image shows an incident in May 2025 in which an Israeli tourist argued with a Thai person on Koh Phangan and reportedly said, “My money built your country,” prompting strong public backlash.