Delay in U.S. Action on Palestine Due to Caution, Not Lack of Sympathy

The failure of the American government up to this time to make known its position on the Passfield White Paper through the State Department is not due to any lack of sympathy for the Zionist side of the present controversy with the British government in its policy of Jewish immigration and land purchase restriction, it is learned here today.

It merely represents an exercise of due care in approaching a complicated problem of international relations in which the United States government wishes first to make sure that any course decided upon will be for the best interests not only of the United States but also for the Jewish homeland in Palestine on behalf of which the United States is greatly concerned, according to information believed to correctly represent the attitude of the state department.

Responsible officials of the American government are believed to consider it premature as yet to issue a statement of the government’s official attitude as to whether the American-British convention regarding the Palestine Mandate has been violated by the latest White Paper and to indicate the action contemplated therewith. The American government, however, is understood to be fully alive to its responsibilities in connection with the provisions contained in the Mandate regarding the Jewish National Home and in light of American official approval of the Jewish homeland project.

The resolution endorsing Zionism by Congress in 1922 and the declarations of approval by the last four presidents, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, make it a matter which the state department feels itself bound to approach with sympathy, it is understood. The state department is said to feel, however, that there are a number of elements comprising the background of the situation, which emphasize the need of extreme caution before a line of action is decided upon.

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION

Among these is the impression that not only is there a great difference of opinion in British public and official life, but that the Zionists themselves have had many differences on the meaning of the various papers involving the Jewish homeland, including the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, and that there has not been a unity of opinion in the Zionist Organization as to what the establishment of the Jewish National Home in Palestine really means and what is involved in its details.

One of the main aspects of the problem calling for care by the state department before proceeding is the fact that the Labor government has been sharply criticized by leaders of the other parties, including Stanley Baldwin and Lloyd George and that the question will soon come up in parlia-

ment in an issue wherein Zionism will have very strong friends. It is felt that where such an internal situation exists in England, other governments must approach a discussion of that sort only with the utmost care since the premature intercession by the American government into this situation would be apt to set an element engaged in that discussion against the United States.

SITUATION COMPLEX

At present the issue is one which still has to be debated in England, and since the Jews have such strong friends there, the state department is said to consider it the wisest plan to wait for a while and watch developments. The state department is also considered to have examined the various other elements heightening the complexity of the situation, such as the reservations contained in the Balfour Declaration and the old and new economic conditions, all of which are regarded as creating a strong question of differences of opinion and acute feeling. All these elements are a factor compelling the state department to oppose undue haste in formulating an attitude, though not in the least impairing the official interest and sympathy which the American government feels, in the Jewish Homeland project.