Mr. Macdonald’s Letter Puts Satisfa Ctory End to Unfortunate Misunderstanding: Gives Us Every Satisf

Mr. MacDonald’s letter to Dr. Weizmann puts a satisfactory end to an unfortunate misunderstanding, the “Sunday Observer” comments editorially (the only Sunday paper, incidentally, making any reference to the subject).

The settlement reflects equal credit, it proceeds, upon the Prime Minister and the Zionist representative. Dr. Weizmann states that the basis for co-operation is now re-established. That is the best and the most anyone could wish. No progress can be made otherwise. With it Jewish and Arab hopes should secure all that they can reasonably desire. The settlement gives us every satisfaction.

WHITE PAPER MUST NOW BE READ IN LIGHT OF PRIME MINISTER’S STATEMENT SAYS “MANCHESTER GUARDIAN”; NO ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION BUT DIFFERENCE IS STARTLING: WHITE PAPER CONFINED TO CONSIDERATIONS LIMITING JEWISH DEVELOPMENT: LETTER TO FAVOURABLE CONSIDERATIONS: BOTH SIDES MUST NO DOUBT BE EXPRESSED BUT WAS GRAVE BLUNDER AFTER 1929 ANTI-JEWISH RIOTS TO LAY ALL STRESS ON JEWISH SHORTCOMINGS

The White Paper must now be read in the light of the Prime Minister’s letter, the “Manchester Guardian” says in an editorial (the only Saturday paper writing editorially of the new development). Thus in the critical case of immigration, it remarks, Mr. MacDonald’s letter states that “consideration will be given to anticipated labour requirements for works which, being dependent on Jewish or mainly Jewish capital, would not be or would not have been undertaken unless Jewish labour was made available”. This principle is extended to the case of public works where the amount of taxation paid by Jews is to be a reason for the employment of a proportion of Jewish Labourers. These principles must be contrasted with the statement in the White Paper that “account should be taken of Arab as well as Jewish unemployment in deter-mining the rate at which immigration should be permitted”, and the conclusion that a more exact application of this principle should be enforced in future.

It is clear, the “Manchester Guardian” continues, that there is no absolute contradiction here between the White Paper and the Prime Minister’s letter, but the difference is startling. The White Paper is confined to considerations limiting Jewish development, the letter to favourable considerations. One corrects the other, and this is true not only in the case of immigration but in such other problems as land purchase and the position of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish Confederation of Labour. Both sides, no doubt, must be expressed, but it was a grave blunder in the first statement of policy after the anti-Jewish riots of 1929 to lay all the stress on Jewish shortcomings. Mr. MacDonald’s letter makes tardy but welcome amends.