Unfortunately Consequences of Bad Drafting of October White Paper Still with Us “times” Editorial Sa

Unfortunately, the consequences of bad drafting of the original State Paper are still with us, the “Times” writes in an editorial to-day on Palestine Policy, referring to the White Paper of last October. The Jews found no comfort in that ambiguous document: the Arab politicians of Palestine optimistically mistranslated it into an attack on Zionism, and they are now in as bitterly pessimistic a mood as were their Jewish rivals in October.

Such brief references to Palestine as were made in the course of yesterday’s debate, the “Times” begin gave the impression that the Prime Minister’s explanation of the Government’s policy in the Holy Land finds favour with the majority on both sides of the House. That explanation was set forth by Mr. MacDonald in the letter to Dr. Weizmann which was published last Saturday.

It must be admitted – and the letter is tantamount to an admission – that, although no exception could justly be taken by impartial opinion to the broad lines of the policy propounded in the last White Paper, the “Times” proceeds, it contained passages which were so vaguely worded as to invite misconception. It was not clear, for example, among what categories of landless Arabs the local Government was to divide the Crown domains of Palestine, or whether the new policy of land settlement would debar the Zionist Organisation from purchasing more land. The letter, which the Prime Minister has described as “an authoritative interpretation” of the White Paper, shows that the landless Arabs who are promised holdings are those, and those only, who have been recently dispossessed of their tenancies in consequence of Zionist purchases from their landlords. It also denies that the statement of policy implies more than such temporary control of land transfers as may be necessary to prevent interference with the general scheme of land settlement. At the same time Mr. MacDonald insists – and rightly insists on the necessity for the control of immigration in accordance with economic considerations. Moreover, while he recognises the right of the Jewish Agency to employ only Jews on the works which it carries out, he points out that the Mandatory government “must have regard” to any aggravation of Arab unemployment which this exclusive policy may cause.

Even those who held that most Jewish interpretations of the statement of policy were unnecessarily pessimistic, the “Times” says, will note with satisfaction Dr. Weizmann’s acknowledgment that the Prime Minister’s explanations have re-established the basis of co-operation between the Mandatory Government and the Zionist Organisation.