• THE PALESTINE TRAGEDY
Sitt,—When reading your excellent leading article of April 30th, I am puzzled why in " the tragic evolution of events" the Woodhead Report of the Palestine Partition Commission of October, 1938 (Cmd. 5854), is not mentioned. It never has been, in all the recent articles that I have read. Yet it is the obvious outcome of the Peel Commission Report of 1937, and the right step to be taken by the Government if the plan of partition suggested was to be of effect. The Peel Commission, in proposing partition, named three essential features of such a plan (page 380): "It must be practicable. It must conform to our obligations. It must do justice to the Arabs and the Jews." The Partition Commission entered, very fully into their duties, and their report contains a wealth of information, particularly as regards the financial side of the problem. They came to the conclusion that even with modifications of the Peel plan partition was financially impossible if the independence of the Arab portion was to be maintained. The Arab State would be unable to meet its expenditure by over £600,000 per annum, whilst the Jewish State would have a surplus of nearly the same figure.
This aspect of the problem does not appear to have been dealt with in recent decisions. Yet is it not most important ? The proposed Arab State must be able to pay its way or it will eventually become subservient to its wealthier neighbours and independence will become a farce. Is not this the kernel of the Palestine tragedy ? Could anyone expect the Arabs to agree to partition in such conditions ?—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
