U.N. Survey Mission Recommends Economic Aid to Arab Lands; Avoids Proposals on Israel

The final report of the U.N. Economic Survey Commission on the Middle East, covering Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Transjordan, was made public here today by the U.N. Secretariat and will be transmitted to all member states of the United Nations.

The report proposes four river development projects for large-scale and long-range economic development of Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and the Arab part of Palestine. No project is recommended with regard to the development of Israel.

Analyzing the economic situation in Israel, the report says that a certain degree of industrial development has helped somewhat to reduce exchange requirements. But there seems little possibility of further extensive industrial development that would pay for itself by major import savings or improvements in exchange earnings. Moreover, commercial as distrinct from sentimental investment in Israel is further discouraged by the existing high cost of labor in terms of dollars and sterling, the report states.

Another difficulty described by the report is the inseparability of political and engineering planning of a major water resource. Thus, the mission found that for the development of the Jordan river at most 15 percent of the work contemplated could go forward without taking water from neighboring countries. In the absence, says the report, of a peace settlement between Israel and adjoining countries on outstanding issues involving repatriation and compensation of Arab refugees and territorial boundaries, it is unrealistic to suppose that agreement on the complex question of international water rights could be negotiated among the parties.

LAUDS ISRAEL AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM: CALLS IT “STRIKING”

Dealing with the financial situation in Israel, the report says that “the basic problem now confronting Israel, is whether it can safely absorb immigration at the rate currently contemplated,” because of the heavy drain on both domestic output and foreign exchange resources. It notes in Israel’s favor, however, the high level of education and craftsmanship among the immigrants, the large proportion of government expenditures for education and public health, and “a spirit of national-racial solidarity, a villingness to sacrifice in the common interest, a faith in Israel’s ability to overcome all obstacles, the like of which it would be hard to find elsewhere.”

While presenting a gloomy picture of the agricultural situation in the Arab territories under review by the Mission, the report emphasizes that the agricultural aspect of Israel is “striking.” It pays tribute to the “well-organized” Agriculture Department of the Israel Government and its facilities for research, to the communal and co-operative system of land settlement, which it analyzes at some length and to the “effort being made to bring about a change-over from extensive to intensive farming.” It calls the system of land irrigation in Israel “an object lesson in the economical use of water supplies and in securing the utmost benefit from the limited supplies available.” And it lauds the intensity of citrus cultivation, which, it says, “once seen, will always be remembered as something exceptional in the Middle East.”

Comparing the situation in Israel with that of the Arab countries, the report declares: “There, in Israel, one finds a western civilization of the most modern type which is making prodigious efforts to draw life from the barren soil of Palestine. On the financial side Israel possesses a reasonably well-equipped and excellently managed banking system, a remarkably high rate of savings and a smoothly operating budgetary mechanism, which has so far succeeded in financing very substantial outlays for development purposes, as well as current operating expenses.”