The 1937 Peel Commission proposed ending the British Mandate and dividing the country into separate Arab and Jewish states. Jerusalem and Bethlehem, with a corridor to the Mediterranean, would remain under a permanent British mandate to protect the holy places. Arab leaders rejected partition; the Zionist movement rejected the map’s terms but agreed to negotiate the creation of a Jewish state.
Why Britain appointed the commission
Britain appointed the Palestine Royal Commission in August 1936 to investigate the causes of the disturbances that began that April and assess how the Mandate was being administered. Its report, chaired by Lord Peel, was published on July 7, 1937. The commissioners concluded that the Mandate could not reconcile Arab demands for national independence with the Jewish national home and recommended partition as a possible political arrangement.
The commission proposed an Arab state joining much of the country with Transjordan, and a Jewish state in the north and along the coast. The precise border would need later demarcation. Jerusalem and Bethlehem would be kept outside both states under a new British mandate, with a corridor to Jaffa for access to the sea. These were recommendations to the British government, not borders that took effect. The Royal Commission’s report summary sets out the proposed states, protected holy places, and transition.
What Arab and Jewish leaders said
The Arab Higher Committee opposed partition and pressed for an independent Arab government across the country. The commission’s own account recorded that demand. Its published report records the Arab Higher Committee’s proposal for an independent Arab government. The committee’s written response called partition unacceptable and argued for independence instead. Opposition was also expressed by the Arab National Defence Party.
The Jewish Agency initially criticized partition as inconsistent with the commitment to a Jewish national home. At the Zionist Congress in 1937, the movement authorized negotiations with Britain to clarify the terms for establishing a Jewish state, while rejecting the specific Peel map. That distinction matters: agreement to discuss statehood did not mean acceptance of the proposed borders. A later historical account compiled in the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry documents records both the Jewish Agency’s negotiation decision and Arab leaders’ rejection.
How the 1937 plan relates to Resolution 181
The Peel proposal introduced partition as a British recommendation, but it was not implemented. A technical commission, the Woodhead Commission, examined possible borders in 1938 and found no plan it believed offered much hope of success. Britain then abandoned the Peel scheme. Nearly a decade later, the United Nations considered a different partition plan, with different boundaries, a proposed economic union, and an international regime for Jerusalem. UNSCOP and Resolution 181 explains that later proposal and the responses to it.