John Bolton: Israel only has 8 days to strike Iran
439 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Warhol;24194922]You didn't really read the source did you?
LOL THIS PROVES ME RIGHT UR STUPID
EXCEPT
"source doesn't prove him right" /directed by m nigt shamalan[/QUOTE]
How about you read the damn thing and then write, I know it's kind of hard to get it through that head of yours, but just try, you know, for us normal people.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;24194910]Yeah except these lands weren't countries [B]so it did have authority[/B]. I guess that you consider all those countries in Africa that were created by the UN to be illegal too, right?[/QUOTE]
How the fuck do you get that? It's not a country so it falls under UN law?
The UN never created countries in Africa you fucking tool.
[QUOTE=starpluck;24194926]There's no sense or logic in bumping 8% to 55% even though the Jews were the minority, they got the most land. Don't bring up "They had no usable land" thing[/QUOTE]
Why not? They're the ones who actually had settlements around the desert, what should they have done, left it as a no-man's land?
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;24194952]How about you read the damn thing and then write, I know it's kind of hard to get it through that head of yours, but just try, you know, for us normal people.[/QUOTE]
I've obviously read more of it then you have. It doesn't prove anything. Christ sake, get that through your fucking head.
By the way, Egypt, Jordan, etc... attacked Israel on its day of formation. So I didn't know the Israelis could oppress and terrorize people when they had just been granted land on that very day.
BurnEmDown, I know you got a new avatar, but stop acting so pissy and arrogant no matter how badly you want to try to replicate him.
[QUOTE=Warhol;24195001]I've obviously read more of it then you have. It doesn't prove anything. Christ sake, get that through your fucking head.[/QUOTE]
It proves they bought it and didn't steal anything.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;24194988]Why not? They're the ones who actually had settlements around the desert, what should they have done, left it as a no-man's land?[/QUOTE]
Except it wasn't a no mans land, people lived there. Well... before the Zionists slaughtered them.
[editline]11:47PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;24195033]It proves they bought it and didn't steal anything.[/QUOTE]
quote
[QUOTE=starpluck;24195025]BurnEmDown, I know you got a new avatar, but stop acting so pissy and arrogant no matter how badly you want to try to replicate him.[/QUOTE]
What's this got to do with my avatar?
Now you are just trolling. Just stop. @Warhol.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;24195024]By the way, Egypt, Jordan, etc... attacked Israel on its day of formation. So I didn't know the Israelis could oppress and terrorize people when they had just been granted land on that very day.[/QUOTE]
zionist terrorism
i'm going to keep saying that until you fucking get that through your head.
[editline]11:49PM[/editline]
Burnemdown: furthering the fact Zionism is retarded. Go get em' kiddo
[QUOTE=Warhol;24195043]Except it wasn't a no mans land, people lived there. Well... before the Zionists slaughtered them.[/quote]
In the Negev desert? Nobody lived there, only Bedouins who didn't care about having their own country.
[quote]quote[/QUOTE]
[release]We cannot properly examine Zionism's effect on Palestine's rural Arab population without first understanding their condition prior to its arrival. By all accounts, Zionism did not introduce dispossession into Palestine; it arrived to a region already thoroughly acquainted with it. Rural Palestinian peasants were being hopelessly victimized by land theft, oppressive taxes, astronomical interest rates on loans, and slick urban notables; all the things that would ostensibly lead to conflict.
"Before the Ottoman reform movement commenced, systematic administrative and physical disenfranchisement of the Palestinian Arab from his land had occurred."19
Some of the more common methods leading to this dispossession were:
Internal wars and Bedouin raids that resulted in flat out land theft and the destruction of cultivated plots.
Consecutive years of poor crop yields and heavy taxation forced the farmer to turn to money lenders and merchants for loans. These loans were issued at excessively high interest rates. The trap of low yields and low prices for crops combined with high taxes and high interest loans triggered a downward spiral into poverty. The only way out for the farmer was to sell off his land to the money lender, rendering the farmer dispossessed.
Allowing land to be registered in someone else's name in order to avoid being drafted into the Turkish army. Land registries were used to manage taxation and conscription into the military by the Turkish government, so having the land registered by proxy in the name of an Arab notable kept the farmer off the grid, so to speak. Unfortunately, this evasive technique also led to their dispossession since any proof of ownership was abandoned, and when Jews began purchasing plots of land, the proxy would sell it out from under the previous owner.
Wars / Bedouin Land Raids
"... an ongoing war was being carried on against Bedouin tribes that had invaded cultivated tracts of land – a war that usually resulted in the abandonment of the area by the permanent residents, and its being taken over by the Bedouins. H. B. Tristram describes several of these takeovers: ‘A few years ago the whole Ghor [Jordan Valley] was in the hands of the fellaheen, and much of it cultivated for corn. Now the whole of it is in the hands of the Bedouin, who eschew all agriculture … The same thing is now going on over the plain of Sharon, where, both in the north and south, land is going out of cultivation, and whole villages rapidly disappearing from the face of the earth. Since the year 1838, no less than twenty villages there have been thus erased from the map, and the stationary population extirpated."1
"T. Drake, who toured the Jezreel Valley in 1870, relates that eight years before his tour the Transjordanian tribes Ghualla and ‘Aneize invaded the Jordan Valley. They stole the cattle and crops of the fellaheen and prevented them from cultivating their lands."2
"The greater part of Turkish Palestine was held directly by the government as the Sultan's crown lands, by great effendis, or by the Wakf or Moslem religious establishment. The fellah or simple peasant as a landowner, was almost extinct. The danger posed by the Bedouin, the tax collection system, and competition by large landowners in a country where the possession of water sources was the key to agricultural survival, had combined to wipe out small peasant holdings."20
Heavy Taxation and High Interest Loans
"If ever an oppressed race existed, it is this one we see fettered around us under the inhuman tyranny of the Ottoman Empire. ... The Syrians are very poor, and yet they are ground down by a system of taxation that would drive any other nation frantic. Last year their taxes were heavy enough, in all conscience - but this year they have been increased by the addition of taxes that were forgiven them in times of famine in former years. On top of this the Government has levied a tax of one-tenth of the whole proceeds of the land. ... The Pacha of a Pachalic does not trouble himself with appointing tax-collectors. He figures up what all these taxes ought to amount to in a certain district. Then he farms the collection out. He calls the rich men together, the highest bidder gets the speculation, pays the Pacha on the spot, and then sells out to smaller fry, who sell in turn to a piratical horde of still smaller fry. These latter compel the peasant to bring his little trifle of grain to the village, at his own cost. It must be weighed, the various taxes set apart, and the remainder returned to the producer. But the collector delays this duty day after day, while the producer's family are perishing for bread; at last the poor wretch, who cannot but understand the game, says, 'Take a quarter - take half - take two-thirds if you will, and let me go!' It is a most outrageous state of things."3
"Partly to cover his own costs, and partly to make a gain, the multazim, or tax-collector, often exacted over half of the peasant's produce and so: The fellah was delivered hand and foot to the tax-collectors, since he had not the slightest protection against their tyranny. The fellah had no money and was forced to pay in kind. This system of tax-gatherers greatly multiplied the petty lords and tyrants who eat up the people as they eat their bread. The fellah often had to turn to the moneylenders for help. The moneylenders were themselves frequently delegates of the multazims and lent at exorbitant rates, leaving the fellah deep in debt."4
"[The fellahin's] trouble, however, is his debt; so long as a small cultivator sees the burden of his debt to be so great and the rate of accruing interest so high, that not only the present produce of his fields but even the increased amount of produce which he may hope to secure by minor agricultural improvement are insufficient to pay off his creditors, he will make no sincere attempt to alter his plan of cultivation. If his present crops allow him only to pay one-half of the interest upon his debt, there is little inducement to make such improvements as will enable him to pay three-quarters of the amount. The benefit will fall entirely into the hands of his creditors, while he will only labour the harder without hope of reaching freedom."5
"The reasons usually given for indebtedness by the fellahin are: (1) Government taxation; (2) High expenditure during, and in the years immediately succeeding the war; (3) low prices for crops; and (4) natural calamities."6
"... the peasantry was usually required to repay the interest on the loan, not the capital, within a six- to seven-month period. Interest rates on such varied between 30 and 60 percent per year. When agricultural yields could not meet accrued tax, rent, living, and arrears payments, the peasant relinquished ownership by providing title deed of his land to the moneylender or to a land agent in lieu of debt payment."7
"To these troubles must be added the natural unpunctuality of an illiterate cultivator, which leads to an accumulation of compound interest; a tendency to extravagance on the occasion of marriages ... and the lack of control over the credit which he has received at cruel rates of interest from the merchants or professional money-lenders. These rates appear to vary from a nominal 30% to a nominal 200% per annum, the actual rate being on account of deductions and frequent compounding, somewhat higher than the figures here shown."8
"It will be evident from what has been said above on the subject of the rates of interest charge, that the legal rate of 9% prescribed by the Turkish law is a dead letter. It is evaded by the merchants in the form of fictitious sales and of deductions from the nominal loan, while the commercial banks find it necessary to charge a commission which substantially increases the total debit against the borrower."9
"There is notable historical evidence from a variety of Arabic, German, Hebrew, and English sources to suggest that the Palestinian Arab community had been significantly prone to dispossession and dislocation before the mass exodus from Palestine began. ... Foundations for the Palestinian Arab refugee problem commenced in late Ottoman times. It began with the economic pauperization of the peasantry in Palestine and the simultaneous development of large landed estates. ... The peasantry was skeptical of both its traditional leaders and government officials, who over centuries had handled them maliciously, using extortion and maladministration. ... Gradually the peasant became inexorably dependent upon those who would provide him with temporary relief from economic hardship, including moneylenders, land brokers, grain merchants, and people with landowning interests. Well before the Ottoman reform movement ... the Palestinian Arab peasant began by necessity and preference to forfeit individual control of his life and livelihood to others."10
"By the time the Balfour Declaration was issued ... Palestinian village peasants had become feeble wards of notable urban and landowning classes. ... those who had become tenants on land they or their ancestors had once owned and habitually worked were increasingly susceptible to the planned caprice of land managers, the guile of many urban notables, the greed of moneylenders, and the trade plied by land brokers."11
"A heavy burden of taxation fell upon the peasant, who was forced from his meager produce to allay the avarice of the tax collectors, to pay the salaries of their assistants and to make up for the petty thievery in the process of collection. And, as if this were not enough, the tax assessors would bring with them police and military personnel … in order to expedite the negotiations over the tax levy and to resolve them in a manner satisfactory to the collectors. Since the dispute over the size of the crop generally lasted a considerable time, the police and soldiers remained in the village, eating and drinking and feeding their horses at the expense of the peasants until agreement was reached. In the end the peasant was forced to pay not 10% of his crop but often as much as 30% or 40%. After payment of his tax the poor peasant was left without means to satisfy his daily needs and to purchase seeds for the coming season, and he was obliged to borrow money. The lender – generally a professional usurer, or a merchant from town – lent the money at a high rate of interest – up to 40% - until ‘the next threshing season.’ … the process was repeated from year to year. Eventually, when the peasant was deep in debt with no prospect of repaying it, the money lender seized his field. … The farmer … was reduced to tenancy on the land that had once been his."12
Later on when the British Mandate government was in effect, Lewis French, the British Director of Development for Palestine observed the devastating results of money lenders upon the rural fellahin:
“Some two years ago the Director of Lands reported that in no case had a transferee, even under the modified terms of the 1921 Agreement, been able from his own resources to discharge his financial obligations. The local authorities were of opinion that while the terms of the Agreement were not unduly severe, the indebtedness of the transferees prevented them from paying up the capital sums due. If a prize were offered to the cultivator who had done best, it would fall to one who still required twenty-two years to pay off the capital sum, quite apart from any interest. For villages to clear off the original capital sums due for the land, without interest, periods ranging from 45 to 143 years will be required. It is added that the “transferees are fully aware of their obligations under the Agreement and that the land will revert to Government at the end of the fifteen years, if the total amount due is not paid, and are merely trusting that Government will, in due course, solve the problem for them.”16
“In the course of tours among Arab villages in the company of the Financial Advisor, with a view to the inspection of possible purchasable lands, I have come into close contact with, and studied the economic position of the fellahin and rural effendis, who are almost without exception oppressed by the burden of debts.”15
"In October 1935, a Palestinian intellectual, Afif I. Tannous, commented that 'the fellah until recently has been the subject of oppression, neglect, and ill treatment by his own countrymen and the old political regime. The feudal system played havoc in his life, the effendi class looked down upon him, and the old Turkish regime was too corrupt to be concerned with such a vital problem.'"18
Proxy Land Registration
In an effort to avoid taxes and military service, "most peasants preferred to have an urban notable, merchant, rural shayk, or mukhtar register the land in his name, with the original 'owning' peasant remaining on the land as a tenant. By resorting to this commonly used proxy system, peasants avoided the registration fees and ... eluded the conscription rolls, since land records were used to identify those eligible for military service. Furthermore, Ottoman law stated that land not cultivated for three years ... would be offered by government for public auction. Hence, peasants who were recruited into the Ottoman army ... often found that their land was now 'owned' by another."13
These Arabs had no recourse to the dispossession and none of the safeguards that were later enacted by the British Mandate government to prevent it. They lost ownership of their land and that was it. Usually the dispossessed Arabs were allowed to remain on the land and work it as tenant farmers, paying rent to their new landlords. This was not always the case, however since "... Arab landowners before World War I could and did evict tenants without offering them compensation. Moreover, when land was transferred, all tenants could have been dismissed by the owner, and, indeed, the purchasers made it a condition of purchase that the land be transferred free of cultivators."14
"General rural disdain for the urban landowning elite originated in Ottoman times ... Landowning interests showed little or no sense of social obligation to assist in the amelioration of the peasants' economic condition. Minimal guidance or assistance was offered by the landowning classes about how land should be used to achieve better yields or increase the standard of living of the tenants and agricultural workers."17
It is interesting to note that while the dispossession of Palestinian Arabs of their land is pointed to as a major instigation for the Arab-Israeli conflict, it never induced a similar conflict prior to the Jews arriving. To be sure, the indebted, rural Arabs losing their land viewed the money lenders and tax collectors with scorn as they were forced to hand over their deeds, but animosity toward this process never manifested itself in similar manner to that organized against Jewish land acquisitions. Certainly, if conflict arose from the act of dispossession rather than who was doing it, then conflict should have materialized during the many decades it had been taking place before Zionism took root in Palestine.
We turn our attention now to the arrival of Jewish immigrants to Palestine and their contribution to the dispossession of Palestinian Arabs. These immigrants started arriving in successive waves starting in the 1880s and continued through the creation of the state of Israel. Given the fact that an Arab-Arab conflict never took shape before the Jews arrived, it would be understandable to conclude that there must have been something especially harsh about the dispossession resulting from Zionist methods of land accumulation.
One would expect to see commonplace examples of Jews stealing, strong-arming, swindling, blackmailing; basically resorting to any trick up their sleeve to pry land out of Arab hands. In reality, the Jewish technique of accumulating land was simple ... they bought it. Both the concern and the complaints of Jews dispossessing Arabs centered on how much land the Jews were purchasing, not stealing, from land owners:
The British investigation into the Arab riots during 1936-39 identifies "Arab alarm at the continued Jewish purchase of land"1, not Jewish theft of land, as one of the motivating factors.
"Conversely, the main Ottoman and Arab complaint against the Zionists was about land sales ..."2
"Meanwhile, Jewish land purchase continued apace, exacerbating Palestinian disquiet."3
"Arab discontent on account of Jewish immigration and the sale of lands to Jews which has been a permanent feature of political opinion in Palestine for the past ten years, began to show signs of renewed activity from the beginning of 1933, developing in intensity until it reached a climax in the riots of October and November."4
"In the beginning of the 1930s, the national value of the land and its transfer from one people to the other became one of the main issues in the political conflict between the two communities. The Arabs insisted that His Majesty's Government put an end to land purchase by the Jews, claiming that it threatened their national existence."5
"Though they had profited from the enhanced trade and employment opportunities generated by the new Jewish settlements, Palestinian Arabs had grown increasingly concerned about the rise of Jewish immigration and land purchases."
6
"An article published in July 1911 by Mustafa Effendi Tamr, a teacher of mathematics at a Jerusalem school" reads, "You are selling the property of your fathers and grandfathers for a pittance to people who will have no pity on you, to those who will act to expel you and expunge your memory from your habitations and disperse you among the nations. This is a crime that will be recorded in your names in history, a black stain and disgrace that your descendants will bear, which will not be expunged even after years and eras have gone by. ... Opposition to land sales was one of the principal focal points around which the Arab national idea in Palestine coalesced."
7
"Of course, the Zionists bought the land from Arab landholders, who moved to cities or even left the country. They were all too willing to sell, for the price paid by the purchasers was often many times more than anyone else would or could pay."
32
King Abdallah of Jordan complains several times in his memoirs about Jews acquiring land in Palestine. Not once does he accuse the Jews of stealing it from the Arabs. Each time he mentions it, the complaint is how much land they are buying:
"... the fears of the Arab political leaders are supported by the fact that the sale of land continues unrestricted and every day one piece of land after another is torn from the hands of the Arabs.
8
"According to my information the Jews have requested the continuance of the mandate so that they can buy up more land and bring in additional immigrants. No other country has gone through such a trial as Palestine."
9
"Or are you among those who believe that there is no harm in continuing the present deleterious mandate despite the Jewish usurpers it has brought and despite the demonstrated inability of those Palestinians now at the political helm to prevent their compatriots from selling their land? Furthermore, it is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping."
10
"‘Know each of you that in the end every Arab who sells land of the Arab patrimony or who pimps for the Jews will soon receive his due, which is certain death.’ The placards were signed by an organization calling itself ‘Revenge.’ ‘Our problem is the outcome of the sale of our land. The amazing thing is that we sell to the Jews and then scream and wail and ask for the government’s help,’"11
Not only was the land being legally purchased, it was being purchased at drastically inflated prices. Arab land owners were making a killing selling their land during the waves of Jewish immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Despite the animosity against selling land to Jews coming from elitist Arabs, it simply made good economic sense for landlords to sell while they could exploit the thriving market Jewish demand was creating. Sometimes the land being purchased was nothing more than sand dune, malarial swamps and marshes, or other unattractive plots of waste. Even so, it was payday for many landlords; a day many hadn't seen in a long time and one that wouldn't come again:
"Until 1936 ... the Jews acquired about 25,000 dunam in the Beit-Shean Valley ... The soil was of the poorest quality, in scattered parcels of land, and it was impossible to establish even one settlement on it. The Jewish purchasers paid the full price for these lands; in addition the Government compelled them to cover all the outstanding debts that the sellers had accumulated. (In most cases not one penny of these bad debts had been paid for years.)"12
"The Jewish authorities have nothing with which to reproach themselves in the matter of the Sursock lands. They paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay."13
"He [the Arab] may sell his land for a fantastic price and add to the congestion in the other zones by moving there. An Arab living a short distance away, just across the zone boundary, cannot obtain anything approximating the same sum for land of equal quality.”14
"The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. “In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre."15
"The settlers were ready to pay much more than the economic value of the land. The same or better land is available a few kilometers to the east or north of the Palestine frontiers at one tenth or less of the Palestinian price."16
“Between 1880 and 1914 over sixty thousand Jews entered Palestine … Many settled on wasteland, sand-dunes and malarial marsh, which they then drained, irrigated and farmed. In 1909 a group of Jews founded the first entirely Jewish town, Tel Aviv, on the sandhills north of Jaffa. The Jews purchased their land piecemeal, from European, Turkish and (principally) Arab landlords, mostly at extremely high prices.”17
“By 1925 over 2,600 Jews had settled in the [Jezreel] valley, and 3,000 acres of barren hillside had been afforested. This previously uncultivated land, bought at highly inflated prices, became the pattern of all subsequent Jewish National Fund settlements in Palestine.”18
"In his 'note of reservations' to the Report of the Woodhead Commission, Sir Alison Russel says: 'It does not appear to me that to permit an Arab to sell his land for three or four times its value, and to go with the money to a different part of the Arab world where land is cheap, can be said to "prejudice" his rights and position.'"19
"The average price paid by Jews for the rural land they bought in Palestine during 1944 amounted to over $1000 per acre or about $250 per dunam (including the value of buildings, orchards and other improvements). These prices are, of course, highly inflated …"20
"... land brokers sometimes purchased their shares or parcels at a very low price and sold them at ten and twenty multiples to Jewish buyers. Peasants who were in musha' villages were particularly incensed at landlords, land brokers, or agents after learning that they had been swindled."21
"Aharon Danin of KKL told of an interesting conversation he had at the beginning of the 1940s with Khaled Zu’bi (brother of Sayf al-Din), who helped him buy land in the Zu’biyya villages east of Nazareth: He [Zu’bi] said, ‘Look, who knows better than me that your work is pure. You pay money for everything, top dollar, many times more than what the land is worth. But that doesn’t change the fact that you are dispossessing us. You are dispossessing us with money, not by force, but the fact is that we are leaving the land.’ I say to him: ‘You are from this Zu’biyya tribe which is located here, in Transjordan, and in Syria, what difference does it make to you where you are, if you are here or if you and your family are there? …’ He said: ‘It’s hard for me to tell you, but in any case the graves of my forefathers are here. I feel that we are leaving this place. It’s our fault and not yours.’"30
"The Arab large landowner quickly recognized that he could now do much better business with his land than continuing to have it worked by tenants. ... It was valid to sell it to the newly arrived [Jewish and German] colonist and indeed for the highest possible price. What was to happen to the renter for whom the land was ... sold from under his feet concerned the effendi very little. The tenant was just tossed out onto the street and had to take to his heels. So the colonization became an uninterrupted source of tenant tragedies. On the other hand, the price of land rose in an unimaginable manner."22
In addition to the inflated land value, Jewish buyers were also making numerous and substantial (some might say extortionist) payments to see the deal through from beginning to end. "Initial sums were usually paid to lubricate the selling motive. Local village notables, tenants in occupation, mukhtars, intermediaries, brokers, short-term squatters, and land registry officials often received persuasive sums. The owner or owners also received a sum of money prior to signing the contract. This could mean paying several similar or different sums to members of one family who owned portions of a large land area. A subsequent payment was sometimes made when all the title deeds available were collected and condensed into one large parcel. Another payment was made when a portion of the land was legally transferred or prior to the land being considered free of tenants and agricultural occupants. Still another sum was paid when possession was taken (this to avoid squatting by transient fellaheen), and then periodically as stipulated in a contract."31
A Bit of Hypocrisy
It was the Arab political leadership that was screaming the loudest about stopping these land sales: "The Arab Press lost nothing of its virulence in inveighing against ... the transfer of land to Jews ... The Arab leaders have been more outspoken and less compromising in their hostility ..."23 Of course, rendering these protests utterly disingenuous was the fact these same Arabs continued selling their land to immigrating Zionists. These elitist hypocrites wanted to reserve the right to profit from the suddenly valuable land in Palestine while denying other debt-ridden land owners the same option.
"The historian's eye has also been caught by the ambivalent position of the Arab national leadership which, while publicly demanding an end to Zionist expansion, privately continued to sell land to the Jews."24
"Here one cannot ignore the continuous sale of land by Arab landowners to Jews in the 1930s, which was so crucial to the success of Zionism. This can be treated in the context of the social fragmentation of Arab society in Palestine: some Arabs sold land for profit and thus deprived other Arabs of their only means of livelihood. Moreover, some of the national leaders themselves profited from land sales, despite their national consciousness."25
"Throughout the Mandate, the leading Arab families, including Husseinis and Opposition figures, sold land to the Zionists, despite their nationalist professions. Jewish landholding increased between 1920 and 1947 from about 456,000 dunams to about 1.4 million dunams. The main brake on Jewish land purchases, at least during the 1920s and 1930s, was lack of funds, not any Arab indisposition to sell."26
"And a giant question mark hangs over the “nationalist” ethos of the Palestinian arab elite: Husseinis as well as Nashashibis, Khalidis, Dajanis, and Tamimis just before and during the Mandate sold land to the Zionist institutions and/or served as Zionist agents and spies."27
"Muhammad Nimer al-Hawwari, who headed the Najjadah, took the microphone at a rally in Jaffa and said, ‘For twenty years we have heard talk against land brokers and land sellers, yet here they sit in the front rows at every national gathering.’ The rally’s organizers reacted swiftly; they turned off the loudspeakers."28
"The rural elite, with their large landholdings, were accused of opportunism by fellahin, who declared: ‘They, the effendis, sold their lands to the Jews, they are the intermediaries between us and the Jews in the sale of land, they exploit us with usurious interest and head the gangs that abused us.’"29
An initial contrast between the way Arab money lenders and merchants acquired land through economic oppression and trickery versus the way Zionist immigrants acquired land through paying exorbitant sums of money offers no answers for why conflict erupted. In fact, considering only the methods of land acquisition apart from any issue it would seem the arrival of Jewish immigrants and their money would have ended hostilities that should have already been in place. It cannot be suggested by any reasonable account that Jewish land purchases oppressed or dispossessed the legal owners of the land being sold. That was a willful agreement reached between two parties. The catch here was the tenant farmers that lived and worked the land being sold. These were often times the previous owners who had already been dispossessed of their ownership before Jewish immigrants arrived. Now with interested Jewish buyers available, the same Arabs guilty of demoting these farmers to tenant status were selling the land out from under them to turn a profit.
The reason this was such a concern was that Jewish buyers wanted the land free of tenant farmers. Unlike absentee Arab landlords living in Damascus, Beirut, and Cairo, the Jews desired to live and work on the plots they bought. Certainly the new Jewish owners were within their rights to expect the land they had spent so much money for would not have to be shared, but we are looking to explain why this dispossession led to conflict, not to justify owners' rights which do not require a defense.
Perhaps the physical act of relocation was of greater psychological consequence than losing intangible ownership and therefore accounts for why conflict only arose against the Jews. Yes, it was the Arab elite who stripped them of this ownership through a series of oppressive measures and then in a second pass sold away the land they used, but it was typically not until the Jews arrived that the Arabs faced the physical consequences of relocation. The next section in this series explores the extent to which this form of Zionist dispossession took place.[/release]
Here you go lol.
Warhol, guess who's my avatar ;)
I'm not going to bother destroying your arguements BED, I'm on my iTouch. But I will later, anything than debating that alt rarer annoying ohadje.
[QUOTE=Warhol;24195066]zionist terrorism
i'm going to keep saying that until you fucking get that through your head.
[editline]11:49PM[/editline]
Burnemdown: furthering the fact Zionism is retarded. Go get em' kiddo[/QUOTE]
Where is your proof of this so called zionist terrorism at that time period?
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;24195106]In the Negev desert? Nobody lived there, only Bedouins [B]who didn't care about having their own country[/B].[/quote]
Plenty of settlers were there too
[quote]Here you go lol.[/QUOTE]
you don't really know what a source is, do you?
First of all, you quoted a whole different source. Second of all, it's discussing the Ottoman Empires effect on Palestine and Zionist effect on the land.
you are fucking illiterate.
Uberman, there was terrorism and it was practiced by Zionists, but the majority of terrorist action was taken by Arabs against the Zionists, not the other way around.
Read some Wikipedia on the British Mandate.
[editline]01:57AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Warhol;24195243]Plenty of settlers were there too[/quote]
Jewish settlers, yeah.
[quote]you don't really know what a source is, do you?
First of all, you quoted a whole different source. Second of all, it's discussing the Ottoman Empires effect on Palestine and Zionist effect on the land.
you are fucking illiterate.[/QUOTE]
It's not a whole different source, and It's not talking only about the Ottoman Empire, but also on how the Zionists bought lands from the Arabs and never stole.
Ctrl+F this sentence: "One would expect to see commonplace examples of Jews stealing, strong-arming, swindling, blackmailing; basically resorting to any trick up their sleeve to pry land out of Arab hands. In reality, the Jewish technique of accumulating land was simple ... they bought it."
Which also sums it all up.
The first terrorism related attack was perputated by the Zionists.
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;24195194]Where is your proof of this so called zionist terrorism at that time period?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29[/url]
Well I didn't know that.
Fuck Israel.
But you shouldn't try to get rid of Israel. There are plenty of innocent people there. Just put sanctions on Israel or something and maybe give Palestine land elsewhere.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;24195263]Uberman, there was terrorism and it was practiced by Zionists, but the majority of terrorist action was taken by Arabs against the Zionists, not the other way around.
Read some Wikipedia on the British Mandate.[/quote]
lol, I don't think the Kind David massacre was by Arabs. This is a really biased and unsourced statement. The amount of innocent settlers slaughtered by Ben Gurion and his crew
[quote]Jewish settlers, yeah.[/quote]
Didn't you just say only bedouins lived there?
[quote]It's not a whole different source, and It's not talking only about the Ottoman Empire, but also on how the Zionists bought lands from the Arabs and never stole.[/quote]
uh, yeah, it fucking is.
[quote]Ctrl+F this sentence: "One would expect to see commonplace examples of Jews stealing, strong-arming, swindling, blackmailing; basically resorting to any trick up their sleeve to pry land out of Arab hands. In reality, the Jewish technique of accumulating land was simple ... they bought it."
Which also sums it all up.[/QUOTE]
So this subjective source means its true? christ sake, give a little.
Have you ever in your life, posted an objective source? just saying.
[editline]12:04AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Uberman77883;24195368]Well I didn't know that.
Fuck Israel.[/quote]
Well that's an interesting turnaround.
[quote]But you shouldn't try to get rid of Israel. There are plenty of innocent people there. Just put sanctions on Israel or something and maybe give Palestine land elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
Why can't Palestine stay where it is?
Uberman, no one here is advocating the liqudation of Israel.
I'm just saying.
But that's mature of you still.
[QUOTE=Warhol;24195435]lol, I don't think the Kind David massacre was by Arabs. This is a really biased and unsourced statement. The amount of innocent settlers slaughtered by Ben Gurion and his crew[/quote]
Ben Gurion? I doubt that old man ever held a gun.
[quote]Didn't you just say only bedouins lived there?[/quote]
Yeah until Jewish settlers came there, but in that case the Bedouins didn't go all "ARGHH DEY BE TEKIN AR LEND".
[quote]uh, yeah, it fucking is.[/quote]
Uh, no, it's fucking not, I think I know where I copy-pasted from.
[quote]So this subjective source means its true? christ sake, give a little.
Have you ever in your life, posted an objective source? just saying.[/quote]
And how is it subjective, exactly?
[editline]02:15AM[/editline]
Uberman proves he's a moron. Seriously someone brings you some sources about stuff and you change your opinion around? I told you to read some stuff on Wikipedia, what do you think, that because these two told you something that supports their own opinion, then it's right and there aren't other things that happened that would suggest their opinion isn't as right as they make it out to be?
in case you guys didnt realize, this is the guy in the title
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuqNWG9sbuE[/media]
such a trustworthy man
[QUOTE=Arrows;24198958]No.[/QUOTE]
The Israeli government.
Israel is a dumbfuck. They think they can fly into IRANIAN FUCKING AIRSPACE unnoticed.
This isn't fucking Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam. Iran has a military ready to go at the drop of a hat. Plus they have a pretty impressive military record.
Seriously, don't fuck with Iran or any other developed country for the matter.
^Oh shit guys armchair general in the house.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;24199783]^Oh shit guys armchair general in the house.[/QUOTE]
The biggest armchair general on FP is Gunfox.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.