In article <1993Apr19.214951.19180@bnr.ca> zbib@bnr.ca writes: > >(Amir Y Rosenblatt) writes >   > Sam Zbib Writes >   >>No one in his right mind would sell his freedom and dignity. >   >>Palestinians are no exception. Perhaps you heard about >   >>anti-trust in the business world. >   >> >   >>Since we are debating the legality of a commercial >   >>transaction, we must use the laws governing the guidelines >   >>and ethics of such transactions. Basic ANTI-TRUST law says >   >>that, while you can purchase IBM stocks for the purpose of >   >>investing, you can not acquire a large number of those >   >>shares with the intent or controlling IBM. You can do so >   >>only if you make your intentions CLEAR apriori . Clearly, >   >>the Jews who purchased properties from palastenians had some >   >>designs, they were not buying a dwelling or a real estate. >   >They were establishing a bridgehead for the European Jews. >   >> >   >>The palastenians sold their properties to the Jews in the >   >>old tradition of arab hospitality. Being a multi-ethnic / >   >>multi-religious society, accepting the jews as neighbours >   >>was no different, just another religion. Plus they paid fair >   >>market value, etc... They did not know they were victims of >   >>an international conspiracy. (I'm not a conspiracy theorist >   >>myself, but this one is hard to dismiss). >   >> > >>Right now, I'm just going to address this point. >>When the Jewish National Fund bought most of its land, >>It didn't buy it from the Palestinians themselves, because, >>for the most part, they were tenant farmers (fallahin), >>living on land owned by wealthy Arabs in Syria and Lebanon. >>The JNF offered a premium deal, so the owners took advantage of >>it.   It's called commerce.  The owners, however, made no  >>provisions for those who had worked for them, basically shafting  >>them by selling the land right out from under them. >>They are to blame, not the Jews. >> >> > >Amir:  >Why would you categorize the sale of land as shafting? was >it because it was sold to Jews? was it fair to assume that the  >fallahin would be mistreated by the jews? is this the norm of  >any commerce (read shafting) between arabs and  jews?   It was shafting on the part of the Arab land owners for doing it  without notifying their tenant farmers and for not being responsible  enough to make provisions for them, but rather just leaving them to their fate. > >Your claim that the Lebanese/Syrian Landlords sold Palestine >(if true, even partially) omits the fact that the mandate >treaty put Lebanon and Syria under French rule, while >Palestine under british.  Obiviously, any such landlord >would have found himself a foreigner in Palestine and would >be motivated to sell, regardless of the price.  The point is that the land was sold legally, often at prices above its actual value.  It was legal, and good business for the sellers, though it left the Palestinians who worked the land in a poor situation.   > >It is interesting though that you acknowledge that the >palestinians were shafted. Do many Israelis or Jews share >your opinion ?  Do you  absolve the purchaser from >any ethical commitments just because it wasn't written down?   I don't know if others share this opinion.  It is mine, and I'm sure there are some who agree and some who don't The way I see it, the fallahin were caught in circumstances  beyond their control, in that since they didn't own the land, they didn't have a say. Of course, now for the sake of the "greater  Arab unity" the Arabs are angry that the land was sold to the Jews (an act that is illegal in Jordan), but when it happened, it was just  business.    > >All told, I did not see an answer in your response. The >question was whether the intent behind the purchase was >aimed at controlling the public assets (land, >infra-structure etc...). IMHO the Palestinians have grounds >to contest the legality of the purchase, say in world court. > >Sam  > >       My opinions are my own and no one else's  The purpose of buying the land was to provide space and jobs for  Jewish immigrants.  In any case, no matter what the purpose,  the sales were legal, so I really don't see any grounds for  contesting them.