Posted on 11/04/2001 2:20:35 AM PST by liberallarry
KJV
Joel 3:4
DreamWeaver, Please note:
Hebrew Masoretic Text:
Joel 4:4
(transliterated since not everyone's browser can display Hebrew characters)
Vegam meh atem li tzor vetzidon vekhol g'lilat Pileshet
Go back and read your 17th century translation but don't tell me that Israel and Philistia are one and the same.
Arabs who owned land still owned the land. The only difference was that this land now fell under the sovereignty of the new state. Take a look at Jaffa for example. Almost completely Arab to this day, yet a part of Israel proper.
Lent has a good transcript of the Arab leader speaking at a British hearing regarding land purchases, maybe he will post some of it here.
thanks
Quote from text
SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs
being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I
want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration,
acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews?
MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired.
SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition
as land would be acquired for public purposes?
MUFTI: No, it wasn't.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition?
MUFTI: No.
Evidence of Haj Amin al-Husseini Before the Royal
Commission
LORD PEEL: ... Just one question, then. You want completely to stop Jewish
immigration. What do you want to do with the 400,000 Jews here at present?
MUFTI: They will live as they always did live previously in Arab countries, with
complete freedom and liberty, as natives of the country. In fact Moslem rule has
always been known for its tolerance, and as a matter of fact Jews used to come
to Eastern countries under Arab rule to escape persecution in Europe.
According to history, Jews had a most quiet and peaceful residence under Arab
rule....
MUFTI: But I can say that the Jews, many thousands, are actually living in Iraq
and Syria under Arab rule and have the same rights and the same position as
the other inhabitants of the countries.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Would you give me the figures again for the land. I want to
know how much land was held by the Jews before the Occupation.
MUFTI: First of all I would like to say that one of the members of our Committee
will deal later with the land question, but nevertheless I will give you the figures.
At the time of the Occupation the Jews held about 100,000 dunams.
SIR L. HAMMOND: What year?
MUFTI: At the date of the British Occupation.
SIR L. HAMMOND: And now they hold how much?
MUFTI: About 1,500,000 dunams: 1,200,000 dunams already registered in the
name of the Jewish holders, but there are 300,000 dunams which are the
subject of written agreements, and which have not yet been registered in the
Land Registry. That does not, of course, include the land which was assigned,
about 100,000 dunams.
SIR L. HAMMOND: What 100,000 dunams was assigned. Is that not included in,
the 1,200,000 dunams? The point is this. He says that in 1920 at the time of the
Occupation, the Jews only held 100,000 dunams, is that so? I asked the figures
from the Land Registry, how much land the Jews owned at the time of the
Occupation. Would he be surprised to hear that the figure is not 100,000 but
650,000 dunams?
MUFTI: It may be that the difference was due to the fact that many lands were
bought by contract which were not registered.
SIR L. HAMMOND: There is a lot of difference between 100,000 and 650,000.
MUFTI: In one case they sold about 400,000 dunams in one lot.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Who? An Arab?
MUFTI: Sarsuk. An Arab of Beyrouth.
SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted
from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the
Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it
over to the Jews?
MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired.
SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land
would be acquired for public purposes?
MUFTI: No, it wasn't.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition?
MUFTI: No.
SIR L. HAMMOND: But these lands amounting to some 700,000 dunams were
actually sold?
MUFTI: Yes, they were sold, but the country was placed in such conditions as
would facilitate such purchases.
SIR I HAMMOND: I don't quite understand what you mean by that. They were
sold Who iold them?
MUFTI: Land owners.
SIR I HAMMOND: Arabs?
MUFTI: In most cases they were Arabs.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Was any compulsion put on them to sell? If so, by whom?
MUFTI: As in other countries, there are people who by force of circumstances,
economic forces, sell their land.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Is that all he said?
MUFTI: They were not prevented from selling the land, and mostly the country
was in such economic condition as facilitated the sale. If the Government had
the interest of these poor people at heart they should have prevented sales and
these people would not have been evicted from their land. A large part of these
lands belong to absentee landlords who sold the land over the heads of their
tenants, who were forcibly evicted. The majority of these landlords were
absentees who sold their land over the heads of their tenants. Not Palestinians
but Lebanese.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Is His Eminence in a position to give the Commission a list
of the people, the Arabs who have sold lands, apart from those absentee
landlords?
MUFTI: I am sure the Department of Lands can supply such a list.
SIR L. HAMMOND: I didn't ask him to tell me where I could get the information
from. I asked was he in a position to give it to me.
MUFTI: It is possible for me to supply such a list.
SIR L. HAMMOND: I ask him now this: does he think that as compared with the
standard of life under the Turkish rule the position of the fellahin in the villages
has improved or deteriorated?
MUFTI: Generally speaking I think their situation has got worse.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Is taxation heavier or lighter?
MUFTI: Taxation was much heavier then, but now there are additional burdens.
SIR L. HAMMOND: I am asking him if it is now, the present day, as we are
sitting together here, is it a fact that the fellahin has a much lighter tax than he
had under the Turkish rule? Or is he taxed more heavily?
MUFTI: The present taxation is lighter, but the Arabs nevertheless have now
other taxation, for instance, customs. On this very point a member of the Arab
Committee will deal.
LORD PEEL: On the burden of taxation?
MUFTI: Yes.
LORD PEEL: And the condition of the fellahin as regards, for example,
education. Are there more schools or fewer schools now?
MUFTI: They may have more schools, comparatively, but at the same time there
has been an increase in their numbers.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Is there any conscription for the army now?
MUFTI: No.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Would the people like to have that back?
MUFTI: Yes. Provided we have our own Government.
SIR L. HAMMOND: Then am I to take it from his evidence that he thinks the Arab
portion of the population would be more happy if they reverted to a Turkish rule
than under the present Mandatory rule?
MUFTI: That is a fact.
1 The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini was later the notorious Nazi who mixed Nazi
propaganda and Islam. He was wanted for war crimes and the slaughter of Jews in Bosnia by
Yugoslavia. His mix of militant propagandizing Islam was an inspriation for both Yasser Arafat
and Saddam Hussein. He was also a close relative of Yasser Arafat and grandfather of the
current Temple Mount Mufti. "Arafat's actual name was Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat
al-Qud al-Husseini. He shortened it to obscure his kinship with the notorious Nazi and ex-Mufti
of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini." Howard M. Sachar, A HISTORY OF ISRAEL
(New York: Knopf, 1976). The Bet Agron International Center in Jerusalem interviewed Arafat's
brother and sister, who described the Mufti as a cousin (family member) with tremendous influence on
young Yassir after the Mufti returned from Berlin to Cairo. Yasser Arafat himself keeps his exact
lineage and birthplace secret. Saddam Hussein was raised in the house of his uncle
Khayrallah Tulfah, who was a leader in the Mufti's pro-Nazi coup in Iraq in May 1941.
This page was produced by Joseph E. Katz
Middle Eastern Political and Religious History Analyst
Brooklyn, New York
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/evidence.html
Other instances of purchased land by the Jews in the Mandate. Arab money lenders foreclosing on fellaheen. Jews purchased the land and paid the debts of the fellaheen (Arieh L. Avneri, The Claim of Dispossession (1984), p. 207):
The fellaheen of Taiyibe, Tira, Tamra and Na'ura had mortaged their lands to money lenders, mostly the family of Abd el-Hadi. Gradually the mortagagees acquired title to large portions of the land. The situation became critical. The fellaheen were unable to repay their loans and there was an immediate danger that they would lose all their land. In order to get free of the oppressive moneylenders they sought to sell part of their holding, a tract of 50,000 dunam.Many of the landowners in the Mandate who sold land to the Jews were not even "Palestinians". Ex: (Avneri, p. 201)
They turned to Hankin and offered to sell the land to the Jewish National Fund, if it would undertake to pay their debts. The Jewish National Fund bought these lands during the years 1936-39. The fellaheen escaped the embrace of the moneylenders...
Most of the land in the Hills of Naftali was the property of absentee owners, residents of Syria and Lebanon. In March 1940 Nahmani made a survey of the holdings of landowners who were not Palestinian citizens. He found they owned a total of 83,467 dunam in the Districts of Safed and Tiberias, 26,000 dunam in the Safed District and 7,000 dunam in the Tiberias District were owned by Circassians, Druse, Iranians and Germans. None of these landowners were citizens of Palestine. .....Ahmed Mardini, a Kurd from Damascus, owned 2,200 dunam; Hassan Farah, a Christian from Marj Iyun, owned 2,000 dunam; and 520 dunam were owned by Abdullah Khuri and the heirs of Shahadrin Khuri, all of whom were from Lebanon...The village of Malkiya, comprising 765 dunam, was owned by the heirs of Hussein Sulayman Buza, Moslem Kurds living in Damascus, and was sold to the Jewish National Fund....[etc.]Avneri gives one example of the benefit the Jews brought to the land in purchasing these tracts of land (p. 207-08)
The P.I.C.A. [Jewish Agency involved in land puchases] owned 2,354 dunam in the village of Tira. It had bought the land many years previously, but had never extablished a Jewish settlement there, and it was being worked by tenant farmers. In 1946 the Jewish National Fund bought the land and undertook to indemnify the tenant farmers. It paid them LP. 6,097 as a compensation and also bought their houses and adjoining gardens for an additional LP. 9,548. The fellaheen who remained in Tira as neighbors to the Jewish settlers gained a further major benefit when malaria was eradicated from the area. Two years before the land was bought in Tira, Dr. Sliternik, the head of the Jewish Agency's Health Department, visited the village with a view to planning for the eradication of the disease. He found that..."almost all the villagers suffered from malaria....The danger is redoubled because of the many swamps in the area, over which we have no control or supervision...." Once the tract was bought the swamps were drained, and the Jewish and Arab settlements were freed from the disease.Many moderate Arabs (finally silenced after the Mufti led Islamic riots of 1936-39) sold the land to the Jews despite the hypocritical threats of other pan-Arab nationalists. Ex.: (Avneri, p. 209):
The fellaheen of the above-mentioned villages had lived on the land for many generations and had struck roots in the villages. Not so with the fellaheen of the Mugrabi villages. Half their lands were owned by emirs, descendants of exiles who had accompanied Abd el-Kader, who for the most part were living in Syria.
The Fahum family of Nazareth sold the Fund [Jewish Nationalist Fund] a 3,000-dunam tract of land "in fee simple and free of tenant farmers." The head of the family, Yussuf Fahum, who was mayor of Nazareth for a time, sold his land despite terrorist threats. According to the Jewish National Fund functionaries who dealt with him, he was a proud man and he despised the hypocritical Arab public figures who sold land to Jews in secret and then gave vent to extreme nationalist utterances. He effected the sale openly and publicly without resorting to intermediaries or fictive owners.
Get off of your suburban plot of land. It belongs to the Indians.
I do not mind at all to pay my/rent/mortgage to the Indian tribe. I might even to prefer it that way. Or if they do not want me I can move somewhere else. No problem.
Yeah sure. But if someone tries to bring some item from the public record you will start to yell at him not very nice words. Look, it is nice that you try to find justification, it means that at least you have an ambition to be just. But justice is expensive. Why don't you say - "this land was acquired the most common way - by the invasion and conquest".
Bovine feces. It is ever-so-swell to be able to keyboard-grandstand.
Lets put you to the test. I am aware of several Indian tribes who will gladly accept your land in retributive payment for the land that was stolen for them. Freepmail me and I can get your information and we can arrange the transfer of your real property to these fine and noble Native Americans.
Odds are you rent, or you would not make these unrealistic pronouncements. But if you do not rent, I expect to hear from you immediately so you can do your part to set things right.
LOL! Yeah, big-talking seller while sitting comfie-like in easy chair.
Yes, I rent so I have no conflict of interest. You own so you have to find justifications. Just make them compelling on the ground of something else that your/or your audience personal interest.
The government of the United States, and much of its citizenry completely disagree with you. The reasons are all over the net (if it isn't obvious every time you get in your car or turn on your home heater).
That's assuming you have no interest in anything but warmth and comfort. If you're idealistic in any way...or care about what we call civilization...there are additional reasons.
Yes you do. You're giving the money to the landowner who pays his mortgage and other sundry expenses. You're a party to the "offence". Hence, I suggest to be true to your word you become a vagabond. A wandering minstrel maybe. Begging from street corner to street corner playing music or doing sundry magic tricks for a few mean dollars. Come now, we're waiting.
Is that all. In the meantime the U.S. puts $50 billion a year into the Gulf to protect Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and goes to war (Desert Storm) for its Arab Islamic friends. When was the last time the U.S. went to war for Israel? Moreover, who gives a flying leap about the Arab Islamics. You can coddle them and love them all you want. But if you don't know by now they'll stab you in the back then you need a few lessons in realpolitik. And this business about blaming Israel for the crybaby Arab Islamic states is lame. Don't you remember all those conditional expressions of sorrow by the Islamics concerning 9/11? Like "oh, that was terrible, BUT....". Always looking to blame and never looking at their own pathetic policies and totalitarian hell-holes.
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.