On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 17:55:24 -0500 "Ray Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> To the list,
Perhaps you might speak on the issues of money in the Middle East.
Your parallel to my people here in America doesn't quite hold since what
made the great opportunity for
your ancestors was a die off rate of 92 to 98% of my ancestors, due to
the European germs and the luck of your ancestors to happen upon an
agricultural technology already in place and ready for immediate
occupancy with
only a few stragglers left to protest the invasion. So few that even
today we have fewer in population that the current Arab or Jewish
population
in the U.S..
Actually, I am not sure what the Native American population
was when my ancestors first landed but I am sure that several
million died as a result of our presence, not an insignificant issue.
Certainly the killing of the Native American population outranks
the Palestinian problem in terms of magnitude. In fact, if an
Israeli were to say to me that Americans have been less
humane than Israelis, I would have to agree. That does not,
however, serve to justify the displacement of the Palestinian
people who are squeezed between two hostile entities -
the Jordanians and the Israelis.
Re money, Bedouin tribal society was pretty egalitarian pre-oil.
Islam had always been pretty much an urban religion [Mecca,
Medina, Baghdad, Jerusalem] and the Saud family was
nomadic while their competitors, the Hashemite family, came
from the more settled west of the country - the Tihama region
and above. The fact that the Saud family gained control over
enormous oil wealth has more to do with their tying in with the
British and later the US through Aramco. The US has protected
the Saud family and has benefited from almost unlimited
access to oil. The Saud family has winked its eye at the finan-
cing of Palestinians and others outside of the Kingdom with
the understanding that there would be little threat inside.
>
> I don't understand why Israel is considered such a pariah amongst
> Arabs and other Moslems.
The bottom line is that Palestine was around 7% Jewish in
the late 1800's. With the oppression in Europe, King Abdallah
welcomed Jews to the area as long as they did not compromise
the rights of the existing populations. The 1893 World Zionist
Council indicated that there would need to be a Jewish State
in the area. When Jews moved in in the 30's on, with the
1948 war, Palestinians were displaced. Land was taken over
by the Israeli land authority and leased to Jews. Palestinians
lost their ownership. This is where the problem starts. Jews
did buy much of the land but they bought it from Israel not
from Palestinians although some Palestinians did sell. When
I worked in the area, I was able to see land which was previously
owned by Palestinian Muslims and Christians being tilled by Jews.
Palestinians saw the seam daily and it hurt. Those who lived
along the coast were the most heavily displaced and wound up
in refugee camps where condition were pretty grim. I spent a
lot of time in these camps - and on and on and on.
Considering the fact that of the Big Three Messianic Religions, the only
one that has never tried to convert an American Indian to their way of
thought are the Jews. The only non-Predator on Spiritual issues in the
bunch is Israeli.
I'm a Quaker. I bet no Quaker ever tried to recruit you. The
evangelizing
is a separate issue and one I do not feel competent to address.
The most you could say is that they resemble any other group that is
fighting for their own sacred space that goes back to the beginning of
their time.
That is right. They were displaced from Europe and later, as a result
of the Palestinian problem, a lot of Middle Eastern Jews left
homes in Arab countries [you must remember that they were Arab
Jews - and still are] to move to Israel.
>
> Perhaps it goes to the ultimate value in the West being the private
> property or the land itself as property. But I don't know about this
and I
> don't have an undergraduate degree in it either. Could you speak more
> about it?
While settled Palestinians had some land titles, many nomads
never did and participated in a shared annual migration cycle.
Transfer of land from the tribe to the chiefs recognized by the
British disenfranchised the majority of the tribe. The chiefs sold
of the best part of the migration cycle lands forcing may nomads
into urban centers.
>
> Ray Evans Harrell
>
>
>
>
