Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (115460)	9/22/2003 4:27:39 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I never said that the evictions were illegal, or immoral, or wrong. They did, however, have consequences. The tenants were not exactly "renting" the land, in the sense that we understand "renting". As with many feudal systems, they were traditionally regarded as part of the estate: when the estates changed hands, they simply paid their rents to a different owner. Many had never seen or met the owners. When the estates were bought by Zionists who wished to settle their own people there, the tenants were expelled, generally with minimal payoffs. They ended up in urban shantytowns, dead broke and with no relevant skills, and developed a pretty severe case of hostility toward those who had displaced them. They were easy bait for demagogues and propagandists, and provided a core of footsoldiers for the early Palestine riots. The people buying the land were able to offer premium prices to the absentee landlords because they were fundraising in Europe, particularly in England. The pound was by far the strongest currency in the world in those days, and no local could compete against outsiders bearing hard currency. I'm not trying to judge any of these events and actions as right or wrong, good or bad. I'm trying to trace a causative chain.