The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 140)

غرض

عنوان

The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 140)

المحتوى

124
Arab cultivators and 15 percent for Jewish farmers. As for the total arrears, 75
percent were for Arab cultivators and 25 percent for Jewish farmers.” In the
words of Simpson, “Everywhere this year the small cultivator has had to borrow in
order to pay his taxes, when he has paid them. In very many cases he has found it
impossible to pay them at all.”
Finally, there was the differential impact that agricultural taxes had on
Jewish European farmers and Arab peasants, and the one derived from the
variations in rates between urban and rural taxes where the majority of the Arab
population lived.
As for the burden of taxation on the Jewish farmer, the Johnson-Crosbie
Report states:
The werko [with its much lower rate than the tithe] he pays in the
case of postwar settlements is based on reassessed values, and
therefore, in spite of his consequent exemption from the war-time
additions to the werko, his payments are probably relatively heavier
than those of the Arab.”’
As for the more significant tithe, the report continues, “The Jewish farmer in the
new settlements probably benefits from the fact that the commuted tithe was based
on the lower productivity of Arab farming.”” This productivity gap increased
with time. This also meant that the impact of the price drops discussed above was
*Hope-Simpson Report, Appendix 17, 176.
**Ibid., 72.
“7Johnson-Crosbie Report, 47
Ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

هو جزء من

The Dispossession of the Peasantry

تاريخ

٢٠٠٦

المنشئ

Riyad Mousa

مجموعات العناصر

Generated Pages Set

Theses رسائل ماجستير ودكتوراه