The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 247)

غرض

عنوان

The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 247)

المحتوى

231
This government action raises several issues. The distribution of the
machinery was clearly biased in favor of the European settlers. Whether this bias
was deliberate, the unavoidable result of previous government inaction, or had to
do with the differences in the nature of the organization of Arab and European
farming is debatable. Kamen points out that “Jewish agriculture was much more
mechanized than Arab farming before the war, and [its] organization made it easier
to demonstrate that machinery could be effectively used.”° In addition, the deep
plowing of tractors required irrigation that, in turn, was only doable on large
holdings or if small landholders cooperated. Kamen gives the example of villages
in the Huleh area in the 1940s that, with government support, were able to make
use of tractors but who also “had access to surface water that could be diverted to
fields relatively expensively.”° This raises the question of why these government
efforts were not carried out at an earlier date when it was needed most by Arab
peasants.
No conjectural answer will be attempted, but it is nonetheless obvious that
the Huleh example shows that it could have been done and that Arab villagers were
willing to cooperate to improve their conditions. The Huleh example is not unique:
The ability of Arab peasants to cooperate successfully can be seen from the
example of the credit cooperatives that were established in some areas. In spite of
the meager government support, members of these societies, unlike other peasants,
Kamen, 216.
bid.
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