(Amir Y Rosenblatt) writes
   > Sam Zbib Writes
   >>No one in his right mind would sell his freedom and dignity.
   >>Palestinians are no exception. Perhaps you heard about
   >>anti-trust in the business world.
   >>
   >>Since we are debating the legality of a commercial
   >>transaction, we must use the laws governing the guidelines
   >>and ethics of such transactions. Basic ANTI-TRUST law says
   >>that, while you can purchase IBM stocks for the purpose of
   >>investing, you can not acquire a large number of those
   >>shares with the intent or controlling IBM. You can do so
   >>only if you make your intentions CLEAR apriori . Clearly,
   >>the Jews who purchased properties from palastenians had some
   >>designs, they were not buying a dwelling or a real estate.
   >They were establishing a bridgehead for the European Jews.
   >>
   >>The palastenians sold their properties to the Jews in the
   >>old tradition of arab hospitality. Being a multi-ethnic /
   >>multi-religious society, accepting the jews as neighbours
   >>was no different, just another religion. Plus they paid fair
   >>market value, etc... They did not know they were victims of
   >>an international conspiracy. (I'm not a conspiracy theorist
   >>myself, but this one is hard to dismiss).
   >>


Amir: 
Why would you categorize the sale of land as shafting? was
it because it was sold to Jews? was it fair to assume that the 
fallahin would be mistreated by the jews? is this the norm of 
any commerce (read shafting) between arabs and  jews? 

Your claim that the Lebanese/Syrian Landlords sold Palestine
(if true, even partially) omits the fact that the mandate
treaty put Lebanon and Syria under French rule, while
Palestine under british.  Obiviously, any such landlord
would have found himself a foreigner in Palestine and would
be motivated to sell, regardless of the price.

It is interesting though that you acknowledge that the
palestinians were shafted. Do many Israelis or Jews share
your opinion ?  Do you  absolve the purchaser from
any ethical commitments just because it wasn't written down? 

All told, I did not see an answer in your response. The
question was whether the intent behind the purchase was
aimed at controlling the public assets (land,
infra-structure etc...). IMHO the Palestinians have grounds
to contest the legality of the purchase, say in world court.

Sam 