Pre-state Jewish colonization in northern palestine and its impact on local bedouin sedentarization...

,Journal of Historical Geography, 17, 3 (1991) 289-309

Pre-state Jewish colonization in northern

Palestine and its impact on local bedouin

sedentarization 1914-1948

Ghazi Falah

The impact of pre-state Jewish colonization on the processes of Bedouin sedentarization in the Galilee has been only partially investigated. Previous research has tended to emphasize the impact of Jewish colonization as having improved the economic status of the bedouin tribes as well as the local settled Arab population. The present paper arrives at different conclusions on the basis of documentation and field study. Rather than emphasizing economic improvement, this paper stresses the dimension of the detribaliza- tion of the bedouin and the reduction of their pasture land under the impact of Zionist settlement. Four case studies are examined in detail.

The Balfour declaration of November 2, 19 l 7, concerning the establishment of a "National Home" for the Jewish people in Palestine was a turning point in the human geography of Palestine. After centuries of population stability, the country became a target territory for future large-scale colonization. This process was reflected in the progressive alteration of the land tenure system and depopulation of indigenous inhabitants in certain areas, to be replaced by Jewish settlers coming from abroad.

In response to this declaration, the British administration, after the approval of the League of Nations Council on July 24, 1922, found it necessary to introduce restricted legislation pertaining to the land system--within the framework of the Mandate Charter provisions--in order to fulfil Balfour's promise. I~J

It is true that the British administration did not institute a special land system in order to colonize the territory with their own nationals or in their own exclusive national interest, f21 as had been the case with colonization in North Africa by the French and Italians. E31 However, since their policy contained two elements: the provisions of Article 1 1 (the Control of Land) and the undertaking to "facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions" and to encourage intensive settlement of Jews on the land in cooperation with the )Jewish Agency( (Article 6), it follows that the British administration in Palestine was in the position of adjudicator and partner at one and the same time.

The aim of this paper is to examine the impact of this type of colonization in northern Palestine on the ongoing processes of sedentarization among the local bedouin tribes during the period in question. The term "northern Palestine" includes the Galilee, Mt. Carmel, the Plain of Marj Ibn 'Amir (Plain of Jesreel) and the Jordan Valley from a point parallel in latitude with Jenin extending as

0305-7488/91/030289 + 21 $03.00/0 289 �9 1991 Academic Press Limited

290 G. FALAH

far north as Metulla (Figure 1). This definition of the area under question has been adopted from Ashkenazi (1937). [4] It is suggested that such colonization had little positive impact on bedouin economic stability and the improvement of their living standards. Nor did such colonization, through its supposed "moder- nizing" influence, provide a stimulus for spontaneous sedentarization. Rather, sedentarization processes were promoted by another factor: namely, the progressive reduction in grazing land available to bedouin herdsmen. The detribali- zation and disbanding of certain groups was the result of the systematic reduction of their pasture lands. These experiences brought about significant changes in bedouin perception of land and their social and political organiza- tion. In other words: the sedentarization process in this case was essentially shaped by the conflict arising between the indigenous pastoral bedouin and the new immigrant community of Jewish cultivators. British policy during the

/\. �9 ...o,,ooo,,o.. ~ ' i -~.~

. j ./ �9 ~ " ~ _ _ t - - I -

�9 ' � 9 �9 ! =

�9 � 9 1 4 9 / , -. Y"X

~ � 9 ~ - A \ / i .

= �9 3 .~ . . I Nozareth

oJenin /. ~

A ~ BeisonO "~ �9 � 9 1 4 9

�9 (

Figure 1. The locations of Bedouin tribes in northern Palestine in 1800

PRE-STATE JEWISH COLONIZATION 291

period under investigation functioned to foster the process of Jewish colonization.

Sir Herbert Samuel, the First High Commissioner for Palestine, sounded the initial warning of the potential impact of this colonization process. In a 1920 declaration addressed to Chaim Weizman, the Zionist leader, the High Commis- sioner described the effect of large-scale Jewish imigration to Palestine as causing "complete revision of the present system of tenure and the abolishment of old tribal grazing rights and customs". I51

Jewish leaders and writers of the period commented along similar lines:

The future of these tribes is a difficult problem. They have as strong a claim as the rest of the Arabs to follow their habitual mode of life, but that mode, with its wasteful system of nomadic grazing, can hardly be held to justify the perpetuation of private methods of cultivation. The whole question demands careful consideration. It may be that pastoral economy and intensive culture cannot exist side by side, in which case the bedouin's needs must be met in other ways . N

Two approaches will be utilized here to analyse the topic. First, the impact of Jewish colonization on bedouin sedentarization will be explored within the regional context of northern Palestine. A key aspect of that colonization was that it appears to have followed the patterns previously established by bedouin settlement and land use in this area (compare Figures 1 and 2) Jews and Arabs were in direct competit ion for land. On the one hand, the Zionist organizations purchased parcels of such land with the aim of settling Jewish colonizers; on the other hand, bedouin tribes as well as Arab villagers held possession or tenancy rights to this same land. The evolution of these conflicting preference patterns will be examined in detail.

Secondly, evidence from selected cases will be used to investigate the importance of specific circumstances for the development processes of sedentarization among certain tribes. This data has been derived principally from unpublished documents and extensive field research (April-September 1981 and January March 1989). It is hoped that this paper will contribute to a better understanding of the historical and cultural geography of pre-1948 Palestine by focusing on the struggle over land use and exploitation between an indigenous community of" semi-nomadic pastoralists and European (Jewish) colonizers.

Conceptual framework: pastoral nomadism, agricultural expansion and Zionism

Pastoral nomadism is defined as a way of livelihood ecologically adjusted at a particular technological level to the utilization of marginal resources. These resources are located in areas which, due to climatological or topographical constraints, are not suitable for extensive cultivation. Thus, pastoral nomadism, also categorizable as a specialized offshoot of agriculture, makes use of resources which would otherwise be neglected, l:] The areas located along the borders between nomadic and agricultural societies provide a classic example for the emergence of pastoral nomadism as conceived in this model; in this instance, the climatological factor is crucial. In contrast, there are cases in which pastoral nomadism has emerged genetically shaped by an entirely different set of factors: namely, the political and historical situation in the region as a whole, and the specific alignment of forces and corresponding policies of the more powerful

292 G. FALAH

By Registered Title

~ Shares in undivided land

~ Slate Lands held under c o n c e s s i o n

krn 9 20

Haifa

�9 n Shof ,At

E B A N O N )

�9 ~ . r . j "

. . . : '

Figure 2. Lands in Jewish possession in northern Palestine in 1944

side. In such instances, the pastoralist community finds itself pitted against the sedentary society or the state and its monopoly of power. [81

The northern Palestine area is known as an inhabited, non-desert region. The evolution of semi-nomadism in this region and the emergence of certain forms of pastoral nomadism here is a product of political and historical factors, rather than physical ones. This paper is not concerned with the emergence of pastoral nomadism in the area in question, a topic which has been dealt with at length elsewhere, p] but rather with denomadization: the erosion and disappearance of this mode of life due to the impact of colonialism, namely the policies of the British mandatory power and the Zionist movement. This impact altered the previous human-geographical matrix, which had favoured the emergence of semi-nomadic pastoralism in northern Palestine. The spatial attributes associated with this transformed situation are the ousting and dispossession of


bedouin tribes from certain areas previously utilized for pasture. The growing power of the sedentary society, backed by the state (in this case, the policy of the British mandate) led to the expansion of the agricultural frontier at the expense of local bedouin pastoralists. Pastoralism repeatedly retreated in the face of the expanding agricultural frontier, inevitably forcing formerly semi-nomadic tribes to adopt sedentary patterns.

Examples from other areas of the world can serve to illuminate the more general phenomena involved here. Citing an example from Turkey, Johnson describes the various pressures forcing nomads to change their way of life and location. The role of an expanding peasant agriculture is the crucial factor here, and Johnson concludes that "the cumulative result of all these pressures has been to reduce drastically the total number of individuals practicing nomadism and to force those nomads who are unable to continue to migrate into the state of landless laborers or impoverished farmers". II~ Mensching has also given a case in Tunisia in which the sedentarization of nomads and semi-nomads was bound up directly with the expansion of agriculture during the era of coloniza- tionJ ~ qCases are also known of Sahara Berber tribes and Arab tribes undergo- ing sedentarization; frequently, it was those nomads who had been defeated, and thus forced to surrender their pasture land to the victors, who became sedentary. I~21 The development of forestry in Palestine during the mandatory period indirectly affected bedouin sedentarization. Falah (1983) has documented several cases in which bedouin groups were pushed off their pastoral lands and localities; their pasture was then fenced off, and they were prohibited from entering the area. [~31

Among the objectives of Zionism as a political and ideological movement during the last decades of the 19th century was the aim to "place all the lands in the homeland in the hands of the [Jewish] people by having most of the real estate in Israel become the property of the state and the Zionist movement". [~41

Bedouin pastoral nomadism in Palestine was viewed by pre-state Zionist movement activitists as negative from the perspective of both land use and Jewish agricultural development, a "wasteful system of nomadic grazing". E~51 The bedouin way of life was also seen as an obstacle on the Zionist path to the purchase of soil in Palestine, since "they have as strong a claim as the rest of the Arabs". I161 Bedouin groups, who had occupied the land for centuries and whose grazing rights had been recognized and respected by the sedentary population, now faced an onslaught of systematic pressures by a colonizing movement bent on establishing itself on the land, and which therefore viewed bedouin pasture as a target for Jewish purchase and settlement.

The colonial system in its manifestation as Zionism generated two kinds of pressures: (a) a struggle waged in terms of legal rights, challenging bedouin rights to their land; and (b) a propaganda struggle to influence public opinion that the bedouin were "primitive, backward, uncivilized", and thus unable to properly utilize the land to which they laid claim. In respect to both these struggles against the bedouin, the Zionist movement obtained the encourage- ment and support of the British administration. This can be illustrated by several examples. Ruppin commented in 1936 that in colonizing Palestine, the Zionist pioneers had to struggle with both malaria and the bedouin. E~71 Arlosoroff (1937) remarked that " . . . there are Bedouins, too, who oppose Jewish settlement, but no more than they would oppose any modernization of the land and any stabilizing force, even if exerted by other Arabs". EtSl Ben Gurion (1936) conjured

294 G. FALAH

up an image of the bedouin tribesmen "accustomed to tribal warfare all their l ives . . , living by the sword for thousands of years, up to this day". In his view, it was probably not difficult to incite one bedouin tribe to attack another, or "to instigate the Bedouin tribes to attack a settlement that possesses much wealth, as the rich fantasy of the Oriental mind pictures the Jewish settlement." Thus, Ben Gurion argued, it was not hard to imagine the "terrible plots" being spun by the desert tribes against the Jewish presence in Palestine. l~91

It is important to underscore that the struggle between the bedouin in Palestine and the Zionist movement was not a confrontat ion between pastoralists and cultivators, as in so many other regions, but rather between two groups of cultivators: Arab and Jewish. In this case, many of those Arab cultivators were bedouin. F rom the Zionist perspective, bedouin Arab land was required for the Jewish people, regardless of its mode of use at the time.

The case of the bedouin of Beisan District, granted agricultural land in the Ghor el Mudawara Agreement, serves as a striking example of the competition between Zionist settlers and bedouin cultivators, t2~ In a related case, the bedouin of Zubidat, cultivators of the Ashrafiya lands west of Beisan town, were also in direct competit ion with Jewish institutions wishing to gain control of this fertile land.[211

In a document f rom the Zionist State Archives dating from 1920 concerning the land belonging to the Jubairat bedouin in the northern Negev, Zionist activists for land acquisition put together copious details on the land holdings of these bedouin. The Jubairat were cultivating some 60% of their land, amounting to 36 000 dunams. The following quote should give some idea of how these land buyers searched for weak spots and legal loopholes in bedouin land ownership in order to wedge their way in and then purchase such land:

This tribe has Hijaj [traditional land title] on each area of its land, except for one portion of Sukariya, belonging to Ochidat. This segment amounts to 1500 dunams and belongs legally to Muhmad E1 Abid. A small portion of it belongs to Dib Effendi E1 Bey (one of the notables of Jaffa). This portion of land was held as collateral by Halil E1 Azi during the course of the war, but the owner recently paid off his debt and took back the land. It is possible to obtain this piece of land. r221

The ultimate result was a continuous and mount ing reduction in bedouin pastoral and agricultural land, leading inevitably to ever more landless bedouin, who were forced to change their former lives as cultivators and herdsmen.

The spatial distribution of Galilee bedouin tribes

An examination of the pattern of tribal territory can help explain the bedouin preference of location throughout their adaptation to the region's environmen- tal, political and economic conditions. This adaptat ion had evolved before the Jewish land colonization period of 1914-1948 and was associated with the bedouin at tempt to establish a stable pattern of semi-nomadic life in the region after having migrated into northern Palestine during previous centuries (some tribes had actually evolved in this region and were fully indigenous there). I231 According to the P.E.F. Memoirs (1881-83), nor thern Palestine measures about 4000 sq km and contained 321 villages and 8 towns, amounting in the 1890s to a total population of 139 200. [241 That same year, the bedouin population consti- tuted 5% of the total, organized in 46 tribal territories.

P R E - S T A T E J E W I S H C O L O N I Z A T I O N 295

Table 1 provides data on changes in the Galilee bedouin population during the period 1880-1948. It indicates the drop in population in 1948 as a result of the war and the mass exodus of the Arab population from Palestine.

Figure 1 reveals a clear concentration of tribal camps along the Jordan Rift Valley, the plains of Marj Ibn 'Amir and Acre and in the vicinity of Shafa'Amr, with a few tribes located in the Upper Galilee. This distinctive pattern was decisively shaped by the area's two unique geographical conditions: namely, the existing settlement pattern of the region and the legal status of the land.

Settlement patterns reveal interesting configurations. According to Figure 3, it is evident that the bedouin showed a decided preference for areas of very low settled population densities. Thus, they gravitated toward "empty spots" which villagers were not able to populate: viz., the plains and the Rift Valley. In contrast, the indigenous settled Arab population had chosen the mountainous areas, principally--though by no means exclusively--for reasons of security, f251 As a result, a distinctive pattern of land-use specialization became characteristic of Palestine's human geography over the course of the past few centuries. The high land was occupied by villagers, and they left the plains area only partially cultivated. This gave an opportunity to the bedouin to extend their pastoral lands. Improvements in internal security at the beginning of the century led to intensive cultivation in the plains and to a concomitant decrease in pastoral opportunities.

The legal status and condition of the lands in Galilee was greatly affected by the political and administrative system of Ottoman rule, which brought about important changes in the legal status of the land and its productivity. Certain areas were more intensively cultivated than others; these less cultivated areas are the focus of this section, and will be referred to technically as "weak spots." Bedouin tribes were attracted specifically toward these "weak spots" in the cultivated landscape.

The high concentration of bedouin tribal territories along the Jordan Rift Valley can probably be explained by the fact that the northern section of the Jordan River formed the natural boundary of the Galilee in the east. It also formed the administrative boundary between the Vilayet of Beirut and Syria (1887-1914). The bedouin considered these localities as being "weak spot" areas, the furthest in location from the seat of the governor, and therefore rarely paid any taxes to the authorities.

Areas of "weakness" can also be viewed from the perspective of 1and tenure practices: the plains were divided into large estates owned by a limited number of absentee landlords. The land was cultivated partly by tenants, and partly by impoverished fellahin oppressed by the burden of Turkish taxes and debt. The latter generally had little interest in cultivating these lands beyond subsistence needs and a small surplus for partial repayment of debts.

TABLE 1 Bedouin Population in Northern Palestine (1880-1948)

Year 1880-1884 1922 1931 1945 1948 (end)

Persons 4000-8740 13 420 11 786 17 100 5000 (estimate)

Source: Calculated from the census returns and other sources.

296 G. FALAH

0 kr I

Persons

[--70- ~ 6 - I-1-[77 12 - [ : ~ 18- ~ 2 5 -

~ : ~ 3 2 - I ~ 42- 1~1~156 + M-M-M+M

�9 Tribal Ic

\ . . . ' . , . . ' . . . - . . . . ~ . . . , , ' - . . . . ' . '

l oca t ions

q /

!

Figure 3. Galilee population density and tribal locations, 1880

Areas of Jewish land preference

The figures on the total amount of land in Jewish possession on the eve of the creation of the State of Israel in May 1948 vary depending on the writer. E261 These figures did not exceed 7% of the total area of Palestine's districts, estimated by Reichman to be 26 305 000 dunams.

Figure 4 shows that the total (absolute) increase of Jewish land possession (including public land) during the British Mandate in Palestine rose from 1.5% in 1914 to 6.8% in 1947. Such an increase may be regarded as relatively small if compared to the percentage increase in the Jewish population in Palestine from 9.7% in 1914 to 35.1% in 1946. [271

The northern sub-districts of Haifa, Acre, Tiberias and Beisan make up only 14% of the area of Palestine, yet in the years 1914 to 1947 comprised 71% and


BEERSHEBA

x

L / '\ , f

, / I /

o, ~, 4,0

M E D I TERRA NEA N

SEA

AC RE Percentage of totel Jewish ~ 1914 Lend Holdingsln Acre 1947 Sub- District 1914and 1947

1947 Percenfege of Sub-Dis*nct Land in dewlsh owner shl# 1947

Tolal Land Holdings (including punic lends) :-

194 1"5%

1947 6"15%

ACRE

I

s

\ .--./ I S A F A D

i /

HAIFA /N ~ ~ \ AZARETH~

TULKARM

J E N I N

/

J (

i

5 NABLUS /

/

/ /

/ /

RAMLEH

~ - i 2 BEERSHEBA

RAMALLAH ,

dERUSALEM k) / ) - _ f - ,

L BETHLEHEM ,•. , . , ooo

H E B R O N

r - -

Figure 4. Jewish landownership in Palestine by sub-districts, 1914-1947

60% respectively of the total Jewish land possession at the time. Moreover, the four sub-districts of Haifa, Beisan, Tiberias and Safad became the districts (along with Jaffa) with the highest Jewish land concentration by the end of the British Mandate (Figure 4). In these sub-districts, one-third of the land (on average) had been transferred to Jewish control for agricultural or other

298 G. FALAH

purposes. This strong orientation toward northern areas (Figure 5) can be accounted for by a combination of historical, political and economic factors. These can be grouped into areas: namely the historical and legal status of the land, the policy of the British mandatory administration, the nature and structure of Jewish capital, and the attitudes of the local Arab population.

�9 LAND OWNED BY THE JEWISH NATIONAL FUND

I~1 COMPANY AND PRIVATE JEWISH LAND

e

LEBANON

L _ ~ ~

~ ~'~ ,'Gulf KMS ~,'~ o f /f,,qa o

.~ ,,,.,/1, ~ ~'"""

�9 '% r ~ . -

6q~r '

5~

#

6

km 3?

c'

Figure 5. Land in Jewish possession in northern Palestine in 1944

PRE-STATE JEWISH C O L O N I Z A T I O N 299

Before Palestine was handed over to British administration on April 25, 1920, private land in Palestine was mainly divided into large estates owned by a small number of landlords, living in towns and often abroad. [281 In most circumstances, large estate lands were left in the hands of the local fellahin with practically no modern means to cultivate or develop these lands. This type of land tenure had generally been encouraged by the Turkish authorities; it helps to explain the persistence of quasi-feudal land conditions in Palestine. I291

When the British Mandate took over, the British Administration felt an obligation to institute a new land policy aimed at encouraging close Jewish settlement and promoting the interests and needs of the country as a whole. The Mandatory administration thus endeavoured to regulate the land system so as to encourage the policy of a "national home" and to prevent the emergence of new large estates. This meant that the Mandatory's legislative measures necessarily had to interfere with private land transactions. The main principle of the Transfer of Land Ordinance, 1920, was that any person wishing to make a disposition of immovable property must first obtain the written consent of the Administration and fulfill three conditions: (1) the person acquiring the land is (a) "resident in Palestine" and (b) "intends himself to cultivate and develop the land immediately"; (2) the person disposing of the land "will retain sufficient land in the district or elsewhere for the maintenance of himself and his family"; (3) the land itself (a) must not exceed "either in value L 3000 or in area 300 dunams in the case of agricultural land and 30 dunams in the case of the urban land"; (b) it cannot be the subject of any new disposition.

When one or more of the above conditions are not fulfilled, the only competent authority to grant the necessary consent of the Administration was the High Commissioner himself. [3~ Theoretically, the High Commissioner, had to welcome such sales (involving the acquisition and parcelling out of a large estate) when he was satisfied that the transaction was for the benefit of the national home and the country as a whole. In addition, he was convinced that the Jewish Agency, which was the purchasing body, would distribute the land among individual settlers, either in private property transactions or under lease for a number of yearsJ 311

Under such favourable conditions, both the number of Jewish immigrants and the amount of Jewish land acquisition increased substantially in the early years of the British Mandate. Between 1920-1929, the Jewish population trebled; t321 land acquisition intensified, and by 1925, some 500 000 dunams were in Jewish possession, an approximate doubling of Jewish land holdings in 1914.[ 33 ]

In 1929, it was officially acknowledged that the land policy being pursued was creating a class of landless cultivators. Two reports by the Shaw Commission and Sir John Hope-Simpson (1930) clearly state the effect of the Zionist policy on the Arabs. [341

Following these two inquiries, the Administration initiated a scheme for the settlement of landless Arabs on government land. [351 In spite of the settlement of some 350 families (out of 3300 applications), the number of landless Arabs was on the rise due to the continuing purchase of land by the Zionist enterprise. [36]

A new policy of restricting Jewish land purchases was practically implemented by the issuance of the Land Transfer Regulations, 1940. These regulations were based on the notion of "partition", which had been suggested early in 1937 by the Peel Commission. Accordingly, Palestine was divided into two major zones

300 G. FALAH

(see Figure 6 for northern Palestine): Zone "A", where transfers of land from Arabs to Jews were prohibited aside from certain exceptions, and Zone "B", in which land sales from Arabs to Jews, though regulated, were permitted in such cases as the consolidation of holdings or the development of an area for the mutual benefit of Arabs and Jews. In other areas, such as Zone "C", comprised of municipal areas, the Haifa industrial zone and the maritime plain, no restrictions on transfer of property were imposed. [371

In summing up the role of the Mandatory land policy in creating the map of Jewish holdings in Palestine, it should be noted that this policy served essentially to direct Jews to acquire new land in areas where it was thought there would be no harm to the interests of the local Arab inhabitants. This conclusion is theoretically correct, but in practical terms, areas perceived as empty or with less settled population were in actual fact used by bedouin for both grazing and

Partition Proposals 194-/' i ! i I I Boundary of Jewish State

~ Demilitarised Zone 1949

�9 Jewish Settlement A Bedouin Tribe

o Arab Village f

D Town I .

Land Transfer Zones(seetext)

' ~ Zone A

~ Zone B

7 ~ Zone C

Acre

20 o o \ �9 Q;

LE...o o 7

0 ~ . _ j , IO

( 0

0

) - - C (2

0 0 or" )

I o ,

, $

~L~ o berias ii

c - o �9

o'" i N~i~r, ,'~ . _ c "

C - - 0 0

, o o~g

a:

Figure 6. Land transfer zones (1940) and partition proposals (1947) in northern Palestine


agriculture. Indeed, as is evident from the map in Figure 6, most of the bedouin were in areas allocated under the 1947 Partition Plan to the future Jewish state.

Another factor that influenced the preferred distribution of Jewish land acquisition was the nature and structure of available Jewish capital. This capital was largely obtained from philanthropists living in Europe and North America. Economic crises and other political developments inevitably had an effect on the amount and regularity of its supply.

The structure of the capital invested in the national home was an important element in the task of colonization. This structure consisted of public, semi- public and private funds. The proportion of private investment may have been as much as 3-4 times the total capital contributed from national institutions. I38J According to Kaplan, out of a total of LP 100-120 million invested by Jews in Palestine, about LP 20-25 million (some 20%) was derived from public and semi-public funds. The rest of this capital was presumably derived from private sources . [ 391

This strong private component in the structure of investment capital chan- nelled colonization investment toward lands with a greater promise of profitabi- lity. Hence, Jewish land preference was oriented toward the most fertile areas of Palestine, located in the north and the coastal plains. "It is accepted without question that the five plains, namely the Maritime Plain, the Acre Plain, Marj Ibn 'Amir, A1 Huleh and Jordan Valley, comprising an area of 5 424 000 dunams, are the most fertile lands in Palestine. 'q4~ The Jewish Agency was prepared to pay relatively high prices to obtain land in these fertile areas. Such land also had particular value because it needed only a minimum of improvement for immediate settlement purposes. The Marj Ibn 'Amir area, which passed to Jewish possession during the years 1918 to 1927, had become one of the most fertile spots in Palestine by the end of the 19th century. Thus, Oliphant (1887) described the region as resembling "a huge green lake of waving wheat".[ 411

Despite the increase in land prices of 400-500 % duffng the years 1930-1936 in areas greatly sought after by the Jewish settlers, such as the northern plains, Beisan, 'Amiq Israel (Marj Ibn 'Amir) and the Sharon (Saron), I4:1 the percentage of Jewish land in the northern districts (Figure 4) changed only slightly from 71% in 1914 to 60% of total land acquisition in Palestine in 1947. This was largely due to extensive purchases along the coast.

This trend of land preference for the northern districts of the country can be best explained by focusing principally on economic considerations rather than ideological ones. The private investor was interested in safe returns, and hesitated to get involved in enterprises where the land was not profitable enough. That may help to account for the low percentage of Jewish land acquisition in the southern districts--despite the fact that the south had the lowest land prices and the lowest Arab population density. Moreover, its relatively large territory would, at first glance, seem highly valuable in any scheme for the creation of a national home or an independent state. Similar economic factors may also explain the lower percentage of Jewish land purchases in the districts of Jerusalem (3.4%) and Hebron (0.61%), though these are regarded as the two most holy cities in the Jewish tradition (cf. Figure 4).

The attitude of the local Arab inhabitants toward the issue of Jewish land purchase is of central importance, since it determined both the amount of land offered for sale and its price. Figures 4 and 5 provide clear evidence of the lower

302 G. FALAH

percentage of Jewish land possession in areas of high Arab population and numerous settlements. Districts such as Acre, Nazareth, Jenin, Nablus, Ramal- lah, Jericho, Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Hebron, making up the three mountainous regions of Palestine, had a predominantly Arab population. In these districts, Jewish land possession was minimal or non-existent before 1947. Such a correlation can only be explained by the fact that the local Arab population owned the land in these areas, and was unwilling to sell to Jews--no matter what the price.

According to Granott (1952), the amount of land purchased from Palestinian fellaheen up to 1936 amounted to 9.4% (64 201 dunams) of the total Jewish land purchased in Palestine. [431 This figure constitutes less than 0.25% of the total land of Palestine. Fellaheen probably refused to sell lands to Jews due to eonomic and social reasons, rather than out of any political motive. Since land is the source of prestige and principal source of income to the fellah, selling all or part of his land to Jews would threaten his very existence. Arabs living in the towns, in contrast, were motivated by nationalist ideals in their refusal to sell land to Jewish buyers. They set up a number of committees and organizations for protecting Palesti- nian land. Important among these was the )Sanduq al U m m a h ( (Arab National Fund), established in 1935. Their objectives was to protect Arab national lands by protesting to the High Commissioner for Palestine, raising land prices and even imposing sanctions against those Arabs willing to sell land to Jews. [441

In summing up the factors associated with Jewish land acquisition in Palestine before 1948, it has been found that the status/condition of the lands and their legal ownership were dominant factors in creating the pattern of preference. In northern Palestine, the Jewish lands in the plains of Marj Ibn 'Amir, Acre, southeastern Galilee, south and east Lake Tiberias and the Hula were purchased mainly from non-Palestinian absentee landlords. These were principally Leba- nese, Syrian, Egyptian and Iranian. [451 It is reasonable to assume that land distribution in Palestine was the major factor behind the various partition proposals for Palestine 1937-1947, notably the U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 (see Figure 6 for nothern Palestine), which suggested dividing the country into two states, one Arab, one Jewish. This is reflected in the report of the Woodhead Commission (1938), which excluded Galilee from the proposed Jewish state because "it is impossible to put Galilee into the Jewish State without injury to Arabs resident in the area, who form some 96 percent of the population and own about the same percentage of land", t461

Some regional cases

Reduction of pastoral land was among the first causes inducing Galilee bedouin sedentarization. Jewish land acquisition was the major factor contribut- ing to such reduction. For some bedouin groups, reduction was nearly total, amounting to almost 100%. It is important to mention that in calculating pastoral land reduction, one must consider not only land where bedouin permanently camped, but also the land of other villages acquired by Jewish agencies and which formed the main area for summer grazing. In this way, the effect on the bedouin was reflected not only in decreasing the size of tribal territory in a single tribe, or reducing that tribal land to virtually nothing. It was also associated with the changing land ownership pattern in the context of the entire northern region.


It should be noted that bedouin continued to camp on land in some areas where Jewish agencies had purchased that land, since it was not immediately required for Jewish settlement and cultivation. In some cases, bedouin groups leased lands on an annual basis from Jewish organizations after the latter had purchased land from absentee landlords. These groups often suffered unexpec- ted hardship due to sudden eviction, since they did not realize that the new landowner had the legal right to ask them to evacuate the land at any time. They did not secure their situation by acquiring alternative land, and no longer could turn to their former landlords for help, since these were usually absentee landowners living in now foreign countries. In two cases involving the evacua- tion of the tribes of Ka'biyyah and Sa'ayidah in 1939 and 1944 respectively, the Jewish Agency paid monetary compensation. [47] The following cases provide some evidence of tribal groups in which Jewish colonization accelerated their sedentarization in one way or another.

Arab Dalayikah

The Dalayikah tribal territory marked on the map of western Palestine (1880) is located some 3 to 5 km from the southwestern corner of Lake Tiberias. The area is known as A1 Hima. I48] Schumacher (1886) estimated the Dalakiyah in this locality as two groups consisting of 695 persons, [49J which would appear to be the largest bedouin group at that time. Until 1914, the Dalayikah were regarded as a "settled farmer tribe" on the lands of the local villages of Belt Gan, Yavneel, Poriya and Mallaha colony.J5 ~ PICA had purchased this land before 1914, and the tribe had to disperse before the British Mandate [s~] split them up into their four main groups (al 'Isa, Shuhadat, Mohammed and Derwish). Each group joined other bedouin groups camping in this area. According to Ashkenazi, the Dalayikah were forced to sell their livestock because of inadequate water. 152J Toward the end of the British Mandate, the Dalayikah bedouin were estimated in 1947 to number some 80 families. [53] Since this number is roughly equal to the figure given by Schumacher 60 years previously, it would appear that a large proportion of them had left Palestine and migrated back to the desert east of the Jordan River.

The Dalayikah case provides an example in which the process of sedentarization has been interrupted. They lived for many years as settled farmers; when their dirah (tribal territory) vanished, the tribe split, searching for an alternative supplementary income to agriculture. Thus, beside raising livestock, they had to turn to raiding and robbing the Jewish colonies in that area for almost a period of half a century. There is no evidence that the Dalayikah had attempted to emigrate into the inner part of Galilee and to acquire land such as had most other groups which were evicted from their grazing lands toward the end of the British Mandate.

There are probably several reasons for this exception on the part of the Dalakiyah. First, their dirah lay on the desert frontier; for such a relatively large tribe, it is normal that in cases when land is lost, some elements will turn back to the desert and continue a nomadic life, while other groups within the tribe remain attached to the former dirah. Secondly, the Dalayikah eviction during the second decade of the 20th century came at a time when the sedentarization process for the entire bedouin community throughout northern Palestine was still in its early stages. They disbanded in 1914, but it was not until about 1920

304 G. FALAH

that economic conditions in the country began to improve, and bedouin were able to search for alternative employment in order to accumulate capital and acquire land.

Arab as Sumairi ( Sumairi)

The case of the Arab as Sumairi is an example of a classic and common land dispute between local Arab inhabitants and Jewish agencies. In this instance, it would appear that the problem stemmed principally from the unique system of land tenure rather than the particular parties involved. Thus, some explanation is necessary before elaborating on the details of the dispute.

The land under dispute between the Arab as Sumairi and PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonization Association) belonged to the category of masha', land in which the property is joint and undivided, whether belonging to one family or a number of families united into a hamulah, or to the inhabitants of an entire village. Under this form of ownership, each family in the village receives a portion for tillage or other purposes, usually under redistribution which takes place at fixed intervals. The masha" land is a communal land which is often used by villages for grazing cattle and fuel gathering, village roads, schools, public threshing floors, cemeteries, wadis (stream beds), etc. The basic underlying principle is that no single individual can point to a piece of land as being his own property. The "Hak el Muzara'a" over this land means the right of sowing and cultivation. No houses or buildings may be erected on these lands, and no trees planted, without special permission from the Imperial Treasury Authorities. If this is obtained, the house or trees then become mulk (freehold property). Each individual member of the community has the right of inheritance to plough and sow in masha' lands by virtue of the Hak el Muzara'a. [541

The Sumairi tribe, numbering 204 persons in 1922 and 246 in 1931, E551 were a settled bedouin tribe which was apparently the first bedouin group to cultivate their lands using irrigation. The tribal land was located within the village lands of Ghuweir Abu Shusha, along the northwestern shore of Lake Tiberias. The land was known as el Ghuweir Plain (or the Little Plain of Gennesareth). In the mid-19th century (1856), the area on the western shore was described as being deserted, with only one village containing a "collection of a few hovels" at the southeastern corner of the plain, named Majdal. E561 However, according to Lieutenant Kitchener's reports at his survey camp at Tiberias on March 30, 1877, the land was extremely rich, "but is now only partially cultivated by a few bedouin and the people of Mejdel". He also mentioned that "the water is used for irrigation purposes", t57j

In the first decade of the 20th century, Masterman (1908) described the Sumairi tribes and the neighbouring Tlawiyyah and Kharanbah as "tent- dwelling Arabs, are not true bedawin because they cultivate the soil like the fallahin, which the true nomads never do". I58j The above traveller's observations confirm the notion that bedouin groups had undergone a long period in which they had worked in agriculture.

The dispute under scrutiny between the Sumairi tribe and the PICA was recorded in two petitions addressed by the tribe to the High Commissioner for Palestine and dated August 1, 1946 and July 19, 1947. The first petition states that the tribe owns, in conjunction with PICA, certain masha' lands in Ghuweir Abu Shusha. "The PICA partitioned these lands into two par ts--one part being


the plain fertile land, and the o ther r ocky and waste land, and retained f ro m them the plain fertile par t , wi th the app rova l o f L a n d Set t lement . The par t i t ion o f this land was done wi thou t the knowledge o f the member s o f the tribe. ''159l

In the second pet i t ion, Has san Isma' i l M u k h t a r o f A r a b as Sumairi , explained explicit ly the b a c k g r o u n d o f this dispute as fol lows (July 29, 1947):

For a long time, the land of'Uweir Abu Shousheh has been masha' land between them and the PICA. Before the settlement was made, an agreement had been concluded between the two parties to the effect that the land would be divided for agricultural purposes and that the tribal share would be irrigated by the 'Amoud water.' After some time, however, the government deflected the course of the Amoud water to Mr. Cana'aan, with the result that the land belonging to the tribe became without any source of irrigation. The Mukhtar referred the matter to the PICA and the latter agreed to dig a canal and let the water in their possession run into the tribal land, but PICA would let the water run only when it pleased it to do so. Consequently, the tribe broke the agreement with it, with the result that the Association instituted legal proceedings against it, asking for damages of LP 2000. The tribe won the case, however, whereupon the PICA restored to it 300 dunums from the land bought from some tribal women as compensation for losses sustained; when the settlement began, the Survey Department registered the land as masha' and ordered partition.

The tribe protested against this order, but without any success. The PIC did not stop at that, however, but had new partition plans drawn up by their architect to suit their own wishes, which they submitted to the Department of Land Settlement, where they were approved without consulting the tribe.

On July 8, 1947, an armed force arrived at the village, complete with tanks and military equipment (sic), seized the land in question and handed it over to the Jews, who started to plough it. The police attacked one of the tribesmen, inflicting serious injuries on him. The petitioners claim that these proceedings were against the law, that they still have rights in the land, and that at any rate the Jews took much more than is their due, and entreat his Excellency to see to it that every party receives his due . 16~

The spirit o f these two pet i t ions suggests tha t bedou in did no t benefit m u ch f rom the m o d e r n i z a t i o n i n t r o d u c e d into the land by their par tners . The bedou in were a settled tribe, i r r igat ing their land by their own methods . The re is no d o u b t tha t bedou in could have i m p r o v e d their s i tuat ion and en joyed the " f ru i t s " o f m o d e r n i z a t i o n i f they had wished to do so. A l th o u g h such m o d e rn i za t i o n was usual ly dependen t on the pu rchase o f local lands, it appears tha t the loss o f land con t r ibu ted m o r e to sedenta r iza t ion in this case than did m o d e r n i z a t i o n or e conom ic improvemen t . M o r e o v e r , Jewish selection o f the mos t fertile land func t ioned to in t e r rup t the process o f Sumair i sedentar iza t ion .

Ka'biyyah and Sa'ayidah Tribes

These groups were representa t ive o f those Arab tenants evicted f ro m the Marj Ibn 'Am i r af ter the plain was purchased by the Jewish Agency.

The bedou in tribes o f K a ' b i y y a h and Sa ' ay idah were a m o n g those tenants a l lowed to remain on land purchased by Jews for a pe r iod o f some ten years before they were evicted. In fact, this per iod was the m o s t crucial one in their process o f sedentar iza t ion . T h e y had been " l u ck y " , since they had the privilege o f remain ing on their land on the basis o f leasing it f r o m the Jewish Agency. Dur ing this t en-year per iod , they cul t ivated the leased land intensively. This land had never been par t o f their t rad i t ional grazing land. These two tribes n u m b e r e d 320 and 134 persons respect ively in 1922.1611 T h ey ma in t a ined t r a n s h u m a n c e for m a n y years a long the sou thwes te rn slopes o f M o u n t Carmel . The K a ' b i y y a h had

306 G. FALAH

to leave the place in 1939, and in the subsequent period the entire group was able to establish a new tribal territory in the hills southwest of Shafa 'Amr. The Ka'biyyah acquired one plot of 544 dunams, an area consisting of some agricultural land in the bot tom of Wadi al Malik.

The wadi was used both for watering flocks and growing vegetables. The most interesting point about the Ka'biyyah as regards sedentarization is that most of the bedouin who settled on the lands of other villages acquired that land from individuals; in the case of the Ka'biyyah, they purchased the 544 dunams collectively from the two Christian brothers Farid and Shukri Karkaby living in Shafa 'Amr. [62] The tribe divided this land equally among them into 16 plots, each family obtaining 34 dunams, f631 The bedouin eventually distributed their houses over these lands in order to secure their existence. In this case, the role of Jewish colonization was to influence the bedouin to cultivate leased land and to acquire new alternative land. It also encouraged the process by introducing the concept of private land and disbanding tribal groups.

The same role is applicable in the case of the Sa'ayiddah group who were removed from the village of Qira Wa Qamun in 1944. The Sa'ayidah split into two groups; one went into the hills of Shafa 'Amr and acquired new lands in the Manshiat Zebda area, while the main group went to the southern slopes of Mt. Tabor, to a place named Khirbat Umm al Ghanam. This group had acquired over 500 dunams from the Mutran (i.e., the Greek Orthodox Archbishop). In February 1946, the Sa'ayidah of Khirbat U m m al Ghanam formed a "coopera- tive society" and applied to the Land Settlement Department for establishment of a planned housing scheme. [641

The Sa'ayidah were the first group to replace the traditional leadership of sheikh and mukhtar with the title of 'umda (dean). According to field research, the bedouin also formed a committee of six persons, and the secretary of this committee (whom the author interviewed) went to Nazareth weekly in order to qualify as an accountant. This was arranged by the District Governor in Nazareth.165J

Conclusions

The destruction of semi-nomadism in Galilee was inevitable after the country was placed under a modern administration of the European type, backed by forces which defined and enforced new international boundaries and introduced a new system of land registration. It is highly likely that such circumstances acting alone would have eventually completed the processes of sedentarization with or without the complication of Zionist colonization. But the inevitable friction between the new settlers and the local bedouin tribes camping in the plains undoubtedly accelerated the processes of tribal sedentarization in these areas. At the same time, there were instances in which the clash with colonization led to re-nomadization and a rupture in the sedentarization process, as in the case of the Dalayikah and Sumairi tribes. A direct impact of Jewish colonization on bedouin sedentarization has been shown in the cases of the Ka'biyyah and Sa'ayidah tribes. These groups made use of monetary compensation to purchase new land and eventually settle there.

Jewish colonization is one specific factor, along with others, which influenced the sedentarization processes of Galilee bedouin. Such a factor was absent in the sedentarization process of the Negev bedouin: there, the Jewish Agency did not


purchase large tracts of land or attempt to settle Jews in larger numbers, so that the transition from semi-nomadism to agriculture was an indigenous process not shaped by factors of Jewish colonization, though the British Mandate is viewed as having had a major impact in promoting sedentarism. I661 This accounts for one of the major differences between the sedentarization processes experienced by the two groups.

Despite the fact that only a limited number of cases have been presented here, several concluding observations can be made regarding bedouin reactions to the changing political and social circumstances, and the character of pre-state Jewish colonization of Palestine:

1. The loss of pastoral land, as in the Galilee and elsewhere, exposes the bedouin to the "risk of sedentarization". This "loss thesis" is also applicable to nomads whose herds are decimated in bad years and during periods of prolonged drought. These groups are then forced by circumstances to settle.

2. Bedouin families may split into subgroups and families following the loss of pastoral resources and animals. This disbanding usually takes the form of fissure into units with several families linked by close kinship relations. The tribe may become geographically disbanded, but can remain united in cultural and moral terms.

3. Sedentarization is not only the conversion of tents into modern stone houses; it also involves perceptual transformation, a process which changes the perception by the nomads of their surrounding environment. The purchase of alternative lands by evicted groups can be seen as a means to bolster group security and create a safeguard which will prevent a second eviction. From this particular perspective, nomads can perceive sedentarization as the only effective means for securing their existence as a community.

4. Zionist colonization in Palestine is probably similar in its impact to other types and instances of colonization elsewhere, associated with land dispossession and a minimum attention being given to the dispossessed inhabitants. Moreover, the Zionist ideological slogan of "land redemption" for the Jewish people left little doubt that such settlements would ultimately be of limited benefit to the bedouin community economically, despite the statements (and delusive beliefs) of Zionist leaders to the contrary.

5. In the aftermath of the 1948 Jewish-Arab war and the establishment of the State of Israel, less than one-third of the original bedouin population still remained in the Galilee region. A complete eviction of the bedouin tribes from the plain area took place during the war and shortly thereafter, making their agricultural settlement virtually impossible.

Galilee Center for Social Research, 507/2 Street, P.O. Box 2485, Nazareth 16124, Israel.

Notes

[1] Naval Intelligence Division, Geographical Handbook Series, Palestine and Jordan (London 1943) 191

[2] B.J. Smith, British economic policy in Palestine towards the development of the Jewish National Home: 1920-1929 (unpublished PhD thesis, St. Antony's College, Oxford 1978) 2

308 G. FALAH

[3] John I. Clarke, Emigration from southern Tunisia Geography 42 (1957) 96-104, here 96-97 [4] T. Ashkenazi, Tribus semi-nomades de La Palestine du Nord (Paris 1938) [5] Cf. Declaration by the High Commissioner for Palestine Concerning the Grazing Rights of

Nomads and Semi-Nomad Bedouin in Palestine (1920), Public Record Office (London), Declarations published by Sir H. Samuel and Gen. Bols (1920), CO/61/44

[6] General Federation of Jewish Labour in Israel, Documents and Essays on Jewish Labour Policy in Palestine (Connecticut 1975) 231

[7] D.L. Johnson, The nature o f nomadism, Dept. of Geography, University of Chicago, Research Paper No. 118 (Chicago 1969) 2

[8] A.M. Khazanov, Nomads and the outside world (Cambridge 1984) 200 [9] Ghazi Falah, The evolution of semi-nomadism in non-desert environment: the case of

northern Palestine in the 19th Century GeoJournal 21 (1990) 397-410 [10] Johnson, op. cit., 25 [11] H. Mensching, Nomadismus und Oasenwirtschaft im Maghreb, Braunsehweiger Geogra-

phisehe Studien 3 (1971) 155-166 [12] R. Capot-Rey, Le Sahara francais (Paris 1953) 181,282-284; C. S. Coon, Tribes o f the R i f

(Cambridge 1931), 408; E. E. Evans-Pritchard, The Senusi o f Cyrenaica (Oxford 1949) 45-46 [13] G. Falah, The role o f the British administration in the sedentarization o f the bedouin tribes in

northern Palestine 1918-1948, Occasional Paper Series, No. 17, Centre for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, Durham University (Durham 1983) 29-37

[14] A. Granott, Agrarian reform and the record o f Israel (London 1959) 140 [15] General Federation of Jewish Labour in Israel, loe. eit. [16] Ibid. [17] A. Ruppin, Three decades of Palestine (Tel Aviv 1936) 153 154 [18] Chaim Arlosoroff, The economic background of the Arab problem, in E. Sereni and R. E.

Ashbery (Eds), Jews and Arabs in Palestine (New York 1936) 3-28, here 19 [19] David Ben Gurion, Planning Zionist policy, in Sereni and Ashbery, op. eit. 123-153, here

125-126 [20] K.W. Stein, The land question in Palestine, 191~1939 (Chapel Hill 1984) 14 [21] Israel State Archives (ISA), Arab Supreme Council, Papers, Box 6/725, G/B Ashrafiya Arab

Zubaidat (in Arabic) [22] Zionist Central Archives (ZCA), Hevrat Hakhsharat ha-Yishuv, File L 18/127/2 (in Hebrew) [23] G. Falah, The processes and patterns of sedentarization of the Galilee bedouin, 1880-1982

(unpublished PhD thesis, Durham University 1982), 68-76 [24] Quoted in V. Schwobel, Die Verkehrswege und Ansiedlungen Galilaeas in ihrer Abhaengig-

keit von den natuerlichen Bedingungen, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palaestina-Vereins 27 (1904) 1-151, here Table III

[25] David H.K. Amiran, The pattern of settlement in Palestine, Israel Exploration Journal 3 (1953) 65-78, here 74-77

[26] S. Reichman, From foothold to settled territory (Jerusalem 1979) 79 (in Hebrew); A. Granott, The land system in Palestine: history and structure (London 1952) 278; Palestine Government, A survey o f Palestine, prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (Jerusalem 1946) 244

[27] H. Mejcher, Die Arabische Welt. Aufbruch in die Moderne (Stuttgart 1976) 60-62 [28] Granott, The land system in Palestine 79 [29] Ibid. [30] J. Stroyanovsky, The Mandate for Palestine (London 1928) 115-117 [31] Ibid. 118 [32] G. Biger, The role o f the British Administration in changing the geography o f Palestine, 1918-

1929, Occasional Papers, No. 35, Dept. of Geography, University College, London (London 1979) 4

[33] M. F. Abcarius, Palestine through the eyeofpropaganda (London 1946) 135 [34] Great Britain, Cmd. 3530, Report o f the Commission on the Palestine Disturbances o f August,

1929 (The Shaw Report) (London 1930); Great Britain, Cmd. 3683-3687, Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development, by Sir John Hope Simpson (London 1930)

[35] Abcarius, op. cit. 139 [36] Ibid. 140 [37] Palestine Government, Ordinances II (1940) 327-329 [38] Reichman, op. cit. 27


[39] E. Kaplan, Private and public investment in the Jewish national home, in J. B. Hobman (Ed.), Palestine's economic future (London 1946) 112-115, here 112

[40] Abcarius, op. cit. 141 [4l] L. Oliphant, Haifa or a life in modern Palestine (London 1887) 68 [42] Reichman, op. cit. 235 [43] Granott, The land system in Palestine 277 [44] Zvi A1-Peled, The events of 1936-1939: riot or revolt?, Skirot, Shiloah Center for Middle

Eastern and African Studies, Tel Aviv University (Tel Aviv 1979) 10 (in Hebrew) [45] S. Hadawi, Village statistics 1945, PLO Research Centre (Beirut 1970) 27-28 [46] Great Britain, Cmd. 5854, Palestine Partition Commission Report (Woodhead Report)

(London 1939) 102 [471 Field research, 1981 [48] C. R. Conder and H. H. Kitchener, The Map of Western Palestine in 26 Sheets (London 1880) [49] G. Schumacher, Population of the Liva 'Akka, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly

Statement (London 1887) 16%191, here 187 [50] Israel State Archives (ISA), Galilee District Commissioner to Chief Secretary, Y/58/42, 7

February 1947 [51] Ibid. [52] T. AshkEnazi, Tribus Semi-Nomades de la Palestine du Nord (Paris 1983) 157 [53] Israel State Archives, op. cit. [54] S. Bergheim, Land tenure in Palestine, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement

(London 1894) 191-199 [55] J. B. Barron, Palestine, Report and General Abstracts o f the Census o f 1922 (Jerusalem 1923)

40; David H.K. Amiran, Nomadic and Bedouin Population in the Census Returns of Mandatory Palestine, Israel Exploration Journal 13 (1936) 247-252, here 252

[56] A.P. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine (London 1856) 374-375 [57] H.H. Kitchener, Lieutenant Kitchener's Report on Camp at Tiberias, 30th March 1877,

Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement (London 1877) 119-120 [58] E. W. G. Masterman, Gennesaret, The Biblical World31 (1908) 167-183, here 173-174 [59] Israel State Archives, Report Group (RG2), A1-Khatib A1-Sumari, on behalf o ra l Samayreh

tribe to His Excellency the High Commissioner for Palestine, L/109/46, 1 August 1946 [60] Israel State Archives, A Petition from the Sumiri Tribe to the High Commissioner for

Palestine regrading their land dispute with P.I.C.A., 29th July 1947, L/109/46, 29 July 1947 [61] Barron, op. cit. 34-35 [62] Private paper, Agreement regarding the purchase of land by the Ka'biyyah tribe from the

people of Shafa 'Amr (1940), photocopy (in Arabic) [63] Field research 1981 [64] Falah, The role o f the British Administration in the sedentarization of the bedouin tribes in

northern Palestine 1918-1948 [65] Field research 1981 [66] Ghazi Falah, The spatial pattern of bedouin sedentarization in Israel GeoJournal 11 (t985)

361-368, here 362; Avinoam Meir, Nomads and the state: the spatial dynamics of centrifugal and centripetal forces among the Israeli Negev Bedouin Political Geography Quarterly 7 (1988) 251-270, esp. 256-260

Date post:	30-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ghazi
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times