The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 204)

غرض

عنوان

The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 204)

المحتوى

188
Article 18 of the Mandate stipulated that no preference in trade should be
given to the mandatory state (i.e., the United Kingdom)* but also that there
should be “no discrimination” against any state that is a member of the League of
Nations. However, this condition was also curiously applied to all other states that
had commercial treaties with the United Kingdom.” In effect, this meant the
granting of most-favored-nation status to all the countries with whom Palestine
traded.
In practice, this has meant that Palestine had no rights to negotiate
reciprocity trade agreements or respond with tariff retaliation against other
countries when warranted.*’ This meant that several countries had an open market
in Palestine without necessarily importing anything of significance from her. An
example of such a country was Japan, which in 1936-1939 exported £P 1,560,000
worth of goods to Palestine, while importing only £P 48,000 from her.*®
Thus, in the 1930s, when the output and export of citrus were rapidly
increasing, that was also a time of increasing economic protectionism that included
tariffs, quotas, currency exchange restrictions, and unsuitable barter agreements.
So, when Palestine was faced with those trade barriers, and incapable to retaliate,
See Smith, 20-5, on a discussion of how the United Kingdom evaded that
stipulation.
Survey I, 441; Survey II, 967.
37§mith, 25; Nathan et al., 210-1; Gurevich, Handbook, 124; Horowitz and
Hinden, 71.
Sawwaf, “Trade,” 441; Nathan et al., 319.
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