Sorry, it's you who isn't answering. The challenge is that your source is biased, it has an anti-Arab racist tone and that it tries to conceal the bias with "moderate" language. I read exactly the same kind of "reasonable" language in Iain Smith's illegal constitution for Southern Rhodesia after he'd declared UDI in the 60s. Very carefully-couched tones that made it look so reasonable that whites were given 49% of the land while twenty times as many blacks were given 51%. Needless to say, the whites got the oil and the blacks got the grease. My two uncles kept families of "servants," the main man known as the house boy, in shacks at the edge of their land. Those "chappies" were told that they should be grateful as they were a damn sight better off there than living out in the bush or in any of the neighbouring countries. Now where have I heard that argument before?

I know that you will stick to your guns but it's still worth pointing out to anyone left reading this that they should read your source with eyes wide open, look at its origin and look for unbiased ones as well while they're at it. And I'm not insulting you, by the way.