land, law, & jewish-arab conflict

8/3/2019 Land, Law, & Jewish-Arab Conflict

1/14

Land, Law, and theJewish-Arab Conflict over

Eretz Israel/Palestine

Dr. Geremy Forman


2/14

196719481917Late OttomanEmpire

BritishMandate

State of Israel(1948-67)

State of Israel(1967-2008)

State Land Law

The Jewish-Arab Conflict over Eretz Israel / Palestine

1. Legal geopolitical work by the two national movements.

2. Relationship between government and the national

groups.3. Prevalent conceptions of property rights.

4. Imperial/Colonial Rule vs. Local Administration.

5. Key role of violence.

6. Key role of regime changes.


3/14

The Ottoman Land Regime

BeforeThe Ottoman Land Code


4/14


5/14

The Classic Ottoman Land Regime

Evolved during the 15th and 16thcenturies along with the Empires

overall administrative structure.

2 main components:

* The timar system.

* The distinction between miri and

mulk.


6/14

The Timar System

Tax collection rights distributed tosipahis (horsemen) in exchange for

military service, when needed.

Roots in pre-Ottoman Anatolia.

Feudal system?

The system enabled the central

Ottoman government to make use of

the populations tax potential.


7/14

Distinction between miriand mulk

RaqabaNuda Proprietas,formal title.

Tasarruf Long term, strong rights

of possession and usufruct.


8/14

MulkRaqabaand Tasarrufprivately

held.

Miri(in the broad sense of the term)Raqabaheld by the central

government and Tasarrufheld bycultivators.


9/14

The legal rights of peasants(fellahin) to Miri

Government tenants with strong heritablerights, as long as they paid taxes andcultivated their land.

Right to grazing lands even stronger. Government policy was to prevent transfer of

village land to outsiders.

Ownership as a bundle of rights. Classic Ottoman land regime as a system

which provided people with easy access toland and which safeguarded the land rights of

easants and villa es.


10/14

What do we mean when we say thatmiri land was owned by the state?

we should raise questions such as who, inpractice, has access to the land. Who had the rightto hold, sell, or pass it on by way of succession,and who, if anybody, could endow the land as

waqf? Whoever could fulfill these functions shouldin all probability be considered the practical ownerof the land. If there were no person who fit the bill,then we should conclude that the land trulybelonged to the state alone. If we apply these

general considerations to the classical land regimeof the Ottoman Empire, then for all practicalpurposes the peasants were in completepossession of the soil. I find it difficult to ascribeany importance to the fact that the ruler was the

titular owner of the land(Gerber, 15)


11/14

Changing conditions, competition withEurope, and the decline of the timar.

Late 16th century End of Ottoman expansion.

17-19th century Increasing competition with Europeand fiscal crisis, weakening on geographical basis.

Results: a) Rise of the iltizam (tax farming) system.

b) Adoption of the tanzimatreforms.

Timar and iltizam systems coexisted until the 19

th

century.

Timar system abolished in 1831.


12/14


13/14

Ottoman Land Code (OLC) of 1858

Part of the Tanzimat Reforms (1839-1878), whichwere aimed at creating strong centralized politicalinstitutions in order to foster economic growth andstrengthen the Empire politically and militarily.

Aims of the OLC:a) To institutionalize a direct relationship betweenthe treasury and cultivators for land taxation.

b) To improve land administration. The OLC remained the foundation of land law in

Israel until 1969. In the West Bank and the GazaStrip, it still does.


14/14

Reading for Thursday

Gerber On some of the consequences ofthe O.L.C.

Oke On the Ottoman response to Zionistactivity in Palestine (sheds light on theimportance of the second component ofOttoman land law Imperial edicts).

land, law, & jewish-arab conflict

Documents