OXFORD HISTORICAL MONOGRAPHS Editors R. J. W. EVANS J. HARRIS J, MADDICOTT J. ROBERTSON R. SERVICE P. A. SLACK B. WARD-PERKINS Colonial Land Policies in Palestine, 1917-1936 MARTIN BUNTON OXFORD1 State Lands Despite the prevailing cheroric around the liberalizing role played by peep rights to land—an argument chat seas often st against the paralysing hold of the state—ofcial poly in the ary yeas ofthe British riradate in Palestine actually aimed very much at cementing govern~ rae own role as landowner. The conviction in creating a free market aaa had first to compete with the desire to guard jealousy che rights of the sate to whateve lnd it though i could clit Offic ofan romely budget-conscious government were vulnerable to considering public ee nership oflandas mach parc the national assess the funds Pate Treasury. Accordingly, che financial importance of defining and vending what could be taken tobe state lands cook on grater financial Smportance. The favoured mechanism by which British officials con- sribeed disposing of rights once acquired by the state was :hrougl leases sac secognition being paid the need For che petiod ofthe lease co be governed by cicumstancess0 that very long leases woul be considered aorthe intensive development of difficult areas.! From the poine of view rer rereasng the public good, leasing was preferable co selling because oer assumed that the extension of British rule and good government {for example, increased security, development of infrastructure) would co ually raise property values like arising tide, Government wanted 10 be sure that ie received its fair share ofthe increased dividend. , fen unfolding in the legal arena, government strategies regarding, the eens of sane lands throw int particulary sharp lief the highly rested process of defining legal and tenurial categories of land. in particular the ways in which Ottoman definitions were understood or rar herately misunderstood. This chapter reveals how attemprsto impose sow Laws and procedures regarding the definition of state lands had t© te negotiated and renegovated berween government and landholders + epost ofthe Land Setlement Commission’, Aug 1920, 0 733/18, 605 = Mime sheets, CO 733/107. 408. State Lands 31 Buc first, this chapter will examine salient features of Oxeoman rules defining property relations in the nineteenth century, and then consider the conditions under which those rules were conformed to during the mandate petiod. 1, OTTOMAN LAND LAW OF 1858 Until the Firse World War, the region of Palestine was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, a world empire which had spene the last hundred years engaged in repeated attempts to reform administrative, military legal, and economic steuctures. Driven by the need 10 defend against continued terticorial and commercial expansion of European powers, the ‘Otroman state apparatus expanded in size and function asits rulers sought to extend and deepen their authority across the empire. The develop mencof modern centralized political insticucions was aimed at efficiently mobilizing the empire’ resources and fostering economic growth which, in turn, would sustain the process of further expanding central authority Overall, administrative centralization was aimed at eliminating the power of local intermediaries. More specifically, the teforms worked themselves cour in such ways as controlling the production of agricultural wealth, a dominant sector of the economy’ in rural areas such control, where it ‘occurred, chiefly took the form of a government official registering titles to individual holdings in the hope thatincreasing numbers of industrious peasant proprictors, easily identifiable as taxpayers, would emerge. This wwasa desired reordering of property rights in which Ottoman elites shared set of utilcarian goals with other state leaders around the world shaped by nineteenth-century ideas of liberalism. However, traditional pictures ofthe sick man of Europe’ have tended not to recognize shared actribures, ‘When Ottoman military defeatsin the First World War led to theemergence ‘of new political structures in the region, the British and French empires ‘were left with what seemed to be a free hand to impose their will. Mose colonial administrators tended at the outset towards universal, abstract theories of private property that in fact marginalized and dismissed the modern processes of state building previously undertaken by the Oxtomans. Instead, colonial officials persuaded themselves that such features of modern starchood as the development of individual ownership, and the rule of law more generally, constituted a special part of European history The British administration thae frst occupied parts of the Ottoman Empire that would become known as Palestine was a military one,32 Seate Lands established at the end ‘of 1917 with a staff largely made up: of recruits from the available forces almost all of whom were ‘new to: administrative work’? ‘The choice was limited, and men had to be taken as they were found, but 4 level of amaceurism certainly permeated governing institutions. “There “vas practically nobody in the administration who had worked in an administration,” reads the testimony of awitness before the Peel Commis- sion in 1936: ‘It was the blind leading the blind." As a resalt of the long Shaye which confronted post-wat efforts to reach international agree- ment over che future of che conquered areas of the Orcomen Empire the rae don of British officers co create new administration was under. standably enough tempered by requirements to adhere to the doctrine of the status quo. It eventually found formal expression in article 46 of the 11922 Palestine order-in-council which aimed to assure the local popula- tion thar the court system would continue to be exercised in conformiry with the Ottoman law in force in Palestine on November Ist, 1914 The existing law in this regard was in the main the 1858Occoman land code, a key part of the mid-ninereenth-cencury reforms together known as the Tanzimat, from the Turkish and Arabic word for. order—which 3 ang at taneforming the Ottoman Empire into a modsen centralized are by substituting the professional power of the Oxtoman government forthe influence of local incerest groups that formerly challenged it at the periphery.° While few doubt the actual significance of the 1858 land code reas integral part ofthe reform process, both the actual intent of the law nd its impact on landholding have been the subject of ‘such debate chat the code has been likened to ‘the elephanc of the blind man as it appears ve scholars in different guises ? Foralong.time, the search fora unified pic- ture of the code’s significance attempted either to locate it within broader {onsof the Ottoman government to conttol the peasaney oF, somewhat conversely, argued that it promoted the creation of large landed estates; + Sur of Palen Pgaredin Deca 94S and Jonny 1946 te lformation re eof hay Wesngon: se tPasie Sales T9001 a Giet Brain alesine Royal Commision, Rep Landon: HMSO, 1 197) yi el) epilation of Paling, 1918-1925 nding te Order in Coenen es Psamaon Rion, Bx? vob (Mexandi Forcast ts 1920) Wr ete Ly Rogan Frnsen of he Stein the Late Qsornen Empire Transjordan, Te Re Canbrage Une Pes 19994 10-172 Cami Fat, 8121914 nal ik wih Donald ee amd Sel Hy oe Oman pi, 120-1914 ee ge niet Pes 1990). 956, State Lands 33. more recently, scholars have tended to agree that interpretations of the 1858 Ortoman land code must clearly be wary of generalizations, allow for processes of negotiation, and chus expect some significant difference in its application from one geographical region to anothes* ‘A growing body of empirical studies in recent yeats has examined the more specific circumstances and ‘moments’ of land registration that actually took place under the terms of the 1858 land code, paying closer attention than before ro how the categories and terminology of modernist reforms were made to relate to local knowledge and local concerns.” By documenting the active participation of individuals in the official land registration process, these studies have gone some distance in revising ‘earlier judgements that described widespread manipulation by powerful individuals playing on the peasantry’ fear of how taxation and conscription could be facilitated by registration. Such fears may have been real, but did not necessarily prevent registration and might have been mitigated by previous harmful experience with the vagaries of unsystematic records, “The piccure that emerges is one in which the overriding demand of {government is that all individuals who possessed land be provided by officials ofthe state with ttle deeds. In this respect, the land code played a key part in the process of centralizing authority in so far as it attempred toensure that disputes over property were relegated ro the administrative domain. By the terms of the code itself, for example, article after article pressed that practically nothing ought to take place ‘without previously obtaining the leave and knowledge of the Official’. In this way, land regiscration can be said to have clearly helped extend Ottoman authority. * Matha Mundy, "Vilage Land and ndvidal Tie: Af! and Oxoman Land Regivrn nthe “Alun Basie in Eugene L- Rogan and Targ Tell (es), ile, Segpe and Ste The Socal Onn of Modem Jordan London: Bish Academic Pres, 36845 HurtsamoghaProperae Contewed Doran: A Reevaluation ofthe Ooman and Code of 1856 in Ropes Owen ed), New Penersveson Proper aed Lad ne “ide Ea (Cambridge, Mass Dsrited for the Conte or Mice Fstern Sas of ard Unies by Harvard Uninet Pes, 2000, “Vilag Lin and India Tis Mh’ and Oxoman Yand Regia ‘lun Bist, Rogan Font of the Sete th Lte Orman Empire “angorden, 1830-1921 mega, oper asa Contened Domain: A Recrahation ofthe Oroman Land Code of 1838 Sy Fishes, Ona Land Law: Conznig he Osman Land Cade an Later Leulation fring Lon with ores and on Appendix of pra La and Rae Rating Leen okied Univer bes, 1910). Th eon ofthe Oroman land vs Fru on che French garlacon in Geonge Young, Caps edt otomer: ret SEER lemons orn et az mpoaan ee drt tne ade Seer erelempivanoman 8 vole OsSor: Clarendon Pres 1900-8)