by Victoria Fitore Malo.
Since my previous post about Golda Meir here on Facebook generated a large wave of reactions some thoughtful others less so occasionally accompanied by insults and even creative suggestions about where I should be sent I felt it would be useful to clarify the common claim that they came and stole other people’s land.
This claim is often presented as self evident almost as a consensus The history behind it is not
Naturally this analysis is also informed by my own research in Ottoman archives as well as relevant historical literature. As I am fluent in Turkish I am not limited to secondary interpretations but can consult sources in their original language.
Starting point why the question is framed incorrectly
Debates about Israel and Palestine are often reduced to overly simplified images someone took someone else’s house or the land was empty.
Both are inaccurate.
To understand what actually happened one must begin where the foundations were laid the land system of the Ottoman Empire
The Ottoman Empire ownership use and legal structure
Under the Ottoman Empire until 1917 most land was not privately owned in the modern sense. The system was formalized with the Land Code of 1858 and included several main categories.
Miri or state land was the most common category. The state was the formal owner while individuals held usage rights often inheritable. These rights could be lost if the land was not cultivated.
Tapu referred to registered title. This was a legal registry not necessarily tied to the actual cultivator. The registered holder had legal control and could sell or transfer the land.
Waqf referred to endowment land dedicated to religious or public purposes and not freely transferable.
The key point is that the person working the land was often not the same as the person who legally owned it. This does not mean that all registered owners were elites but the system allowed ownership to concentrate in the hands of individuals who did not necessarily cultivate the land themselves.
Why land was registered this way
In theory peasants were expected to register land in their own names. In practice many avoided doing so.
The reasons were practical. Registration brought higher taxes could lead to military conscription and increased direct state control.
As a result land was often registered in the names of others such as local notables urban elites or absentee landlords living in cities like Beirut Damascus or Istanbul.
This created a dual reality. On one hand there was a social reality where peasants lived on and cultivated the land for generations. On the other hand there was a legal reality where ownership belonged to someone else.
When land was sold what actually happened
From the late nineteenth century onward Jewish organizations began purchasing land. The crucial point is not only that land was bought but from whom.
In most cases land was purchased from legally registered owners often absentee landlords. These transactions were lawful within the existing legal framework
When a sale occurred the legal owner changed. However those cultivating the land typically lacked formal legal protection. As a result they could lose their right of use even if they had lived and worked there for generations.
Where the conflict emerged
The conflict did not arise simply from an act of theft. It emerged from a clash between two different understandings of rights
On one side was a legal logic where land had been purchased lawfully from the registered owner. On the other side was a social logic where land was perceived as belonging to those who had worked it.
Both perspectives had internal coherence but they did not align with each other. It is precisely in this gap that tensions developed.
The British Mandate
When Britain took control it retained many Ottoman structures while introducing a new political context that intensified tensions.
During this period Jewish immigration increased. Arab political mobilization strengthened and waves of violence occurred particularly in the 1920s 1929 and 1936 to 1939. So by this point the conflict was already deeply established well before 1948.
1947 and 1948 the turning point
The United Nations proposed a partition plan. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan while the Arab leadership rejected it. After this war broke out.
Displacement a complex process
During and after the war large population movements occurred
A significant number of Arab Palestinians left conflict areas for different reasons including fear of fighting the breakdown of local structures and in some cases direct expulsions. In certain contexts there were also calls or expectations from Arab leadership that civilians would temporarily leave conflict zones with the idea that they would return after the war ended. A substantial part of the population remained and after the war became citizens of the new state of Israel.
At the same time in the following years a large number of Jews from Arab countries, Mizrahim faced pressure discrimination and violence were expelled or forced to leave and resettled mainly in Israel.
What this means
This is not a history that can be explained in a single sentence
Neither everything was stolen nor everything was empty holds true. What happened was the result of a long process where legal land transactions, social structures and political developments and war all interacted.
A view on historical identity
During the Ottoman period identity was not based on modern nationalism. It was more closely tied to religion local affiliation and imperial belonging. A structured Palestinian national identity began to take shape later particularly during the British Mandate. This does not negate the presence of the local population but helps place historical terms in their correct context.
The core issue
The problem was not only land It was that two populations claimed the same territory based on different understandings of law history and legitimacy.
To understand this conflict one must accept several basic realities ownership and use were not the same population displacement occurred on multiple sides and war irreversibly changed reality.
History is not a delayed moral judgement It is process structure and consequence. It is not a stage for fixed roles of victim and perpetrator or simple categories of right and wrong. These may serve emotional or political narratives but they do not fully explain historical reality.
