Ramallah: Editor of The Israeli Affairs Quarterly Journal, Dr. Ra’ef Zreiq, considered the history of land laws in Palestine/Israel an intense manifestation of the overall history of the conflict. It is not possible to understand the Israeli State politics and its logic without tracing back this chapter of history. Zreiq clarified that the British mandate period was detrimental in the track of control over lands through land settlement in concession to Zionism’s pressures, besides “stopping the Palestinian time” through which the mandate authorities stopped accounting for the time in which Palestinian peasants made use of certain lands, from the moment it declared those lands were under the procedures of settlement.
In a symposium organized by The Palestinian Forum for Israeli Studies – MADAR, yesterday, titled “ Israel: The Land, Law and Ideology”, Dr. Zreiq said that the goal of the Zionist project in Palestine, set from an early phase, is to manifest a collective ownership of lands in Palestine by Jews. This cannot be explained by the settlement colonialist model on its own, as there are settlement measures in Australia and Canada and elsewhere that had no collective ownership at all.
Zreiq showed that the idea that the State of Israel inherits the states that came before it is meaningless, as the Palestinian entity was not allowed to emerge after the British mandate or any other. Besides, a real state owns a land that it makes use of for public interest, and not purposed for people who have not yet immigrated to Palestine.
Zreiq illustrated that the form of collective ownership for Jews in Palestine was imposed by both ideological and materialistic necessities at the same time. The ideological necessities lie in the intellectual and ideological justifications on which Zionism relied to justify its land take over project, mostly based on the old Jewish right in Israel’s land. In addition to the fact that the ethnic project aiming at finding a resolution for the Jewish problem all over the world, therefore, the lands taken over or bought are dedicated to serve the goals and needs of all Jews, wherever they may be. Based on that, the person in whose name the land property is registered is its guardian for all the Jews, those who are expected to immigrate to Palestine to establish their national Jewish project on its lands. Such explains the existence of bodies like the Jewish National Fund, which mediates the lands to the Jews of the world.
The practical reason behind collective ownership, according to Zreiq, that it is difficult to follow the Australian or Canadian model in individual settlement policy in Palestine, given the strong Arab presence. This came as a result of local resistance, thus leading to a collective coordinating body to buy lands, maintain and defend them.
Zreiq also considered that the British Mandate period was detrimental in the course of land take over, as a cursory land survey was conducted under the influence and pressure of Zionist bodies to determine its boundaries, areas and ownership. The latter then developed to distinguish between ownership and land use mandate, raising the possibility for landowners not to have to make any use of it.
The biggest blow received by the Palestinian peasant during the Mandate period is the stopping in accounting for the time in which lands were being under use, at the moment the Mandate authorities declared the lands to be under settlement procedures, which could last up to decades. Meanwhile, the Palestinian peasant would be planting his land all those years, but it would not be accounted for, thus making the peasant not entitled to its ownership, in accordance with the Ottoman land law. This meant that the land history or use is no longer a detrimental factor in land ownership registry, as if the Palestinian time is stopped, Zreiq said.
He added, the shift from the logic of using land to that of land ownership registry had a significant negative impact on the Palestinian peasant. The climax of this policy was especially effective after the establishment of the State of Israel. On the other hand, this policy made it easier for Jewish institutes to claim ownership of lands, as the written land registry grew more credible, compared to the policy of usage and practical possession. Nevertheless, the total lands owned by Jews on the eve of the partition resolution did not exceed 6% of the lands of Palestine.
On the period of the establishment of the Sate of Israel, Zreiq stated that the State found itself in a peculiar situation between “sovereignty” and “ownership”; having sovereignty over all of the State lands, although the Jews own a small percentage of the lands, thus the need to transfer the ownership of those lands to hands of Jews. It is safe to say to that a new phase started with the founding of the State; shall the appropriation of Jews to some lands, then, be a contribution to the building of the State and enjoying sovereignty, the situation was reversed after the establishment of the State, where the sovereignty was a prelude to ownership, after being a factor in enjoying sovereignty.
Zreiq added, this fact has many implications on the structure of the State and its political system, as the majority of lands of the State are of collective ownership at the disposal of the State and Jewish institutes that are not part of the State institutions. This has economic, legal and political implications because it holds the citizen hostage to collective policy making process lead by the State and the overall Zionist institutes, which keeps the Jewish citizen a follower in all basic needs such as accommodation and environment forming life fundamentals.
Zreiq concluded by saying this reality in political terms has a special resemblance to the Palestinians living inside the Green Line; no matter how the legal speech over the rights of the Arab citizen grows, it remains held in the air. That is because the fundamental existence requirement, the land, is in the hands of an antagonist institute. That said, the rhetoric about equality and citizenship without tackling the materialistic basis to this equality and this citizenship is a superficial democracy.
