The war in Israel! It’s all over the news today, however few are familiar with the history of the land, especially the economic characteristics of the territory before establishment of the Jewish state. Here we will explore some of these compelling questions. One of the most popular talking points of today is that Jewish immigration hurt the state of Palestinian population. We will consider some details regarding that state prior to the times when major waves of Jewish immigration occurred and the Jewish state was established.

To begin with – where did the name “Palestine” came from? During the Roman period, the province of Judea was renamed “Syria Palaestina”, meaning Palestinian Syria, following the Second Jewish Revolt against the Roman rule led by Bar Kokhba (132-135 CE). The word “Palaestina” is related to the ancient Mediterranean port of cities of Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Ekron, called “Philistine” in the Hebrew bible. However, the term “Palestine” was used for subsequent millennia without clear geographical definition or ethnic association. Throughout the Byzantine, Muslim and Ottoman periods, these territories were controlled and governed as provinces by different imperial powers. Since Sultan Selim I defeated the Mamluk rulers (Islamic dynasty, deriving it’s name from a term “mamluk”, describing slave soldiers which were widely used in Islamic armies since as early as in the 9th century CE) of Syria and Egypt in 1517, Palestine was divided into “sanjaqs” (Ottoman term for districts) and ruled as part of Ottoman provinces. Thus, we are discussing the economic state of the territory, bordered in the east by the river Jordan and the Dead sea, in the west by the Mediterranean, and ruled as Ottoman districts until 1917, when the territory came under British control.

The demographic composition of Palestine during these times (as counted by the British administration in 1918) was the following: 512,000 Muslims, 66,000 Jews and 61,000 Christians. The brief answer to the question how the Jews ended up being the minority in their native land is that they were displaced during the Byzantine and Muslim periods of rule in Palestine. The Byzantine rule enabled massive Christian immigration into the “Holy land” and imposed many restrictions on Jewish faith practices and political representation. All that combined with several episodes of massacres during Byzantine-Sasanian war (602-628) led to remarkable reduction of the native Jewish population. This was further exacerbated later, following the colonization of Palestine by the Arabs starting from 635, when monetary privileges were given for converting into Islam, and burdens were imposed on those of other faiths, including Christians, Zoroastrians and Jews. Collectively, this all led to the drastic ethnic composition change of the region, including the reduction of Jewish population from about a million during the Byzantian period to roughly 300,000 by the beginning of the Ottoman period, which shrunk further to 66,000 by 1918.

Palestinian economy during the early decades of the twentieth century was largely agricultural and pastoral. Palestinian Arab class structure solidified into two major groups: the landed Arab elite and the peasantry, or “fellaheen”. The middle class and all occupations other than working the land were very scarce. The absentee land ownership, when the landlord lived not on the land but elsewhere, such as Beirut, Damascus, or Cairo, was common. Thus, the majority of land was worked by the peasants who either owned the land or rented it, along with the seasonal workers. The rent was rarely paid in cash but in a share of yield, which varied between 20 and 75% of the gross yield. In addition, the cultivator paid “tithe”, an ancient form of rural taxation which might have amounted for up to 35% of the net produce, to the Ottoman government. The conditions of Palestinian Arab peasants were so precarious that reports from these days state that cultivators were “being compelled to sell their wives to pay their tithes”. There were certain reasons for that state, which we will consider:

• Political and economical structure of the region: since the XIX century or earlier, Palestinian peasants became more and more reliant on those who owned the land they lived on and worked. Since the majority of the peasantry population was illiterate, there was little interest in politics and high reliance on the communicators in all the matters requiring writing such as taxes.
• Cultivation habits: traditional cultivation practices included manual labor, lack of irrigation and manuring, continuous cropping without rotation, and lack of intense farming all collectively limited the output. For example, in 1920, a hectare of wheat in Palestine produced an average of 593 kg while the same area in Egypt yielded 1,793 kg.
• Permanent indebtedness: Palestinian fellaheen had to pay tithe taxes, rents, as well as loans they took for purchasing agricultural materials, such as seeds, farm animals and instruments, including plows. Since the harvests were often not sufficient to even cover the local consumption, and the Ottoman government provided little opportunity for monetary relief from banks or subsidies, Collectively, all that resulted in permanent indebtedness, when the fellaheen had to resort to moneylenders who could charge very high rates, circumventing the Ottoman established legal rate of interest at 9%. The Director of the Palestine Department of Lands noted that “the fellah rarely had clear title [to his land] … and rarely ha[d] recourse to the formality of a regular mortgage with perhaps not 5% of the fellah’s land mortgaged formally.” In 1931, it was estimated that the volume of the Palestinian peasant’s debts represented the full value of his annual income obtained from peasantry and agriculture. The British provided some relief measures, such as cash and agricultural loans as well as remitting the tithe payments in the 1930s.
• “Musha’ ” land ownership system: musha’ land ownership system is considered as one of the biggest impediments to the development of Palestinian rural economy. The main tenet of musha’ system is collective use of the land, cultivation of the shared land and periodic land redistribution among different clans. In 1933, between 46% and 63% of the country’s 8,252,900 cultivable “dunams“ (a dunam equals a quarter of an acre) were under some form of musha’ use. This resulted in lack of any long-term improvements on the land, due to its periodic redistribution. As one fellah pointed out,
  • “I cannot plant a tree on my lands; next year they will have passed to another’s cultivation. I cannot fertilize my fields; another shareholder will get the benefit next year, and why should I spend a pound per bag on manure for another person’s advantage? I cannot build a stable for my horse or my cattle; it will belong to another next year”. Lots were also often not contingent, which made it hard to manage. On top of that, due to redistribution, crop rotations were rare, which led to the nutrient depletion of the soil. Another challenge was that over time the male population increased, however the size of musha’ lands did not, which left each cultivator with smaller and smaller piece. Since Ottoman Agricultural Bank provided loans only to those lands which were individually registered, musha’ lands were not eligible for that type of financial benefit.
  • One of the biggest challenges was the unrest, tensions, quarreling and sometimes even violence, occurring around the times of land redistribution. Since the land would ultimately go to another owner, people had little interest in investing into it and improving it. Redistribution procedure also was hardly fair, favoring the most numerous clans and prominent members. As a result of that, lots of musha’ members were willing to sell their parcels which were that small that it made them not worth cultivation. It was estimated in 1923 that ~75% of musha’ lands were not owned by fellaheen but by individuals who lived elsewhere – usually in towns.
• Land registration: Ottoman central government system introduced some record-keeping to Palestine by the XIX century, which included land registration. Believed to be a good intervention, this system had an adverse effect on the situation on the land, which could be considered one of the most determining for the future of Palestinian fellaheen. Since peasantry traditionally feared central government for two main reasons – taxes and conscription – many preferred to either not register their land or to register it in someone else’s name, usually Arab notables. Moreover, the real land size was often hidden, in order to reduce the amount of taxes. As a result, the fellaheen lived on the land which was officially owned and paid taxes for by someone else, with those tax records often non-existent. That was the reason why many of them were unable to later get any monetary compensation for the land sold to the Jewish immigrants. On the other hand, those peasants which obtained their land registration titles were able to get their ownership confirmation, and often willingly sold their parcels to the Jews.
• Naturally caused setbacks: Palestinian agriculture was affected by episodes of plaque, epidemics, drought and rainfall for centuries, including two separate cycles of devastation in early XX century: one from 1913 to 1920 and the other from 1926 to 1939.
  • 1913 to 1920; in 1913, there was a serious epidemic which reduced sheep flocks, cattle stock, and the number of transport oxen. Additionally, herds were further reduced to satisfy the needs of the growing population. A locust invasion in 1915-1916 greatly reduced the barley and wheat crops. Long-term deforestation, which happened despite the Forest Law introduced by the Ottoman Government in 1860 also contributed to land devastation.
  • 1926 to 1939: this period was particularly devastating for Palestinian rural economy due to several crises, including a cattle pestilence in 1926: some degree of drought in 1927, 1928 and 1931-1933; infection of 80% of the local dairy herds in 1930; four consecutive years of locust plague from 1928 through 1931; field mice depredations in 1928, 1930 and 1931-1933; the starvation of flocks in Gaza and Beersheba in 1932; partial failure of the olive crop from 1932 through 1935; massive migrations of starlings in 1932-1933, causing devastation of the germinating crops; insufficient seed grain and pasturage in 1933 through 1935; and physical disturbance and rural insecurity from 1936 through early 1939.
  • As a result, yields were diminished tremendously: in 1930, damage to almost a million dunams in 350 villages, which meant a loss of 65% of the wheat crop; in 1931 diminished production of summer and winter crops; severe crop failures in 1932 including loss of 60% of the durra crop, 80% of the olive crop, and 85% of the sesame crop. From 1931 through 1933 there was a 37% drop in domestic wheat output in Palestine. In Jenin in early 1934, Arab journalists reported that 60% of the stock and 90% of the offspring perished due to scanty grazing, inclement weather, and drought; in Nablus the cold weather and lack of pasturage took their toll of 60% of the remaining stock.
  • The British government tried to respond with some measures, like animal tax remission, tithe payment lifting and loans for seeds, plow oxen and forage.
  • This detriment was not permanent – in 1937, the rainfall was adequate and wheat prices more beneficial. In the 1939, the wheat harvest was record high.
• World War I: Heavy fighting in the area caused large portion of the population, especially young men, to escape, leaving many villages with only the elderly and children. In addition to that, the Turks confiscated many farm animals, including plow oxen and camel stocks between 1915 and 1916.

Overall, all of the above constituted instability of rural Palestinian economy. Many of these factors were directed at the political targets, and blamed on the Jewish immigration to the region.