A lot of the time errors come from quote trees filling up the character limit, so you can avoid them by not quoting. If I make an especially long post I'll just copy it in case the forum's dogshhit software eats it the first time.
"WHAT SORT OF HORSESHIT IS THAT? Sure, the turks went through all the trouble of instituting NEW land laws and OWNERSHIP rights, because it meant fucking nothing, and squatters have all rights. Do yo even fucking hear yourself? 100% convinced you're a fucking troll at this point. Feudal governments saying who's ever living somewhere has the right to live there? WHAT?!?!?!!??! Yeah, because during kings NEVER confiscated land and took every possesion someone had because they didnt pay their taxes, or feel out of royal favor, or any one of a thousand things. hold shit, go study medieval England"
Not squatters, residents. You are still projecting your own values onto people living in a foreign culture in a different time. The traditional understanding of land ownership was that the village as a whole had the rights to the use of its lands. Who specifically lived on or tended a specific plot of land was an internal matter that the government didn't much care about. The Tanzimat Land Reform's main job was to streamline all of the complicated decrees, grants, etc. into a modern legal code. In most cases, it didn't change how people actually lived their lives, though there was of course plenty of corruption and fuckery that took place during the changeover. Ownership of the land mostly just meant the right to collect rents.
If an English king started arbitrarily seizing lands, he would end of with a rebellion due to acting arbitrarily and unlawfully. European feudalism was made up of many different types of peasantry depending of where and when you are talking about, but the most common type of serfdom was that they were completely bound to the land. That went both ways. They could not leave the land, but a lord could also not sell the serf to someone else apart from the land. Doing it any other way wouldn't make sense, you need people to actually work that land and Count Dipshit wasn't about to toil in the fields himself.
That isn't exactly how it worked in Palestine, but you get the idea. The Zionists reshaped that system because their whole purpose was to toil in the fields themselves. Where a new landlord in the times before that meant you just owed money to someone else, now it meant somebody else was coming in to take your places. Leading to internal migration to places like the slums of Haifa.
But, again, no, not all the land was owned by absentee Turks. A lot of it was. A lot of it wasn't. For example, a lot of the land west of Jerusalem was owned by the Abu Ghosh clan. The Abu Ghosh were based out of the town of, shockingly, Abu Ghosh. Famous for its hummus.
As for the rest of that post, I don't know why you think doing the text equivalent of screaming like a madman makes you look like the reasonable one.
Not squatters, residents. You are still projecting your own values onto people living in a foreign culture in a different time. The traditional understanding of land ownership was that the village as a whole had the rights to the use of its lands.
And a squatter isnt a resident? yeah, ok. No, I understand and know FULL WELL how it work. It may have worked one way under turkish rule, but that meant fuck all once israel became a country. Torries enjoyed a wonderful life under british rule, but when we gained our independance, we dealt with loyalists, Legal ownership actually means something, no matter how much you "claim" it didnt. The difference here is I have facts and history on my side. The FACT is turks took advantage, became LEGAL land owners had LEGAL rights to the land and the squatters aka people who may have lived there for generations with no legal claim to the land or their home had legal fuck all to say when land was sold, or seized FROM THE TURKISH OWNER. palestinians may not have cared their were laws about ownership, but israel sure as shit did.,
If an English king started arbitrarily seizing lands, he would end of with a rebellion due to acting arbitrarily and unlawfully.
aye aye aye aye aye. More shit you're pulling out of your ass. You dont know shit about shit. Unlawfully? He was the law! He made the law. Actually try learning some shit about it.
Ever hear of William the Conqueror? what happen to all the saxon nobles lands and titles?
How about nobles who revolted and were beaten or who backed the losing side in a coup attempt. Did they get to keep their lands and titles or their fucking lives? How about a noble who failed to pay his tax bill ? you think the king said fuck it, i was seize your assets as payment of your debt? How do you think the monarchary became the largest land owner in britain? jesus. how is this even a question?????????
There were tons of rebellions when nobles thought the king had gone to far. the magna carter was supposed to limit powers, but most said fuck it and did what they wanted anyway. shit even cromwell did what the fuck he wanted
A lot of it was. A lot of it wasn't.
the link i proved breaks down exactly who owned what.
I don't know why you think doing the text equivalent of screaming ...
because you're a condescending dick, and you're trying to belittle me by insinuating i dont know shit and I'm just copying and pasting radom shit you're dismissive of, when in fact, you're whole holy than thou and smarter than thou act is bullshit, and irrespective of you proclaiming your intellectual superiority, and infalliblity, it is I in FACT, that am correct in almost, everything I've posted. I believe i was mistaken twice on the entire thread