Government land policies in occupied enemy territory: the case of British rule in Ottoman Palestine, 1917–1920
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the chaotic situation following the British invasion of southern Palestine at the end of 1917, military officials faced several countervailing pressures. In addition to ongoing military priorities (including international norms pertaining to military occupations, such as the law of the ‘status quo’), pressing humanitarian concerns, and even the personal religious sentiments of individual officers, the British occupation administration was forced to take into account international pressures and interventions resulting from the overlapping and conflicting promises made during the war (inter alia, Sykes‑Picot agreement, Husayn‑McMahon correspondence, Balfour Declaration, and President Wilson’s 14 Points). This paper focuses on the land policy‑making process as a case study with which to weigh the various factors pressing upon the military occupation as it evolved during its first three years. Land ownership was a huge concern: a properly functioning land registry was seen as key to the improvement of economic and social conditions in the largely agricultural economy, and British interventions were followed closely by all interested parties. The land has also been at the centre of the ensuing century‑long conflict between Arabs and Jews. Thus, a close examination of land policies (and especially the 1920 land ordinance) offers an extremely important window on both the rule of law in the aftermath of the war and our understanding of the current, unending conflict in the land.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".