> I'm not sure how the Ottoman law is connected to this at all? Why is that the reigning law of that land, the Ottomans haven't had ownership of it since 1918.
I failed to address this in my previous reply.
The Israeli occupation can not change the laws of the West Bank. An occupation can pass temporary orders, which are usually limited to (and often renewed after) three years.
Neither could the Jordanian occupation changed the laws of the West Bank, for the same reason.
The British Mandate was allowed to changed laws, and they did change many laws. However Ottoman property laws are very, very complicated and they decided that there was no reason to mess with it. So during the British Mandate the Ottoman property laws remained.
So the land in question has been through a UN mandate and two occupations (one still ongoing), without the property laws being changed. Those Ottoman laws still stand.
The Israeli occupation can not change the laws of the West Bank. An occupation can pass temporary orders, which are usually limited to (and often renewed after) three years.
Neither could the Jordanian occupation changed the laws of the West Bank, for the same reason.
The British Mandate was allowed to changed laws, and they did change many laws. However Ottoman property laws are very, very complicated and they decided that there was no reason to mess with it. So during the British Mandate the Ottoman property laws remained.
So the land in question has been through a UN mandate and two occupations (one still ongoing), without the property laws being changed. Those Ottoman laws still stand.