text: grounds of security uas State land, because tbe seizure r.as only temporaryand, once it eas no longer necessary to keep the land for State security, ltrould be returned to its o0ner. nith respect to the public interest factor,Hhen the public interest factor no longer served the interests of theoccupation authoritiea or the citlzens, then the land is to be returned to theoHner. But the Governnent came up against sone obstacl.es here, and theytherefore turned to a thlrd procedure nhich is nuch easier, decraring rand tobe State land and, in keeping ei.th Itilitary Order 59, the nilttary governor lsentitled to declare land to be State land. Anyone objecting to €uch adeclaration tnay refer to the obJectiona connittees. not to the courts, andnust establlsh proof of oenership of the land. That i9 ehere the problettrarlae6. For the person to prove osnership in accordance to the rau applicabrein Jordan anal irhich dates back to the Brltlsh Mandate. and even to the ottomanenpire, tlte Landohrner nuat prove that. the Land has been registered in his naneand has been cul.tivated for over 15 years. Tbe tragedy is that zo per cent ofland in the hrest Bank has not been reqistered ln the name of the orrner: andao it is not possible to bring legal proot of oh,nership. So therefore asecond procedure applies in that case: proof that he has been in posseasionot the Iand for over 15 successive year6, and that is alnost impossible .,.Those $ho are famiriar uith the character of the palestinian people kno0 thatthey are attached to their lanal, they are true peasants. They use ratherprlnltive rnethoda ot cultivation, so ehen the comnittee looks at landcultlvaCed by very prlmitive neans, and sometines land is not.euen turnedover, lt is used ag pagture, for instance, for aninals, so one could then saythat the land is not being sorked because it is not being plougheat. Theconnlttee considers nodern means of proughing land, and they cannot understandthat for a Palestinian peasant pasture lind or any other kinal of use of landla a forh of agriculture. 80 then havlng decided that the land shoul.d revertto the stale, the adninistration gives the owner one nontb to be abre to findin the land register proof of o{rnerBhip. That of course is very expensive,any kind of research of this lype is very expensive. He has to have recourseto a larryer, agricultura!. experts, sureeyors and what have you, and the nos!he can have, to come up with legal proof, is a nonth and a half. and lt i.svery costlyi while tbe Government can produce aerial photographs, they sendexperts into the fteld, people eho have been uorking in the kibbutzirn, theyhave old British map8. So there is a strong lack of balance betreen the teosidea. On the one hand. you have a sinple peaBant unfaniliar sith the ealueof documents, not understanding the terms used: all they kno{ is that this istheir land and has been their land for centuries ... After thousands of years,they canrt prove that thls is their land, and yet they are being requeseed todo so by the occupying authorj.ties .,.
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the issues faced by Palestinian farmers in the West Bank, particularly with regards to land ownership and the Israeli government's policies on land registration and expropriation. The text highlights the difficulties faced by Palestinians in proving their ownership of land, including the lack of documentation and the requirement to provide modern forms of proof, which is challenging for peasants who use traditional methods of cultivation. The text also touches on the power imbalance between the Israeli government and Palestinian farmers, with the government having access to aerial photographs, experts, and historical maps, while Palestinians are left to navigate a complex and costly process.