et al,
Ownership (property and land) is a much different thing than Sovereignty. It doesn't matter who owned the land; but rather, who had sovereignty over the land.
For 800 years, the Ottoman Empire had sovereignty (independent authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land). It was not an occupation.
After the Empire, the territory came under Mandate; again not occupation. Under the Mandate, the Mandatory had authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land.
None of this changed the ownership of the land. P F Tinmore's assertion or implication that the Palestinian's owned the land has absolutely no relevance to who full powers of legislation (make laws) and of administration (authority over) the territory.
The key reason that this is so important to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) is because it fundamental to their argument that the land was taken from them. The land (ownership) was never taken from them (1920 - 1947) until the outbreak of general hostilities after the passage of the the Resolution 181(II) initiated by the HoAP and the Arab League (and even that is questionable).
Most Respectfully,
R