Kuandika Palestina katika historia ya karne ya 18, dhana ya uhuru wa kijamii na kiuchumi wa Wapalestina chini ya Waothmani ilichunguzwa kwa ustadi mkubwa na Beshara Doumani (1995), hasa kwa kurejelea historia ya kijamii ya Jabal Nablus ya karne ya 18. Hili lilifanyika ndani ya mfumo wa dhana ya Albert Hourani ya 'wakuu wa mijini' (a'ayan): wasomi wa kisiasa na kiuchumi katika miji na miji midogo ya mikoani ya Kiarabu, waliotumika kama wapatanishi wa 'kitajiri' kati ya mji mkuu wa kifalme, Istanbul, na jamii ya mikoani, na waliongoza majimbo ya Dola kubwa ya Kiothmani. Wasomi wa kijamii wa mijini wa Palestina, kama ilivyokuwa katika sehemu nyingine ya Mashariki ya Kiarabu, walitafuta kudhibiti biashara ya kikanda na ya mbali, pamoja na kutawala umiliki wa ardhi vijijini.

Writing Palestine into the history of the 18th century, the idea of Palestinian social and economic autonomy under the Ottomans was masterfully explored by Beshara Doumani (1995) with special reference to the social history of 18th century Jabal Nablus. This was done within the framework of Albert Hourani’s paradigm of the ‘urban notables’ (a’ayan): the political and economic elites in provincial Arab cities and towns that served as ‘patrician’ intermediaries between the imperial capital in Istanbul and provincial society and governed the provinces of the vast Ottoman Empire. The urban social elites of Palestine, as in the rest of the Arab East, sought to control regional and distant trade and dominate landownership in the countryside.

Hata hivyo, katika Palestina ya mwishoni mwa enzi ya Dola ya Ottoman, miji ilikuwa midogo kiasi, na wasomi wa mijini walitegemea udhamini wa Ottoman na walikuwa wameunganishwa na vijiji vilivyowazunguka pamoja na wakulima wengi wa mashambani.

However, in late Ottoman Palestine cities were relatively small and urban social elites were dependent on Ottoman patronage and interdependent with their surrounding villages and the mass peasantry of the countryside.

Lakini historia ya Palestina chini ya utawala wa Waottoman haiwezi kufungiwa ndani ya siasa za wakuu wa mijini wa Hourani, wala aina nyingine za siasa za wasomi, iwe zinalenga wamiliki wa ardhi wa kimwinyi wenye tamaa waliowanyonya wakulima wa Palestina kupitia mfumo wa Waottoman wa kilimo cha ardhi wa iltizam, au watu wema wa kiungwana wa tabaka la juu walioanzisha taasisi kubwa za hisani za waqf nchini humo. Ingawa wasomi hawa wa mijini walipinga utawala wa moja kwa moja wa Waottoman huko Palestina, wengi wao walitoka katika tabaka la kijamii lilelile, na siasa zao zilibaki zikiegemea familia, zenye ushindani mkali na mifarakano mikubwa (Mao’z 1968: 113), na hatimaye zisizo na matokeo. Pia, historia yote ya Palestina haiwezi kupunguzwa kuwa mfumo mmoja: mfumo wa kifalme wa mlinzi na mteja na siasa za wasomi. Muhimu zaidi, uhuru huu wa kijamii wa 'ayans' wa mijini huko Palestina hauwezi kueleza kuibuka kwa ghafla kwa uhuru wa kisiasa 'kutoka chini' na 'kutoka ndani' wa chombo kilichokaribia kuwa huru cha Palestina katika karne ya 18, dola ya al-ʿDhaher al-ʿUmar ya Palestina, ambayo ilikuwa karibu zaidi kufikia kuwa dola huru ya kisasa ambayo Palestina iliwahi kuwa nayo. Hata hivyo, mfumo huu wa wasomi wa 'wakuu wa mijini' wa eneo hilo umeathiri kizazi kizima cha wanahistoria wa Mashariki ya Kati ya kisasa. Wanahistoria mara nyingi huhofia kupinga mifumo iliyokwishakubalika na, kwa kuwa taaluma nyingi za kitaaluma zinategemea mifumo hiyo, hilo kwa kiasi fulani linaeleza kwa nini dola yenye nguvu ya al-ʿUmar huko Palestina, iliyodumu kwa karibu nusu karne, imechunguzwa kwa kiasi kidogo tu.

But the history of Ottoman Palestine cannot be confined to the politics of Hourani’s urban notables or other forms of elite politics, whether this is centred on greedy feudal landlords who exploited the Palestine peasantry through the Ottoman iltizan land-cultivation system or on benevolent aristocratic patricians who set up remarkable charitable waqf foundations in the country. Although these urban elites resisted direct Ottoman rule in Palestine, they were drawn for the most part from the same social classes and their politics remained family-centred, fiercely competitive and deeply fractious (Mao’z 1968: 113) and, ultimately, ineffective. Also, the entire history of Palestine cannot be reduced to one paradigm: the imperial patron‒client framework and elite politics. Crucially, this social autonomy of the urban ‘ayans’ in Palestine cannot account for the dramatic emergence political autonomy ‘from below’ and ‘from within’ of an almost independent Palestinian entity in the 18th century, the al-ʿDhaher al-ʿUmar state of Palestine, which was the closest Palestine got to a modern independent state. However, this elite paradigm of local ‘urban notables’ has influenced an entire generation of historians of the modern Middle East. Historians are often wary of challenging established paradigms and, with so many academic careers depending on them, this partly explains why al-ʿUmar’s powerful state in Palestine, which lasted for nearly half a century, has been studied only marginally.