[mark_l_watson]

A slippery slope. Absolutely posts promoting or justifying violent acts should be blocked - at least in my opinion.

However posts, in this case critical of the Israeli or Palestinian governments, that criticize actions of public figures and organizations should be protected as free speech.

[vkou]

> justifying violent acts

So, when the POTUS is going to start drumming up support for the next war, Facebook should block him, her supporters, and the media puppet-show that will cheer-lead this adventure?

What about Israeli settler groups? They use violence to take land from its owners. Should they also be blocked?

[dogma1138]

>They use violence to take land from its owners

Actually the more often than not buy the land, there are almost no accounts of land grab by force.

Israeli leftist organizations constantly try to publish the deals knowing that it would result in likely deaths as the penalty of selling land to a Jew (not Israeli but a Jew) under PA law is death, and if the PA doesn't get to you the neighbourhood mob will.

The Israeli settlements especially around the B areas are a problem but it's less the settlement itself and more the supporting infrastructure associated with, primarily the fact that the Israeli armed forces have to step in and provide protection.

Israeli settlement policy is inconsistent they are actively dismantling the smaller settlements and supporting the big ones, however there is also a perception issue every time there is some headlines of 100,000 homes being built it's a gross and intentional misrepresentation of the facts; since they account for every construction permit as a housing unit even if it's a permit to change the porch or move the sidewalk, and there seem to be complete disregard to the difference between E. Jerusalem, the large settlement blocks which are effectively cities and the smaller settlements which spawn sporadically (and often dismantled) deeper within the west bank.

[vkou]

Just because an exchange of money takes place does not at all mean that it's not under duress. A camp prisoner selling their personal property, or their talents to a prison guard is not a fair exchange of value either.

The creation of support infrastructure, and the need to defend it is an obvious consequence of settlements - just like the obvious consequence of that defense is the partitioning of Palestinian land, military checkpoints, disruption of freedom of travel, arbitrary detention, and the occasional excursion and killings.

These settlements can't exist without the frequent application of violence.

[dogma1138]

>Just because an exchange of money takes place does not at all mean that it's not under duress.

The average sale is over 50 times the value of the property.

>A camp prisoner selling their personal property, or their talents to a prison guard is not a fair exchange of value either.

Your analogy is really really wrong.

>These settlements can't exist without the frequent application of violence.

That is a correct statement, but if you actually deconstruct it the argument isn't the one you are trying to make.

Without the violence towards Jews the settlements would not be needed at all, if a Jew can buy a house in Hebron which had a vibrant Jewish community up to it's slaughter during the Arab revolts at the end of the 19th century and live there in peace and quiet there would be no need to call it a settlement.

Many of these "settlements" aren't towns, they aren't cities, they are apartments that were purchased in a town where Jews used to live and were driven out. This includes places like Hebron and Jerusalem, because according to the press and some people a Jewish family moving into a house in E. Jerusalem is a new settlement, or at least an expansion of an existing one.

If Jews could live there without the fear of violence there would be no reason for the "infrastructure" which causes so much "inconvenience" to Palestinians, I'm pretty sure that the Jews would also prefer it that way, they might actually be able to open a window.

[bjourne]

> >They use violence to take land from its owners

> Actually the more often than not buy the land, there are almost no accounts of land grab by force.

That's not true. Best estimates by Peace Now and B'Tselem is that 30-40% of the settlements are built on private Palestinian land. In addition to that, a lot of land is expropriated using absentee land laws (a relic from the Ottoman period in which unused land reverts to belonging to the state after a set number of years) and only a small minority is purchased. See

https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-the-land-on-which-Israeli-...

[dogma1138]

And if you dig deeper you'll find a slightly different story, including the countless cases where groups like B'Tselem brought to court and lost due to proof of purchase.

You are also incorrect about the use of the absentee law, this was used however it was used within Israel after the 1948 war, and the last time it was used was in the 1950's and since then has been surpassed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_land_and_property_laws

In theory even if that law was valid today it could not have been used in the west bank, the law is part of the Israeli legal code which does not apply to the West Bank as Israel has never officially annexed it and applied it's laws within it.

Technically the West Bank (including Israeli settlers) are not bound by Israeli law, they are bound by military law which is administered through the civil administration, there are a few caveats and that Israeli law to some extent does applies within the territory of a specific settlement but overall this isn't uniform.

Israelis can be brought in front of a military tribunal for violating the law within the West Bank and this has have happened before, this is often used to kick out "trouble makers" out of the settlements by effectively denying them entrance into the west bank which cannot be done through Israeli civil law but can be done through the military tribunal process.

[bjourne]

> And if you dig deeper you'll find a slightly different story, including the countless cases where groups like B'Tselem brought to court and lost due to proof of purchase.

Land ownership has been hard for Palestinians to prove in Israeli courts. They are often represented by pro-bono lawyers while the Israeli state is represented by very well-compensated ones. But I have no reason to believe that B'Tselem's and Peace Now's estimates are incorrect. Do you? If so, say what the reason is instead of insinuating that they are dishonest.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_land_and_property_laws

Wikipedia is a bad source for anything having anything to do with Israel.

> You are also incorrect about the use of the absentee law, this was used however it was used within Israel after the 1948 war, and the last time it was used was in the 1950's and since then has been surpassed.

Haaretz disagrees with you: http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/jerusalem-vivendi/.premium-1.52... But you are talking about a different law. During the Ottoman period, land where in a way "leased" to families and if they stopped cultivating the land or abandoned it, it would revert to belonging to the state again after a set number of years. Israel choose to uphold this law in the West Bank after the occupation began in 1967. It allowed it to confiscate land that had been left behind by refugees fleeing the Six-day war. It also means that it is much harder for Palestinians to claim ownership of some piece of land than if they had lived in some other place.

[dogma1138]

>Land ownership has been hard for Palestinians to prove in Israeli courts. They are often represented by pro-bono lawyers while the Israeli state is represented by very well-compensated ones. But I have no reason to believe that B'Tselem's and Peace Now's estimates are incorrect. Do you? If so, say what the reason is instead of insinuating that they are dishonest.

This isn't how the Israeli legal system works, even in cases where they did prove purchase more often than not the "settlers" lose. The burden is on the settlers not the Palestinians, and they lose over 80% of the cases mostly because the Israeli legal system actually prevents them from proving that the transaction was legal unless the Palestinian in question is no longer in the territories because it would not end up well for them as the punishment for selling land to Jews under PA law is death. Israeli court cases and files are open to the public.

>Wikipedia is a bad source for anything having anything to do with Israel.

The Bias is rarely favoring Israel, and every source is cited. This is about the Israeli legal system, the laws are open to everyone to read.

>Haaretz disagrees with you

I can't access the article.

NVM google fixed it.

What happened here is quite different than what you are trying to present, I'm not sure if you read the article and done your research.

The absentee law (1950) was amended in 1951 and later 1970 and it cannot be used in E. Jerusalem, several cases were brought up during the years by the municipal authority when it claimed eminent domain over properties.

It seems that so far in those cases, and in this 2013 case the court held that that 1970 and 1951 amendments that prevent the absentee law of applying to E. Jerusalem stand.

> But you are talking about a different law. During the Ottoman period, land where in a way "leased" to families and if they stopped cultivating the land or abandoned it.

No we are talking about the same law, the Israeli legal system is a mish-mash of historic Ottoman and British laws that were in effect when the state was founded, bureaucracies tend to change their names but remain more or less constant. That law has been superseded there is no longer a way inact imminent domain without compensation even in absentee cases.

The law was never enacted in the W. Bank, you are maybe confusing it with Jerusalem, Israeli law and through it the absentee law was never applied to the W. Bank only to E. Jerusalem and the Golan Heights through the Jerusalem Law, the the Golan Heights law respectively.

> It allowed it to confiscate land that had been left behind by refugees fleeing the Six-day war

I think you are confusing a few things, the closest thing I can think off is the Jordan Valley, when the Jordanian legiones retreated 100-150K civilian Arabs (at the time both them and the media called them Arabs, the term "Palestinians" weren't used by well the Palestinians until Arab League congress of 1969) fled to Jordan (they were holding Jordanian papers, as Jordan did annex the W. Bank fully), Jordan tried to send them back (sometimes by force), early on about 14,000 of them returned, 40-50,000 of them returned by the mid 70's the rest trickled over the years, mostly during the waves when Jordan retroactively taken away the citizenship from them, the last largest wave was after the 1993 peace accords with Jordan.

Overall you seem to have an idea that any Israeli can just go and claim stake to a land and the Palestinians have to prove their ownership, I don't know what gave you that impression but that's not how it works you are more than welcomed to review the court cases yourself, Google translate is pretty good at translating both Hebrew and common Arabic these days.