> > 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.

Can you cite a reference for that? I think B'Tselem knows how the Israeli system works and if they say 30-40% of settlements are built on private Palestinian property I believe them. You didn't offer any argument on why they are wrong.

> >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.

It's your own choice to trust Wikipedia. But I wont accept it as a legitimate source for "facts."

> 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.

Do you have a source for that? Because I showed you a source that said that it can be used in the Palestinian part of Jerusalem. Another source is here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-c...

> > 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 That law has been superseded there is no longer a way inact imminent domain without compensation even in absentee cases.

No we are not talking about the same law.

During the Ottoman era, land in Palestine was categorized in three categories; mulk, miri and mawat. Mulk was land someone had full property rights to. Mawat land was land not claimed by anyone and it belonged to the state. Such as arid parts of the Negev. Miri was land someone was cultivating. Families could have been cultivating land for generations, but they hadn't purchased it from the empire, yet the empire considered it to be theirs as long as they were using it productively. Mawat land could become miri land if some industrious person decided to squat there and miri land could revert to mawat land if it was abandoned for three years.

This system is applied on the West Bank when Israel expropriates land for settlements. Land that is apparently not used is declared mawat and the state takes control of it, without offering compensation to anyone.

> 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

The Palestinians refugees of 1967 number about 250,000.

> (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)

This talking point has been rehashed a million times before... You seem to have very strong feelings about Israel and Palestine because you have written so many comments in this articles thread. I just don't think HN is the right place to discuss this conflict in general.

Like I only responded to you original incorrect statement that "the[y] more often than not buy the land".

> 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 didn't say that. But the Israeli state can do that by declaring the land mawat.