Yes, we can argue how many were displaced, and the circumstances of their displacement. But as I argued to my students years ago, a few were physically removed from strategic areas, most because their leaders abandoned them, or at the direction of foreign Arab leaders, or out of fear of war. Subsequent research overall confirms that contention. But the fundamental question, obviously, is why *these* refugees are to be treated differently from other refugees. Out of the tens of millions displaced as a result of conflicts since WW II, why are only the "Palestinians" given their very own UN agency to look after their "rights", while others are in the charge of the UN's HCR? Why did they earn refugee status after a minimum of two years residence in Mandate Palestine, or the right to bequeath refugee status in perpetuity? Why did the general rule of "first refuge" not apply to them? Arab victimization of course requires that someone else is always responsible for their plight...
Australian police arrest 5 over shooting 'linked to terrorism' (Reuters)
from the article: Despite everything, one truth