Replies to post #24897 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[goodluck]

<< didn't say that they acquiesced before the removal. Who ever has? They did, however, acquiesce afterwards. Perhaps what the Palestinians should have done, but the unfortunate fact is that they have not.>>
If you "acquiesce" at the barrel of a gun, is it still acquiescence? Surely no more than contract signed under duress. The "Palestineans" didn't "acquiesce" because they had no alternative--after telling them to leave their homes for "a few weeks" until the Jews could be driven into the sea, no Arab country would give the Palestineans a home, and the UN was there to "help" them with refugee camps. The Palestineans who remained in Israel, while their lot wasn't easy, still got the right to vote and the right to representation. And the Israeli courts, in the old days at least, give them a fair bit of protection under the laws,both for their property and their person. It wasn't until after '73 when Likud took power that they lost some of those protections, and that the settlements, the "facts on the ground" began to be built in earnest.

[Math Junkie]

So according to your logic, what should give the Palestinians a right of return that no other displaced peoples have is that they haven't given up. Sounds pretty fishy to me. I don't think right and wrong are determined by the simple fact of being stubborn.

[Zeev Hed]

I am not sure what you are talking about, the Palestinians (the West Bank) was annexed by Jordan in 1950 and for 17 years were under Jordanian occupation, yet they acquiesced with that occupation, hoping, actually, to take over Jordan and topple the Hashemites and establish their country there. It did not work, but they acquiesced and the world acquiesced at the massacres of Palestinian by Jordanians when the insurrection was bloodily defeated.