>>>>I had no idea! Was this because they were unable to collect taxes from the populace? Where could I read more I don't know where this practice comes from or

>>>>I had no idea! Was this because they were unable to collect taxes from the populace? Where could I read more I don't know where this practice comes from or how long has it been around. I do know however the public works bidding is a cartel, and there is so much corruption at all levels, from deputies to private enterprise, that it would make Brazil's petrobras corruption scandal (lava jato) look minor in comparison. >>>>Was there no way to handle the palestinian refugees without authoritarian methods? Im not sure. Displaced populations had to go live somewhere. The palestinian issue is rare because they were forced to leave, which is atypical for "total war" conflict. In total war conflicts, the result is winner takes land with resources, and loser state is (a) integrated into larger empire, with either assimilation, or massive civilian casualties, or (b) else loser state is left with minor pop and land. With Palestine, there was no leftover "loser" state, there were no resources changing hands, and no civilian wipeout. I dont know of any democratic country succesfully managing refugees at that scale. Total war is not rare historically, what is rare is democratic states existing at the time total war was still prevalent. The question is interesting. Id like to give it more thought. That being said, history tends to put everyone in their place. Jordan may still implode due to royal malfeasance, but lebanon already did.