Palestinians top world refugees list

<snip>

"Palestinian refugees top the list of most displaced people in the world followed by Afghanistan and Iraq.

In a report to mark World Refugees Day, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics said on Monday that Palestinian refugee populations in both the occupied territories and the Diaspora reached 4,255,120 as of March 31, 2005.

The overall Palestinian population worldwide is believed to top the ten million figure, according to Muhammed Dureidi, the head of the Palestinian Population Census.

Dureidi told Aljazeera.net he believed that younger refugee generations were both more educated and more committed to the right of return than their fathers and grandfathers.

"Ben Gurion said the 'old will die and the young will forget.' But from our observations it seems that the younger generations are even more insistent on returning to their original homes and villages however unrealistic this dream may be."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FE0D4BC6-E503-479F-9697-86B443DE9BAF.htm

'Palestinian refugee children

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/06/middle_east_palestinian_refugee_children/html/1.stm

Tell 'em to snap out of it. They've got lives to lead, roads to build, crops to plant etc.

As Nike says, just do it.

Or just Palestinians?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Calling Palestinians refugees at this point is a disgusting, Orwellian lie.

Claiming that they're not is a disgusting, Orwellian lie that's usually stemming from bigotry...

They. Are. On. Their. Way. To. A. State.

Do you GET it now?

In. Fact. They. Already. Have. A. State.

I'm sure most people here will understand why sentiments that exclude only Palestinians come across as just a bit bigoted...

First of all, the report is issued by the Palest6inians, second of all, it's really a thinly disguised call for the right of return, not a report on refugee status. Are they seriously counting all the Palestinians worldwide as refugees? All of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza? In addition, woeful as the plight of the Palestinians is, it's difficult for me to believe that their plight is more dire, than the refugees from, say, Darfur.

First of all, the report is issued by the Palest6inians, second of all, it's really a thinly disguised call for the right of return, not a report on refugee status.

And the problem with a statistical report being issued by the Palestinians is what exactly? As the report was issued by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, can you explain why this isn't a report on refugee status?

Are they seriously counting all the Palestinians worldwide as refugees? All of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza?

No, they're not. The first two paragraphs of the article clearly stated that they weren't: '
In a report to mark World Refugees Day, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics said on Monday that Palestinian refugee populations in both the occupied territories and the Diaspora reached 4,255,120 as of March 31, 2005.


The overall Palestinian population worldwide is believed to top the ten million figure, according to Muhammed Dureidi, the head of the Palestinian Population Census.'


In addition, woeful as the plight of the Palestinians is, it's difficult for me to believe that their plight is more dire, than the refugees from, say, Darfur.

And if the report had been one about which refugees are in a more dire situation than others, I'd agree with you. But the report was on the number of refugees....

nearly half of the people in the world who call themselves palestinians are refugees?

i find that rather hard to believe.

the only settlement for this is for the orginal refugees to be compensated monetarily. at the same time the original jews driven out of arab lands after israel was founded should be compensated as well.

When you think of the massive numbers who were originally expelled or who fled from Israel, it's not surprising nor all that hard to believe...

Are you aware that only around 10% of the original refugees are still alive? And if that is all you think should happen, what about the refugees in countries like Lebanon? They stay there stateless for ever? While I think you've tried to come up with something that you think has some equality, the problem is that while the numbers of original Palestinian refugees are dwindling rapidly due to time, expulsion of Jews from Arab countries (and note that I'm only talking about those who fled or who were expelled - not those who left willingly to start a new life in Israel) happened in the 50's and there'd be a larger number of them still alive...

that have become citizens of other countries, like in jordan, are they still refugees too?

and not all the palestinians who left what is now israel fled or were expelled. some left willingly or at the behest of the invading arab countries (a portion, not all as some like to claim) do those that left willingly or at the behest of the arab countries count as refugees?

why are the palestinians the only people in which refugee status is inherited.

the jews left the arab countries starting when israel was founded in 1947. most of the palestinians that left israel left starting at the same time, some even later after the 1967 war.


why didnt they declare a state in 1947 alongside israel or at any point from 1947-1967? shouldnt jordan and egypt pay a fair share to the refugees since they prevented the formation of palestine for 20 years?

WHO IS A PALESTINE REFUGEE?

"Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA's services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. The number of registered Palestine refugees has subsequently grown from 914,000 in 1950 to more than four million in 2002, and continues to rise due to natural population growth.


http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/whois.html

that part of the reason the Palestinian refugee population is the largest in the world is that the rules under which Palestinian is a refugee (determined by UNWRA) are different than those for other refugees (which fall under the UNHCR). There are two aspects where this is important:

1) Palestinian refugee status is inheritable - i.e. the descendents of a refugee are also refugees. This is not the case (at least in theory) for other refugee populations.
2) Palestinians do not lose their refugee status when attaining citizenship in another country.

The significance of these two facts can be seen in Jordan, for example (where almost half the refugee population lives, according to the OP). Most (if not all) of the refugees there have Jordanian citizenship, and wouldn't be considered refugees by the UNHCR. For example, if a Palestinian who fled to Jordan in 1948 became fairly affluent, his son and grandson - both Jordanian citizens from birth - could still be considered to be refugees.

This is not a problem simply of politics. Contrary to the common mental image of "refugee camp" - of a temporary area of residence - the Palestinian refugee camps are, for all intents and purposes, small towns. So long as their considered to be refugee camps, however, they are funded by the UNWRA - which gives the local government (Jordan, in the example above) to expend resources to improve them or their infrastructure.

I'm just wondering, coz it's like they could see what the future was going to hold and that the refugees were never going to be allowed to return to their homes....

About the first aspect you mentioned: When our lovely conservative govt locks up refugees who've fled from their home countries, children born in this country are not given Australian citizenship and are kept locked up as they're considered every bit a refugee as their parents are...

About the second aspect - If Palestinians don't lose their refugee status when getting citizenship in another country, why do countries like Lebanon refuse to give them citizenship? I'm guessing discrimination is at the root of it...

About the small towns - I saw a documentary recently about one refugee camp in Lebanon. Sure, you could call it a small town if yr talking about a small shanty-town with conditions that are pretty bad and where the inhabitants have no future....

those rules were set up when UNWRA was established in 1949. It was one of several UN bodies established during that period, each of which dealt with a specific refugee population; all of these (other than UNWRA) have since been disbanded. A single body for dealing with refugees was set up in 1951 (the UNHCR) and its rules derive from the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.



Well, I'm talking about the "global" definition, not what a particular government might use. In any event, children of refugees being refugees (unless they've resettled) isn't totally a negative thing. Otherwise, the children lack the support given to refugees, but presumably cannot return to their "home" country for the same reason their parents can't, or else must be seperated from them. Worse, under some conditions children born to refugees may wind up without any citizenship at all, and denying them refugee status means they're totally adrift. Extending that to all future generations, however, is IMO taking things too far.



I assume the other Arab countries don't give Palestinians citizenship for several reasons. First of all, for all their portraying themselves as champions of the Palestinians, they actually treat them like crap. Other than in Jordan - which is a Palestinian-majority country - they tend to be quite despised.

Second, leaving them as refugees, and the camps in squalor, makes them a more potent propoganda weapon against Israel. By not giving them citizenship, it's easier for the host country to avoid being asked why they're leaving the camps undeveloped (as I noted above, UNWRA support would create an economic disincentive to investing money in the camps even when they are citizens - as can be seen in Jordan - but this way they can formally disavow responsibility).

Third, in the specific case of Lebanon, it's also probably a mix of a desire not to upset Lebanon's ethnic balancing act plus acrimony from the civil war.



That illustrates my point, actually. The refugee camps are basically permanent settlements. But their rtaining refugee status means the government has no incentive to develop them beyond "shanty-town" status.

As I noted above, the retention of refugee status by children is not necessarily a bad thing. But it needs to be kept in mind when making comparisons of the size of refugee populations, as the OP does; the Palestinians may currently be the largest refugee population in the world, but their "competitors" are counted by a different definition, under which most of the Palestinians would not count as refugees.

Which was: 'But it needs to be kept in mind when making comparisons of the size of refugee populations, as the OP does; the Palestinians may currently be the largest refugee population in the world, but their "competitors" are counted by a different definition, under which most of the Palestinians would not count as refugees.'

I also agree with what you said about the retention of refugee status by children not necessarily being a bad thing (the only exception I can really think of is when govts like the Australian govt use that status to lock up children in detention centres). But when it comes to situations where a conflict goes on for decades and the problem isn't resolved, I do think that descendants should be defined as refugees. Where I probably don't agree with the UNRWA definition is that it doesn't seem particularly fair that refugees who then gain citizenship in another country (I'm thinking of a specific instance where a young woman from a Lebanese refugee camp married an Australian and moved here) retain their refugee status....

that it encourages everyone else to wash their hands of finding a solution to the refugee problem.

As you noted, the Palestinian refugee problem is a long-standing one. But why is that? The Palestinians were not the only refugee population created in the mid-20th century, nor were they the largest (by far). Yet of all those populations, they are the only one which has not been resolved. Remember also that, AFAIK, none of those other refugee situations were resolved through any large-scale repatriation.

Another point to consider (which I should have probably noted two postes up) is the purpose of the "refugee classification". Often, in these discussions, it is presented as a political issue. But the purpose of the UNHCR (and UNWRA in this case) defining people as refugees is not to champion their political cause*, but to indicate which populations require those organizations' support, because they can't reside in their home country and often can't work in their host country. To some extent, this is a zero-sum game; there are only so many resources available to cover all refugees. Because of that, applying refugee status to those who don't need it (for example, if someone gains citizenship in another country, he can work there) means less resources available for everyone else. (You could make a comparison to domestic welfare policy.)

BTW, about that Australian policy you mentioned; are the children detained with their parents, or in seperate facilities? In the first case, there's a certain logic to it, since otherwise you'd need to split up families.

*Well, I'm not sure about UNWRA

BTW, about that Australian policy you mentioned; are the children detained with their parents, or in seperate facilities? In the first case, there's a certain logic to it, since otherwise you'd need to split up families.

This more than any other issue is closest to my heart, and is what caused me to vote Green last election for the first time after realising the ALP were a bunch of pussies about mandatory detention. For the record I'm totally opposed to mandatory detention. These centres (they were run by a US company that also runs US prisons) are mainly located in incredibly remote places (except for ones like Villawood where English backpackers who've outstayed their visas are sent for an overnight stay before being put on a plane home) and the period refugees are kept in detention can be years on end. Lately the govt's gone for offshore detention centres so they can use the excuse that the refugees never entered Australia and Australia has no obligation to adhere to the UN conventions it's a party to. At one stage Customs vessels were ordered to intercept any boats headed for Australia and only give them water before turning them back around into waters that have had pirate attacks on refugee boats. Anyway, given the length of detention and the conditions, I was always opposed to children being there at all, and thought that the entire family should be allowed into the community...

You might be interested in looking at this website: http://www.chilout.org/