But in the meantime their population roughly octupled as the populations were mostly where they were for 70 years? And isn't that actually a "successful" (if bad) absorbance in terms of the logistics of keeping a population alive? The logistical arguments only pertain if the proposal is to relocate Palestinians from Gaza.

What's this "were denied" wording? You're saying it as if it's a fait accompli, but it's actually a decision made by the host countries.

You didn't really address the part of the question very directly. You talked about instability, but your examples are 50 years old, aren't related to Palestinians (e.g. Iraqi refugees in Syria--but again, those were recent refugees), or are wars started by the PLO which you're explaining as the consequence of "horrific conditions in stateless refugee camps".

Isn't that backwards then? Wouldn't the countries be better off if they absorbed the people instead of leaving large refugee camps?

You suggested that I spend some time researching the conditions of Palestinian refugees, but the more I look, the less compelling your original position seems (in part because of your own reasoning!).

Ideally, there wouldn't be a large refugee population.

But, given that you have one, if you leave them in horrific conditions in refugee camps, you get organizations like the PLO of the 70s.

So, the safer thing to do is integrate them, except....

...except what?

You say states are "fragile", but what is that code for?

What kind of fragility means that you should grow terrorists in your backyard as the superior solution (unless it is a cynical ploy to point them at Israel, which you already rejected)?

The population is too xenophobic or sectarian to go for integration?

Again, this doesn't have much bearing on new refugees. But you suggested you'd have an answer for the existing ones, too.