The situation is Gaza is the urgent one, so maybe I shouldn't be fussing about the logic of the less-central issue: the situation of stateless Palestinians and the reasons for it.

But it's kind of important, because it impacts what responsibility we think Israel bears, what responsibility the host countries bear at this point, and how if at all the international community can help things turn out as well as practical for the people of the region.

In the context of stateless refugees, the "host country" is the country with the refugees in them. That's what it means to be a host: you have a visitor.

You ask HOW??? to get the money and resources to integrate refugees. Does it actually cost more to integrate refugees than to keep them perpetually in refugee status, in many cases artificially preventing them from contributing fully to the local economy? It seems unlikely that the answer would be "yes" unless international aid can be had to keep people in miserable stateless refugee conditions but not to help transition them to a new state.

Jordan has apparently already integrated a majority of the Palestinian refugees. Lebanon integrated all the Christian refugees, and I haven't found any indication that this was seriously destabilizing. Uganda--with a GDP per capita one eighth of Lebanon's before Lebanon's economic collapse--has managed to integrate refugees from surrounding countries while simultaneously hosting many more.

It is a burden, absolutely. It shouldn't be diminished. (Uganda should get more international aid, for instance.) But it's also doable, apparently, because it seems to have been done in multiple cases including with Palestinian refugees and so we shouldn't be going HOW??? but asking what is reasonable, if the international community could assist the process, ask what the political barriers are since economics doesn't fully explain it, etc..

But it's pretty silly that the more I look into what you say, at your request, the angrier you get and the less faith you have in the discussion. It makes it seem like you don't want people to understand the situation, only a caricature that leads to an obvious conclusion. If the details don't match the caricature, it angers you when people find them?

There's no question that the Palestinian refugee situation is one of the worst in the world, and conflicts in the region are causing other refugee burdens. The question is what is impossible, what is possible but burdensome (and how burdensome), and what is possible and not burdensome (maybe even advantageous) but isn't politically expedient. And then, given that layout, what interventions can make things better for people.

You know about the Armenian genocide, correct? A huge fraction of the Armenians in what is now eastern Turkey were killed, and many fled (about two million) and were refugees and could not return to eastern Turkey. They do not have a right of return to Turkey now. The Armenian refugees were integrated into many host countries--admittedly, often ones that are in better shape than those adjacent to Palestine--and it worked out okay for those people. When Armenia came into existence, it didn't cover all of the original territory. Taking this as a model, with an eventual Palestine with a right of return to there, but not to the exact place where some of the Palestinians' ancestors lived, seems like something that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

HOW??? HOW???

With compassion and international support.