Without that context, there’s a real risk of unintentionally spreading misinformation or giving a false sense of certainty. Several points articulated in your bullets are not aligned with my understanding of international law or refugee status, and the reference to Palestinian birth rates in the first bullet made me uncomfortable and concerned about where some of this information was sourced from.
The fact that Palestinians have high birth rates is, as far as I know, completely uncontroversial. Prior to your comment I have never encountered a single person who would question this! I was hoping to be able to timebox this discussion rather than provide detailed citations for what I thought were relatively undisputed facts, but since you insist:
The Palastinian Ministry of Health say the crude birth rate is over 26/1000. For context, South Korea, a country with a very low birth rate, is around 5/1000, over 80% lower.
According to ‘Palestine Remembered’, the crude birth rate among Palestinian refugees is even higher—over 30.
Not only is this fact uncontroversial, it is vital for understanding the conflict. The total number of original refugees was much smaller than today; if their birth rates had been low rather than high, or their descendants living abroad not counted, the total number today would be dramatically smaller.
my understanding is that, under international law, refugee protections remain in place until people can either safely return home or voluntarily settle elsewhere.[1]
I think this is incorrect in both directions.
Firstly, I think in many a lot of cases there has been no concern for the voluntary nature settlement. If we compare just to other post WWII population movements, I am not aware of any right of return being granted to (the descendants of) Germans forcibly migrated to Germany, nor Indians and Pakistanis after partition, not Jews fleeing Arab countries. With good reason—doing so would cause a lot of conflict for little gain.
Secondly, voluntary settlement elsewhere does not end UNRWA registration. You are welcome to look up the criteria for being removed from the UNRWA list—as far as I know the only escape is death (or being found to be incorrectly registered). You can be happily living as a citizen of another country, and your children and grandchildren after you, but the UNRWA will still consider them to be refugees.
Firstly, I think in many a lot of cases there has been no concern for the voluntary nature settlement.
On the question of resettlement and return, international law is clear: a power cannot lawfully expel a population and then deny their right to return. A permanent removal or resettlement that is not voluntary could constitute a forcible transfer, prohibited under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This is why it would not be lawful for Israel or the U.S. to pressure or force Palestinians to relocate elsewhere, even if another country was willing to accept them. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13) affirms the right of every person to return to their country, and UN General Assembly Resolution 194 specifically guarantees that right to Palestinian refugees. That principle doesn’t expire after a generation, it remains in force until there is a durable, rights-respecting solution, whether through repatriation, compensation, or voluntary resettlement.
Prior to your comment I have never encountered a single person who would question this! I was hoping to be able to timebox this discussion rather than provide detailed citations for what I thought were relatively undisputed facts, but since you insist:
I should have been clearer in my initial comment. I don’t dispute that the birth rate is higher in the West Bank and Gaza than in some other places. But context matters in understanding what a “high” birth rate actually means, and why that statistic is relevant. According to the most recent data from the World Bank, the crude birth rate (CBR) in the West Bank and Gaza is 27 per 1,000 - higher than Israel (19) or the U.S. (11) but lower than the average for low-income countries (35) and close to the average for the Middle East and North Africa (23) and lower-middle income countries (21). Comparing the West Bank and Gaza to South Korea is not a meaningful benchmark in my opinion.
What concerned me was the framing. Discussing birth rates of marginalized communities is often a shortcut to presenting them as a “demographic threat,” a logic that has historically been used to justify harmful policies. It reduces people to numbers instead of recognizing them as individuals with rights, dignity, and autonomy over their family lives. That’s why I asked about your sources—not because I can’t find basic statistics, but because I wanted to engage in good faith and understand the framing and intent behind that point.
Only in this case are the grandchildren viewed as having a strong moral claim to return to a land they have never seen, which (combined with their high birth rate) means the size of the refugee population has increased over time, rather than decreasing…This is convenient for Israel’s enemies who like the perpetuation of the problem.
And from the most recent comment:
The total number of original refugees was much smaller than today; if their birth rates had been low rather than high, or their descendants living abroad not counted, the total number today would be dramatically smaller.
Some of these statements (emphasis mine) could be read to imply that fewer Palestinians would be preferable politically. That framing is what makes me uncomfortable, especially at a time when Palestinians are being killed and displaced daily, illegal settlements in the West Bank are being expanded, and political rhetoric is increasingly dehumanizing.
Framing the growth or continued existence of a group as a “problem” has historically been used to justify dispossession, violence, and worse. In the U.S., when people frame the birth rates of Black, immigrant, or minority communities as too high compared to white Americans; or criticize Orthodox Jews or other religious communities for having too many children, that framing is widely understood as harmful and dehumanizing.
The suggestion that the greater number of Palestinians alive or registered with UNRWA makes resolving the political situation harder (or that the growing Palestinian population justifies limiting their right to return) shifts the conversation from how to uphold rights for everyone, and toward treating the very existence of one group the issue. And if demographics are “vital for understanding the conflict” then Israel’s growth—through birth and immigration—should be part of that conversation too.
I was drawn to EA because of its emphasis on valuing all life. In that spirit, I try to approach even charged conversations with care and precision, doing my best to avoid framings that could dehumanize any group. This discussion ended up taking more time than either of us probably anticipated, and I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to engage in it with me.
What purpose does it serve to suggest they should have smaller families?
Ok, I am tapping out. I didn’t want to be involved in this conversation in the first place, and only replied because you and Dawn asked for clarification and sourcing which I assumed was a good faith attempt to learn about the world. But I see now you are more interested in picking a fight and casting aspersions on an imaginary person. Since this person apparently holds a bunch of views I don’t hold—like that people should have smaller families—the person clearly isn’t me, so there’s not much point my continuing to engage.
The fact that Palestinians have high birth rates is, as far as I know, completely uncontroversial. Prior to your comment I have never encountered a single person who would question this! I was hoping to be able to timebox this discussion rather than provide detailed citations for what I thought were relatively undisputed facts, but since you insist:
The Palastinian Ministry of Health say the crude birth rate is over 26/1000. For context, South Korea, a country with a very low birth rate, is around 5/1000, over 80% lower.
According to ‘Palestine Remembered’, the crude birth rate among Palestinian refugees is even higher—over 30.
Here is AP news reporting on a UN ‘warning’ about high Palestinian birth rates.
Here is an article in Pubmed about birth rates being high.
Even the UNRWA agrees the birth rate among Palestinians has been and remains high, though they credit themselves with reducing it.
Not only is this fact uncontroversial, it is vital for understanding the conflict. The total number of original refugees was much smaller than today; if their birth rates had been low rather than high, or their descendants living abroad not counted, the total number today would be dramatically smaller.
I think this is incorrect in both directions.
Firstly, I think in many a lot of cases there has been no concern for the voluntary nature settlement. If we compare just to other post WWII population movements, I am not aware of any right of return being granted to (the descendants of) Germans forcibly migrated to Germany, nor Indians and Pakistanis after partition, not Jews fleeing Arab countries. With good reason—doing so would cause a lot of conflict for little gain.
Secondly, voluntary settlement elsewhere does not end UNRWA registration. You are welcome to look up the criteria for being removed from the UNRWA list—as far as I know the only escape is death (or being found to be incorrectly registered). You can be happily living as a citizen of another country, and your children and grandchildren after you, but the UNRWA will still consider them to be refugees.
On the question of resettlement and return, international law is clear: a power cannot lawfully expel a population and then deny their right to return. A permanent removal or resettlement that is not voluntary could constitute a forcible transfer, prohibited under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This is why it would not be lawful for Israel or the U.S. to pressure or force Palestinians to relocate elsewhere, even if another country was willing to accept them. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13) affirms the right of every person to return to their country, and UN General Assembly Resolution 194 specifically guarantees that right to Palestinian refugees. That principle doesn’t expire after a generation, it remains in force until there is a durable, rights-respecting solution, whether through repatriation, compensation, or voluntary resettlement.
I should have been clearer in my initial comment. I don’t dispute that the birth rate is higher in the West Bank and Gaza than in some other places. But context matters in understanding what a “high” birth rate actually means, and why that statistic is relevant. According to the most recent data from the World Bank, the crude birth rate (CBR) in the West Bank and Gaza is 27 per 1,000 - higher than Israel (19) or the U.S. (11) but lower than the average for low-income countries (35) and close to the average for the Middle East and North Africa (23) and lower-middle income countries (21). Comparing the West Bank and Gaza to South Korea is not a meaningful benchmark in my opinion.
What concerned me was the framing. Discussing birth rates of marginalized communities is often a shortcut to presenting them as a “demographic threat,” a logic that has historically been used to justify harmful policies. It reduces people to numbers instead of recognizing them as individuals with rights, dignity, and autonomy over their family lives. That’s why I asked about your sources—not because I can’t find basic statistics, but because I wanted to engage in good faith and understand the framing and intent behind that point.
And from the most recent comment:
Some of these statements (emphasis mine) could be read to imply that fewer Palestinians would be preferable politically. That framing is what makes me uncomfortable, especially at a time when Palestinians are being killed and displaced daily, illegal settlements in the West Bank are being expanded, and political rhetoric is increasingly dehumanizing.
Framing the growth or continued existence of a group as a “problem” has historically been used to justify dispossession, violence, and worse. In the U.S., when people frame the birth rates of Black, immigrant, or minority communities as too high compared to white Americans; or criticize Orthodox Jews or other religious communities for having too many children, that framing is widely understood as harmful and dehumanizing.
The suggestion that the greater number of Palestinians alive or registered with UNRWA makes resolving the political situation harder (or that the growing Palestinian population justifies limiting their right to return) shifts the conversation from how to uphold rights for everyone, and toward treating the very existence of one group the issue. And if demographics are “vital for understanding the conflict” then Israel’s growth—through birth and immigration—should be part of that conversation too.
I was drawn to EA because of its emphasis on valuing all life. In that spirit, I try to approach even charged conversations with care and precision, doing my best to avoid framings that could dehumanize any group. This discussion ended up taking more time than either of us probably anticipated, and I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to engage in it with me.
Ok, I am tapping out. I didn’t want to be involved in this conversation in the first place, and only replied because you and Dawn asked for clarification and sourcing which I assumed was a good faith attempt to learn about the world. But I see now you are more interested in picking a fight and casting aspersions on an imaginary person. Since this person apparently holds a bunch of views I don’t hold—like that people should have smaller families—the person clearly isn’t me, so there’s not much point my continuing to engage.