From: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Who are the Occupiers?
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:44:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.083454.16699@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:

# In article 2298@ennews.eas.asu.edu, makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >In article <1992Sep8.032516.13425@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:

# ># Maybe you are
# ># right: it could be that the Ottomans couldn't distinguish between
# ># Arabs and oranges and so counted both together.

# >	Funny - NOT.  What is improtant is that for certian things to be
# >true, other things also have to be true.  If there was a large
# >population, there must be food to support it.  The only evidence that
# >is of any value that shows enough food is for citrus (What I mean by
# >any value is total, and not relative numbers.  For instance, a 200%
# >increase means nothing if it means a growth of 1 to 3.).

# >	Now this  whole argument may be ridiculous since the other day I
# >saw one of the "palestinian?" negotiators to the peace talks say (I
# >think it was Saed Erekat) that at the time of the British mandate there
# >were were about 600,000 "palestinians?".  
 
# The official figures for the beginning of the mandate period (1922) 
# are 673,400 non-Jews and 83,800 Jews.  Nobody claims more than that;
# I'm sorry if you have been arguing against a nonexistent position.

	No, the position still exists.  It is ridiculous for the
"palestinians?" to argue their case (even if it is correct, which it
is not) if that is all we are talking about anyway.

# >                                          If so, that is such a small
# >amount (I believe there are around 5-6 million people there now and there
# >is still an awful lot of empty land) that it does not matter if they
# >all originated there.  
 
# If you accept the proposal that land rights pass to one's descendants,
# then it matters very much.

	I do accept it.  But only the rights held by the ancestors.  No
rights can be created to be passed on.

# >(of course, they would have a lot of explaining
# >to do for how they grew to today's numbers, similar to how the number
# >of people who were at Don Larsen's perfect World Series game is now in
# >the millions).
 
# It is quite well understood.  The vast improvement in living conditions
# and public health that occurred during the period 1880-1930 meant that
# the high infant mortality rate fell and the life expectancy grew.

	Gee, I wonder what lead to the increase in living conditions and
public health.  It was European standrards, but I would just love for
you to claim it was via missionaries.

# Meanwhile, the exceptional birth rate (more than 7 births per woman)
# continued.  Claims that the observed rate of increase was impossible
# were destroyed when Israeli Arabs displayed an even greater rate of
# increase during the 1950s.

	The number of births is not at issue.  I would be willing to bet
that prior to the 1880's it was even greater (increases in health and
living conditions, which even you admit took place, lead to fewer
pregnancies, not more).  It is survival that matters not conceptions.

	A more apt comparison would be to the liberated territories since
1967.  I wonder why Arabists such as yourself never use these
numbers in such discussions.  The answer is fairly logical.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast