From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Who are the Occupiers?
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:19:14 GMT


In article 13367@discus.technion.ac.il, davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.022344.27498@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:
>>In article 26010@discus.technion.ac.il, davidba@carmel.technion.ac.il (David Ben_Ami) writes:
>>>Mythology or not mythology the fact is that Jews were related to this
>>>specific piece of land for 3000+ years , the last 2000 mainly spiritualy
>>>although throughout the ages Jews maintained small communities in cities
>>>like Safed,Tiberias,Hebron and Jerusalem and billages in teh Gallilee.
>>>
>>>You may argue that Israel should return the lands to the Cannanites if
>>>you want to fight ownership. Palestinian Arabs are VERY LATE invaders
>>>occiupiers who have ENORMOUS NERVE to claim anything in this country.
>>
>>Please explain the principle by which late invaders have fewer rights
>>than early invaders.
>
>Since the Cannanites are the only people who can claim that they have
>more rights in the country and since they are not around for more than
>3000 years - The Jews were/are the ones who have the best claim to the
>territory. Needless to say any of the latter occiupiers didn't establish 
>independent or significant center here - and that includes the Arabs.

That just boils down to what "independent or significant" means.
Jerusalem has certainly been a significant Arab centre for a long time.

Anyhow, I won't go on with that argument because my basic position is
that I don't see any reason why I should respect land claims based on
possession in ancient times.  I would say the same to the Cannaanites
if they suddenly showed up and insisted on their right to turn Israel
into a Cannaanite State.  (However, it would be fun to watch people
like you revising their principles in a hurry.)

[lots deleted]
>>>                                                             There was
>>>no such thing - they were "Syrians of the South" and no more than that.
>>>many Arabs from all over the Arab world Egypt,Sudan,Syria flowed into
>>>the country since the 1910s - they have not the flimisiest right to
>>>sit here on the expense of prosecuted Jews who finally came to rest.
>>
>>I see, the Massive Recent Immigration myth.  It has been debunked so
>>many times that it must take some courage to still believe it.
>>Congratulations.
>
>Maybe you can enlighten me with references since I haven't had the
>pleasure of seeing these "debunktions". 

Ok.  A reasonable starting point would be either of two books
called "The population of Israel".  One is by Dov Friedlander and
Calvin Goldscheider (1979) and the other by Roberto Bachi (1974).
Both cover the period 1900-present, approximately, in some detail.
Their coverage of the Ottoman period is rather sketchy and was
written before most of the Ottoman census data became available.

For the Ottoman period I suggest Karpat, Ottoman population 1830-1914
for raw figures.  For deeper analysis, try McCarthy, The Population
of Ottoman Syria and Iraq 1878-1914, Asian and African Stdies 15 (1981) 
3-44. [McCarthy's method of adjustments has been challenged, btw].  
For some excellent examples of modern demographic research, try Ottoman 
Palestine 1800-1914, edited by Gad Gilbar.

For the Mandate period, the two books above are ok.  Most of the data
comes from British sources.  For information overload, the reports of
the 1931 census and of the 1946 Anglo-American Commission of Enquiry
contain hundreds of pages of data on nearly everything.

>David.

Brendan.