From: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:59:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.084352.14698@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:

# In article 27778@ennews.eas.asu.edu, makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >In article <bdm.716519532@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:

# ># eshneken@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Edward A Shnekendorf) writes:

# ># >Speaking of immigration, Palestinian Arabs were, in fact, VERY migratory.
# ># >Fred Gottheil, an Economics professor at the University of Illinois, did
# ># >a study using original census data and found that just during the years
# ># >1922-1931, 54,790 Arabs immigrated into Palestine.  That means that 11.8%
# ># >of ALL Arabs in pre-state Israel were immigrants and Arab immigration 
# ># >accounted for 38.7% of all Arab population growth in the land.  That means
# ># >that during that period, Arabs accounted for 36.8% of all immigrants to
# ># >pre-state Israel.  So much for Palestinians not being migratory!

# ># Ah yes, Gottheil.  He should stick to economics.  Here is an earlier
# ># article of mine on the subject, slightly editted.

# >     Maybe, but perhaps you should stick to mathematics.  Analysis is
# >obviously not your forte.
 
# Good old dependable David.  Never afraid to jump in, ignorant or not.

	Actually, I am "afraid" to jump in.  I waist too much time with
the likes of you.  As to ignorance, you are the one that uses sources
(primary or not) which can be dismissed apriori.

# ># Firstly, here is a very brief summary of the thesis of F.M. Gottheil, 
# ># Arab Migration into Pre-State Israel: 1922-1931, in The Palestinians
# ># (eds. Curtis, Neyer, Pollack and Waxman).  Also printed in Palestine
# ># and Israel (eds. Kedourie and Haim) with minor changes.

# ># ---------------------
# ># There were only two proper censuses of Palestine during the British
# ># mandate, in 1922 and 1931.  Between those dates, records were kept
# ># of births, deaths, immigration and emigration.  Gottheil's basic
# ># approach is to take the 1922 Arab population, then increment it year
# ># by year according to the registered numbers of births and deaths.
# ># The result obtained for 1931 is substantially less than the Arab
# ># population counted at the 1931 census.  Gottheil takes the difference
# ># to be an estimate of the net Arab immigration into Palestine during
# ># the period 1922-1931.

# ># Gottheil also does this calculation separately for the portion of
# ># Palestine that became Israel in 1948, and for the portion that didn't.
# ># His conclusion is that Arab immigration into pre-state Israel for
# ># 1922-1931 was about 54790 and for the other parts of Palestine, 4677.
# ># The total of about 59000 is much higher than the official figure for
# ># Arab immigration during that time.
# ># ---------------------
 
# ># There are quite a few weaknessness in Gottheil's analysis.

# >     Fine.  How come you did not point any out?

# ># Some simple examples:
# ># (a) Gottheil assumes a constant ratio of Moslem:Christian:Other
# >#     even though the rates of increase were quite different for each.

# >     I did not see this in your summary of his thesis.  What I did see
# >was his count of the registered number of Arab births and deaths.
# >Since I doubt that Christians are counted among Jews in anyone's
# >figures (although some may ignore them), I cannot see how he makes
# >this assumption.
 
# I don't have time to type in his whole article.   Gottheil himself says
# he is making an assumption about the M:C:O ratio; why don't you read
# his article to find out why?  I know you won't, because you might
# spoil your reputation for ignorant blathering.

	I will not read the article because I do not care too.  If this is
indeed what Gottheil says, fine, I have no problem with your pointing
it out.  However, for you to write something totally idiotic, which
only makes sense when read in conjunction with other parts of the
article you choose not to include and I have no way of knowing this,
you can hardly criticise me for pointing out the idiotic statement.

	As for ignorant blathering, since when is pointing out an
inconsistency ignorant blathering?


# ># (b) Gottheil uses rates of natural increase that were computed using
# >#     assumptions about the total population that he is trying to disprove.

# >     Just because set A is not valid for some reason, it does not mean
# >that subset A1 is also not valid (I am not a rigourous mathematician,
# >but I tried to use terms you would understand).
 
# I have no idea what you mean, but here's what I meant:  British estimates
# of the rate of growth were based on recorded births&deaths and estimated
# population.  The population was estimated using the recorded births&deaths.
# Gottheil claims to use the growth-rate estimates to show the population
# estimates were wrong.  That is a valid approach but to get the correct
# numerical result you need to take the double effect of the recorded 
# births&deaths into account.  Gottheil did not, as anyone can check.

	What I was trying to say was even if the total assumption of
population is incorrect, that does not mean that parts of it cannot be
correct.  I will not go into the (more specific) point you give above
because I do not know enough about it.  However, your previous (less
specific) point implied that Gottheil should not use part of an
assumption because he disagrees with the whole.  That is an illogical
statement.

# ># However, the main problem (and a question-mark about his integrity)
# ># is provided by Gottheil's own footnote 15:

# >#    Although no analysis was made of such a residual, it was nonetheless
# >#    recognized in the Royal Commission Report of 1937.  The Report states:
# >#    "A discrepancy arose at the census of 1931 between the expected and
# >#    enumerated population due to incomplete recording of births and deaths
# >#    and of migration, and possibly to faulty enumeration of suspicious
# >#    and primitive people." ...

# ># Here we see three possible explanations being proposed.  Why has Gottheil
# ># assumed that only the second (migration) is responsible for all of it?
# ># We can only guess, because he doesn't even try to justify it.  Has he
# ># looked at the literature on censuses to see how accurate vital statistics
# ># generally are?  Has he considered the sedentation (settling-down) of
# ># Bedouin during the period 1922-1931 as a partial explanation?  None of
# ># those things, as far as I can tell from his paper.  In the absence of
# ># any contrary evidence,

# >     This is where you are ridiculous Brendan, and you are (almost)
# >pulling a "Finklestein".  If we grant either of the other two
# >alternatives (and by the way, I think they are very possible), then
# >none of the censuses taken can be of any weight to support any claim.
 
# Buggered if I can see how this follows.

	Because either of the other two assumptions implies an incorrect
census.

# >and in fact, one can ascribe motives to the incompletness which would
# >support the immigration theory, and in a way the Bedouin theory
# >implies it anyways.
 
# Gottheil is making claims contary to conventional demographic belief.
# It is up to him to justify his claims.  He doesn't.  

	That may very well be, however I fail to see how you can address
his motives for this failure.

# By the way, your failure to understand my point about the Bedouin just
# points up your ignorance of the subject.

	Nope, and it fits well for you to give an ad hominem attack here.
Keep it up.  The only thing it "points up" is your failure to explain
this.

# The census data Gottheil uses
# did not count people without fixed abode even if they spent most of
# their time within Palestine.  That means that someone who was a
# resident of Palestine in 1922 but didn't live in one particular village 
# until 1931 is counted by Gottheil as an immigrant.  I don't have figures; 
# the point is that Gottheil didn't even mention the phenomenon.

	What do you mean by not live in one village?  I do not know of any
countries census that would count them as a resident.  Even homeless
people live in one (specific) area.  They should not be counted as a
resident.  Whether or not they can be considered a "bedouin" or an
immigrant is another matter, but almost irelevent since it would be
quite justified to count bedoiuns as immigrants.

# ># I suggest that Gottheil's political motives are
# ># the primary reason he has ignored the possible alternative explanations.

# >     Frankly, I think this suggestion could be made about you.  Along
# >with your recently documented bigotry.

# ># Having questioned Gottheil's balance, I will now question his scholarship
# ># (or maybe his honesty) as well.  As in the footnote quoted above, he
# ># claims "no analysis was made of such a residual".  Did he not read the
# ># report of the 1931 census, or is he just hoping we won't?  For, that
# ># report on pages 61-65 of volume I contains a section entitled "Comparison
# ># of the census statistics with the annual records of migration".  That
# ># section does exactly what Gottheil claims was not done: it compares
# ># the birth/death/migration records against the actual population increase
# ># and analyses the discrepancy.

# >     Who knows what he means by "no analysis"?  While this is the only
# >criticism of yours that makes any sense, the worst you can call it is
# >poor or sloppy phrasing.
 
# "phrasing"?  No way.  Sloppy scholarship is the least explanation.

	Just how do you know?

# ># Its conclusions are that the net migratory
# ># balance (inward migration less outward migration, including Jews) was
# ># actually about 70,000 instead of the 57,000 recorded.

# >     So it is even higher?  Or maybe Gottheil was just referring to the
# >57,000 out of the 70,000, making your whole attempt here a swipe at
# >nothing!  Even if both, it certainly goes against your case of where
# >the Arabs originated.
 
# You can't read.  The 70,000 includes Jews but Gottheil's 59,000 doesn't.

	I can't read.  Maybe you cannot write.  Try 59,000 instead of
57,000.  Maybe it was a typo.  I make millions.  But I do not jump on
people for reading what I wrote like you do for what you wrote.  Or do
the numbers having nothing to do with each other?  Then you are
blaming me for your ommision!

	At any rate, Mr. Shnekendorf already pointed out the differences
between how the jews and Arabs were able to enter, and how that
effects the figures, not too mention the British bias towards the
Arabs, which also figures.

# ># The difference of
# ># 13,000 is ascribed to unrecorded migration, mostly illegal, of which all
# ># but about 4,000 was Jewish.

# ># The total Arab migration, recorded or not,
# ># is estimated at about 11,000.

# >     Does this include Bedouin?  what about the sum that is not of the
# >11,000?  Were they all Jewish?  How could they even be counted?  If
# >you were an "illegal" Jew, would you permit yourself to be?

# >     At any rate (and if I understand you correctly) there were 70,000
# >immigrants.  Since 11,000 were Arab, 59,000 must have been Jewish.
# >How did they get these numbers?  What is recorded vs. unrecorded (I
# >know, but I do not think you do otherwise you would not post this
# >nonsense).

# The census report describes it in excruciating detail.  Since I 
# suspect almost all our readers know the difference between recorded and
# unrecorded, I see no reason to waste space describing it.

	All our readers might, but somehow I doubt you do.  Tell us,
Brendan, if you wnated one group of people to believe one thing about
you you, and another group to believe another, would you advertise any
facts that could be used by the wrong group of people.  Do I need to
explain how that fits in here?

# ># It is clear that this figure cannot be
# ># regarded as definitely proven, but the analysis in the census report
# ># is vastly more believable than Gottheil's.

# >     Why?
 
# Because (1) it considers all the factors, not just the factor that the
# author wants to prove,

	I will grant you this, but only if you change "all" to "most of",
I have indicated things here that were not considered (by either).
and omit "wants to prove".

# and (2) it was written by someone with a deep
# knowledge of the census data as well as personal access to non-census
# data in the form of immigration officials etc.

	Maybe more knowledge than Gottheil, but obviously not a deep
knowledge.

# If Gottheil was an
# honest broker he would have explained why the census analysis is not
# correct.

	I agree.

# Instead, he told us it didn't exist.

	You do not know what he meant.  Maybe he just meant during that
year.

# ># Gottheil's failure to
# ># mention such a primary source must be explained; either he is ignorant
# ># or he is dishonest.

# >     Or he does not play by your "rules".  THere are tons of primary
# >sources indicating there was no holocaust.  There are secondary
# >sources which state otherwise.  WHo do you believe?
 
# Would you believe a claim that there was massive unrecorded immigration
# into the US which failed to even mention how that claim compared to
# US census data?  Of course not.

	Why would not I believe it.  It is just the way it is now!

# At the very least you would expect
# to see an argument why the census data was unreliable/inapplicable.
# (By "you", I mean someone reasonable.)

	Others do expect it.  That is why there are lawsuits pending,
however, the government has done exactly what you said I would not
expect.  At any rate, Gothheil does give an explanation.  It is what
you are arguing against. 

# ># Finally, let me address Gottheil's split of Palestine into the part that
# ># became Israel and the part that didn't.  This calculation is not trivial,
# ># because the borders of Israel did not correspond to the district
# ># boundaries for the two censuses.  Similar attempts to estimate the
# ># pre-1948 population in the same area have produced answers differing
# ># by more than 20%, considerably more than is needed to completely wipe out
# ># Gottheil's argument.

# >     And depending how youlook at it, this could wipe out just about
# >every argument, pro or anti Gottlieb.  Are you familer with how births
# >and birth places are registered?  
 
# Yes.  
 
	Then why have you even bothered to enter this debate, and why have
not you shown this knowledge here?

# >                                  One need only look at Yassir
# >Arafat's "birth history" to show your whole article to be nonsense.

# So subtract "1" and read it again.  What a pathetic argument.

	You are pathetic.  Do you think this would be an issue if it were
not an isolated case?  What happened with Arafat ws the norm.

# ># Gottheil's clear bias should lead us to suspect
# ># his calculation (which is not given in detail).
# >#  Furthermore, he makes 
# ># unjustified assumptions such as that the natural rate of increase was 
# ># the same in both parts of Palestine, ignoring the very different 
# ># economic conditions in the two parts.

# ># All in all, Gottlieb's 
# ># conclusions simply can't be trusted.

# >     Maybe, maybe not.  But except for one example you have not given
# >any reasons.

	Well, I will retract the above.  However Brendan does not make any
convincing counter arguments to support the "Arab" claim.

# ># Finally, we should wonder at Gottheil's failure to mention that the 
# ># 1931 census made a direct count of population as a function of birthplace---
# ># an obvious crosscheck on immigration rates.

# >     Oh really.  How could they prove that?  I bet they counted the immigrants
# >from two of the biggest Arab clans as having been born there.

# ># According to the summary
# ># on page 59 of Volume I, the percentage of each religious group who were
# ># born outside Palestine was:  Muslims, 2%; Christians, 20%; Jews, 58%.
# ># No real scholar would fail to mention such data, even if arguing
# ># against it.  Gottlieb's total silence on it marks him very clearly 
# ># for what he is: a propagandist (and not even a good one).

# >     You are ridiculous.  The Bedoiun themselves make the 2% Muslim
# >figure invalid.  
 
# You have no idea what you are talking about.  The census report spends
# quite a while on the Bedouin.  As far as I remember, Gottheil ignores
# them.  Who does that make the more believable?

	Certainly not the one that labes it as 2%.  And you claim I do not
know what I am talking about.  It is not as if that land has ever been
(or is now, despite scientific advances in agriculture) an
agricultural wonder land.

# >Maybe Gottlieb did not wnat to touch that issue who
# >knows.  Just because he does not follow your rules does not make him
# >wrong.
# >     Funny how rendan labels most pro-Israel propagandsists.  I wonder
# >what he would say if they were not Jewish. 

# Since at least 2/3 of the authors I quote in support of my opinions
# are Jewish, this is really funny.  Perhaps you should take your
# childish insults and stick them somewhere dark moist and smelly.

	Talk about childish insults from Mr. ad hominem attack himself!
At any rate, I should have meant not Jews who are pro Israel or at the
very least not Jewish Uncle Toms.

# >Or if he were not involved with David Palmer.

# Who?

	Right.
--

David Makowsky
makowsky@enuxha.eas.asu.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.mideast:19833 talk.politics.soviet:7822 soc.culture.greek:8728 soc.culture.europe:8283 soc.history:8169