From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Fair Swap
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:12:12 GMT
Organization: Australian National University

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!

>Ed.

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

====================================================================

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.
Some simple examples:
(a) Gottheil assumes a constant ratio of Moslem:Christian:Other
    even though the rates of increase were quite different for each.
(b) Gottheil uses rates of natural increase that were computed using
    assumptions about the total population that he is trying to disprove.

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

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

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.  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.

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.  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).

Brendan.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast