Talk:Palestine (region)/Archive 7

Portal(s)

Until recently this geographic-historical article was titled Palestine (region). I just noticed the link to Portal:Palestine, a political portal referring to the State of Palestine. I feel that this is unfair. I propose we either 1) remove it from here (as it is already linked from the article State of Palestine) or 2) add a link to Portal:Israel here as well. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

So now Israel is suddenly a part of Palestine(region)?Bless sins 08:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this a tricky question? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess it was a somwhat confusing attempt at a rhetorical question.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Just two sections above this section, people are fiercely rejecting my idea that mailand Israel, West Bank and Gaza Strip are all parts of Palestine (region). THey are saying that "Palestine ceased to exist in 1948" and that saying israel is a part of Palestine is something what "extremists" would do.....and here you are saying "add a link to Portal:Israel here (in the article about Palestine.Bless sins 12:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I am apparently one of those people, I will add my 2 cents here: I think a link is appropriate, as it makes no statement on the relationship between Palestine, Israel, the PalTer, etc (it just points to "further reading" on what has happened in the area since 1948). Inserting a table about the demographics of present-day Israel in an article about Palestine does make a political statement about this relationship- i.e. Israel today is a part of Palestine. But I don't think this link is a big issue.

-Sangil 18:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The "region of Palestine" has two meanings: one is geographical or historical, i.e., the lands that have been called "Palestine" over the years; the other is political, i.e., one of any partitions of Middle Eastern land intended for an Arab or Jewish homeland.

When I first created Palestine (region) - was it me? I forget - I assumed that "region" meant purely geographical. That was a mistake. There are also political regions.

So I propose the following:

• Palestine (historical area)
• Palestine (political divisions)

Unless I totally misremember my history, there have been times when "Palestine" (i.e., west of the Jordan) has been intended by one authority or another as 100% Jewish or 100% Arab or a mixture. There's also some confusion of the British Mandate of Palestine and its significance.

I'm not interested in proving that WB, GS, et al. truly belong to Palestinian Arabs or Palestinian Jews, little green men from Mars or 7-foot tall purple dinosaur puppets!! Let's please just describe how the land has been partitioned by the various authorities - or otherwise designated/claimed by any significant group - as clearly as possible, so that our readers can understand who claimed what at any given time. --Uncle Ed 15:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

More information is always better (within reason). Why not put both portal links here? Wachholder0 19:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Some explanations

Deleted this: "However, the placing of the Transjordan area under the direct rule of the Emir Abdullah (who was not a Palestinian Arab), and later unilaterally granting it independence, was never approved by the League of Nations. [1], [2]". First, the installation of Abdullah as a leader under British tutelage happened before the Palestine Mandate came into effect and even before its contents were decided by the League of Nations. The phrase "never approved" hides the fact that it was never disapproved and is thus misleading. In fact, the League of Nations dealt continuously with the British as mandatory for Transjordan and never attempted to change the Britain-Abdullah arrangement significantly. This can be seen as effective approval, especially the Council's unanimous agreement in Sept 1922 that the Jewish Homeland provisions of the Mandate did not apply to Transjordan. As for "unilaterally granting it independence", Transjordan did not become independent until 1946 and its independence was unanimously approved by the League of Nations at its last session (Apr 18, 1946). Before that date, the coming independence of Transjordan was welcomed by the UNGA (on Feb 9, 1946) [3]. As for the two links, the first is good but does not support the text, and the second is an activist site of little interest. --Zero^talk 11:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice an article on this from a surprising (to me) source: [4]. Another informed article, thanks to the Google cache is [5]. --Zero^talk 11:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that British terminology separated "Palestine" and "Transjordan" quite early is established on this Talk page already (look up). Here is an even earlier example that shows "Palestine" clearly ending at the Jordan River in the mind of an important British politician: "They [the Zionists] now talk about a Jewish State. The Arab portion of the population is well-nigh forgotten and is to be ignored. They not only claim the boundaries of the old Palestine, but they claim to spread across the Jordan into the rich countries lying to the east, and, indeed, there seems to be very small limit to the aspirations which they now form." Lord George Curzon, addressing the Eastern Committee on Dec 5, 1918; quoted in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922 (Murray, 1972). As for the difficulty of finding "Palestine" used for the whole region by the British during the Mandate period, you are welcome to visit [6] and look for yourself. --Zero^talk 11:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

About your second edit, you fail to explain why you removed my comments and thus readded unsourced material to the article. I don't see you doing the same for material that you disagree with. Sources on the Talk page have no bearing on the article. If you'd like something added, provide a legitimate source. —Aiden 18:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You knew that I had given sources on this page, so you could have moved them to the article if you wanted. Stop your antisocial behavior. --Zero^talk 08:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Add your sources to the article, Zero, not the talk page, and don't make personal attacks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Some More Explanation

After some research, I have found the following:

• The British did acquire the approval of the League of Nations to seperate Transjordan from the area designated as a national homeland for the Jews.
• They DID NOT acquire consent at any time to bar any Jew from entering and settling in Transjordan, but they did this anyway. (compare [7] with articles 2, 6 and 15 of the original Mandate).
• There *was* in fact a considerable Arab immigration to Palestine, which they preferred over Transjordan for some mysterious reason - probably due to the rapid economic development brought about by the Jews ([8], see footnotes 4 and 8).
• "and the second is an activist site of little interest." as far as I can see it is of little interest because it does not fit your point of view. Your personal opinions and prejudices are of absolutely no "interest" here as well.

-Sangil 19:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there an article called Partitions of Palestine or something like that? I'd like to read about the various plans to partition the post-WWI areas of the Middle East (centering around the Jordan River). I'm fairly sure that at one time or another, some or all of the entire area surrounding the Jordan was earmarked (or sought) for a predominantly Arab or Jewish state.

Also, there have been a confusing set of partition plans, dividing up the Middle East's unallocated lands into "mandates" and so forth. The term "Palestine" has been redefined so many times that I simply can't keep up.

You know, I'm a reader as well as a contributor, and I would simply like to know this:

• what have the various partition plans been?
• who advocated or enforced them?
• when?
• who supported or objected to these plans?

One easy question is:

• Was there ever a time when "Palestine" referred to a 100% Jewish partition of the Middle East, such as all the land west of the Jordan River, or is this some myth or dream which my Jewish relatives keep trying to brainwash me with?

Another easy question (or it should be) is:

• How much land do Arabs want to have, in relation to Jews in the lands bordering on the Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea, Persian Gulf and the Middle East?
  • Would a 100-to-1 ratio be enough, or would they rather that Jews had nothing at all?

Now, a hard question:

• Are Jews ever planning to say "sorry" for trying to wipe out the Philistines a few millenia ago? And if they did, would Arabs ever consider forgiving them?

A partial answer:

• There was a proposed partition ("The Peel Plan") in 1936, as a response to the 1936-39 Arab rebellion. It was accepted by neither side. After that in 1947 there was the famous UN Partition, which the Jews accepted and Arabs rejected (and started a war to boot). There may have been some other plan as well, I'll have to check. Regarding the maps, you may find the following link useful: [9]. There are some inaccuracies in the text though (although I agree with the spirit :)
• The original Balfour declaration referred to a "Jewish Homeland" in the area of Palestine. This can be understood as "100% Jewish", although no one ever proposed, least of all the Jews, that the Arabs in this 'homeland' be disenfranchised in any way, not to mention expelled or killed. The Arabs never had a similiar sentiment toward the Jews. This concept of a "Jewish Homeland" in (at least the western portion of) Palestine was repeated in the League of Nations Mandate of 1922.
• like to have? Everything...
• The Jews never attempted anything of the sort...

-Sangil 20:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The Phillistines are extinct. Modern Arabs are in no way related to them. Refer to any expert in this field and you'll find that. Otherwise, very valid points and good efforts in bringing balance to the article. —Aiden 21:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

To Sangil: (1) Don't give us stuff from Myths and Facts unless you are prepared to accept material from its Arab equivalents such as Radio Islam. (2) The Balfour Declaration refers to a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, not comprising all of Palestine. This wording was completely deliberate, as the surviving documentation makes clear. In fact an early draft of the declaration appeared to indicate all of Palestine but this was changed in order to eliminate this interprettation. The British government also made it clear to the Zionists at the time that only the western part of Palestine was under consideration (for this, see the classic book on the Balfour Declaration by Leonard Stein). It is simply not true that Transjordan was ever included in any area promised to the Jews. --Zero^talk 08:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - all wrong I'm afraid. The Balfour declaration (in it's final form, I'm unsure about the contents of earlier, unpublished drafts) is a carefully worded piece of political prose that was deliberately designed to be open to interpretation. It NEVER used the word 'Homeland'. The Blafour declaration talks of the establishment of a 'National home' for the Jewish people 'In Palestine'. Words like 'Homeland', 'State' and 'nation' were deliberately avoided. You may be looking at a translation, rather than the original document. 'National Home' was a deliberetely vague term, and may have been coined especially for the Balfour declaration. There was also NO specific piece of territory mentioned, just that it would be 'in Palestine' - and as we have seen, 'Palestine' can be interpreted in deifferent ways. The area west of the Jordan was NEVER declared as being intended as a 100% Jewish area, just that the area to the east would be a separate Arab Kingdom under the Hashemites (who had been allies of the British in WW1). Finally, the declaration says Jewish settlelment will happen without prejudicing the rights of Palestine's existing inhabitants - again with no explanation of what that means in practice. The British governemnt was both sympathetic to Zionism and Arab Nationalism - provided Britain played a paternal role in both. Balfour is a COMPROMISE - a vaguely-worded one - designed to give the go-ahead to Zionism whilst re-assuring the arabs that they would not lose as a result. We don't know if the British government of the time really thought it could square that circle - the small-scale ottoman-era Zionist settlelment had been peaceful, and perhaps the British hoped this would continue even if numbers rose dramatically. The league of Nations mandate for the area was agreed 5 whole years after the Balfour declaration. I'm not familiar with the full wording of the mandate, and whether it used the word 'Homeland'. If so, it may mark a slight policy shift. --Indisciplined 16:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Myths and Facts is a reliable source for Wikipedia whose author is an expert in the field and has a PhD in political science. [10] It's absurd to compare it to Radio Islam. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't even know who the author was, and your opinion of its reliability is just your opinion and not the result of applying Wikipedia policy. Actually Radio Islam is a very good analogue. Maybe you can tell us some examples of pro-Israeli sources that you don't consider reliable so we can see where your limits are. --Zero^talk 00:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There you go again with a strawman argument. I did and do know who the editor is, which is why I'm defending it, and I'm doing that by applying Wikipedia policy, which you for the most part are not familiar with, and when you are, seem happy to ignore. Asking me for a list of sources I personally don't consider reliable is pointless and absurd. The policy regards people with scholarly backgrounds in relevant areas as reliable sources. If you want to make Mitchell Bard the exception, go right ahead and try, but make sure you use good sources and/or well-sourced evidence of his errors, because until you've done that, your insults of him are worthless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Arab Immigration

I am deleting this: "This development also spurred a considerable immigration of Arabs from the surrounding lands to Palestine. (Refs: Arieh Avneri, The Claim of Dispossession, (Tel Aviv: Hidekel Press, 1984), p. 28; Yehoshua Porath, The Emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement, 1918-1929, London: Frank Cass, 1974), pp. 17-18; John Hope Simpson, Palestine: Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development, (London, 1930), p. 126.) " According to policy, we are supposed to cite the place where we got the information from, not just copy citations from an intermediate place. Now I could be wrong about this, Sangil, but I doubt you actually consulted p126 of the Hope Simpson report for the simple reason that it does not contain any support for your claim. It does not support the claims made in its name by junk sources like Myths and Facts, either. In fact it is mostly about Jewish illegal immigration, which I know because I am looking at it. This report, like all the reports of British commissions and enquiries, regarded Arab immigration as a minor phenomenon. I also doubt your reference to Porath's book, since Porath in other places argues strongly against the massive-Arab-immigration claim. You may be right about Avineri's book, but did you really consult it? What does it say? --Zero^talk 08:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Myths and Facts is a junk source in your opinion, and no, we don't have to cite the original source. It's recommended by WP:CITE (you were the one who added it), but it's not mandatory, because CITE isn't policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We follow recommendations unless we have good reason not to. That's what recommendations are for. --Zero^talk 08:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We have been through this time and again. Zero confuse his own POV and his own OR with Wikipedia policy about sources. Zero, your own POV about specific sources has no place in this discussion.

The fact that sources that you call junk all share a political POV different than yours show to what extent you have not internelize wikipedia NPOV policy ("writing for the enemy") Zeq 08:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Zero, regardless of whether the editor read the original source, in what way is the edit not supported by the source that is cited (which is all that matters)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not all that matters. It also matters whether that source is a "reliable" source. Since Myths and Facts is controversial, we are entitled to treat it with caution. If we also know that it uses false quotations then we know that it is not reliable. But, since you raise the question, the source that Sangil actually has, as he indicates above on this page, does not support his edit. He refers to footnotes 4 and 8 of [11]. The text that refers to footnote 4 is "The British response to Jewish immigration set a precedent of appeasing the Arabs, which was followed for the duration of the Mandate. The British placed restrictions on Jewish immigration while allowing Arabs to enter the country freely. Apparently, London did not feel that a flood of Arab immigrants would affect the country's absorptive capacity. <end para>During World War I, the Jewish population in Palestine declined because of the war, famine, disease and expulsion by the Turks. In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000.(fn 4) Thus, the Arab population grew exponentially while that of the Jews stagnated." Note that it does not actually say that there was massive Arab immigration, it only sets up some framework from which the reader is supposed to (incorrectly) infer it. In any casae, without looking at the two references (Porath and Avineri) it is not possible to know which of the many statements in these two paragraphs they are intended to support. The text referring to footnote 8 is: "By contrast, throughout the Mandatory period, Arab immigration was unrestricted. In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants." This also does not say that Arab immigration was massive, only that it was "uncontrolled". Another reason for not citing the Hope Simpson report here is that then I would have to quote from the report itself which does not say what is claimed. What it refers to is the British practice of counting known illegal Jewish immigrants against the quota for Jewish immigration, thus doing a "certain injustice" to those Jews waiting to immigrate to Palestine legally. It also does not support the "uncontrolled" claim but rather says that the police who were controlling found that "exceedingly difficult". I would also have to quote from lots of other sources, including what Porath really claims, and what repeated British reports really said (example: "... unlike the Jewish, the rise [of Arab population] has been due in only a slight degree to immigration" - Peel Royal Commission, p125). Finally, but perhaps this is where I should have started, this entire subject is off-topic for this page, which is supposed to be about the region of Palestine, not about its population. --Zero^talk 09:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your last point first: clearly, the history of the population is relevant to an article on the region. As for Myths and Facts, it's your opinion that it's controversial, and regardless of whether you've found what you believe to be misquotes, it remains a reliable source for Wikipedia, because its author is an expert in the field. I'll read the rest of your post more carefully tomorrow, but after glancing through it, I don't see anything that doesn't support the edit, which talks about "considerable" Arab immigration, which doesn't mean "massive," as you claim, and which is arguably milder than "uncontrolled," which is what the source says. Perhaps we should quote the source and say "uncontrolled." But I'll read your post properly tomorrow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If you scroll up or possibly look in the archives you will find a somewhat lengthy discussion regarding the relevance of the population history to this article, which resulted in a general agreement that it should be included. Also regarding Zero's comment about Sangil misrepresentation of the sources, I think we have to assume good faith here, for all we know he could've been reading from a different translation. Although I have considerable respect for Zero as an editor I think it was kinda jerkish to imply that Sangil was lying like he did.

I had no intention of accusing Sangil of lying and I don't see where I said anything like that, but if he took it that way I apologise to him. What Sangil did, and I don't think he will dispute this, is to copy some citations from Myths and Facts into the article without mentioning Myths and Facts (except on the Talk page) and without checking those citations personally. That is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines but not proof of dishonesty. Now that Sangil's attention has been drawn to those guidelines, I hope he will follow them as we all should. --Zero^talk 01:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the acceptability of "Myths and Facts" that Zero brought up, while we are entitled to treat controversial sources with caution we can only express that caution through the citation of other sources. Also I think that you could correctly say that any equally high profile work about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that takes any kind of position is controversial, so I don't think that really tells you that much about the book.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Using sources with a strong bias, like AIPAC's "Myths & Facts" is one good way of ending up with an article such as this, which is full of inaccuracies. Avneri's "considerable immigration" of Arabs was in the 1930's, not the Ottoman period, and was definitely not "considerable" as a proportion of the population or in comparison to Jewish immigration. The Allied Supreme Council did not define the borders of Palestine at the San Remo Conference: the UK was not "assigned" a mandate by San Remo, it announced that it was prepared to accept a mandate under terms to be agreed at a later date by the League of Nations. The terms of the mandate were ratified in 1922 and came into effect in September 1923. There was no 1920-22 mandate under the terms described by this article. I'll rewrite this when I have the time. --Ian Pitchford 12:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can refer to the source and find it does not back up the information added, or the source can be proven inaccurate, it should stay. And I would remind you that removal of sourced material can be considered vandalism. —Aiden 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether the source in question is accurately quoted or not, the fact remains that the academic consensus is that there was not massive Arab immigration into mandate Palestine. Insisting on including this sentence is either the result of people not being very well-informed themselves or at worst, a rather sly attempt to delude the less-informed reader into thinking that there was. Intellectual honesty is something I would hope all editors would aspire to, whatever arguments they can find in Wikipedia policies and guidelines for including potentially misleading material. Palmiro | Talk 17:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro, can you provide a source stating or suggesting that "the academic consensus is that there was not massive Arab immigration," as you say? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I ask you, Palmiro, do you have a source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Ian quotes one suitable source for this below, the article by Yehoshua Porath in review of Joan Peters' book. Another is Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity, p. 92, where in talking first about Peters' work and later specifically that of Avneri also referred to on this discussion page, he states inter alia (I can give you a longer quotation if you like, but not now) "he [Avneri] asserts rather that much of the Arab population of the country drifted into it in recent time, an old and persistent canard which has been disproved by all recent demographic research." (my emphasis) I have also read quite a few academic works about the period which simply don't refer to Arab immigration, so the fact that it only seems to get mentioned in explicit response to claims of its existence and is not dealt with per se in serious treatment of the political and economic circumstances of the time is further circumstancial evidence that most academics don't consider it a serious issue. Palmiro | Talk 20:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll add: Palmiro is quite correct about what the academic literature has on this topic. Moreover, on the rare occasions that specialists refer to the mass Arab immigration thesis, they do so with reference to books like From Time Immemorial since such claims are simply not made by their own peers. As an example, I'll bring some quotes from "The Population of Palestine" (Columbia University Press, 1990) by Justin McCarthy (a well-known demographer specialising in Ottoman demography). On the Ottoman period he writes

In considering Muslim immigration into Palestine one cannot reasonably avoid the so-called "desertification thesis," which holds that Palestine was largely a wasteland under the Ottomans and only became a truly living land after Jewish settlers arrived. The demographic component of the thesis is that when Jewish immigration began Palestine was an underpopulated area with few Arabs in residence, and that Arabs migrated to Jewish areas in Palestine because of the economic benefits of Jewish settlement. In other words, that the Arab refugees of 1948 were themselves immigrants, or the children of immigrants, and not inhabitants of the land "from time immemorial. [Here McCarthy links to a footnote that discusses From Time Immemorial and describes it as "demographically worthless".] ... First, real evidence for Muslim immigration into Palestine is minimal. Because no Ottoman records of that immigration have yet been discovered, one is thrown back on demographic analysis to evaluate Muslim migration. From analyses of rates of increase of the Muslim population of the three Palestinian sanjaks, one can say with certainty that Muslim immigration after the 1870's was small. Had there been a large group of Muslim immigrants their numbers would have caused an unusual increase in the population and this would have appeared in the calculated rate of increase from one registration list to another. For example, an increase of one-eighth of the population over a twenty-year period would have caused the observed yearly rate of increase to grow by 50%. [Here a footnote explaining the number 50%.] Such an increase would have been easily noticed; it was not there." (McCarthy, p16)

For the earlier mandate period, McCarthy provides evidence that the 1922 census seriously undercounted women and children and that this was the main cause of the discrepancy between the 1922 and 1931 censuses (disagreeing with the British analysis). For the period after 1931, he writes:

There was a small but significant unrecorded Muslim immigration into Palestine from 1931 until the end of the Mandate. In the only scholarly analysis of the Arab immigration, Professor Roberto Bachi has concluded that this migration averaged 900 Muslims a year, a total of 13,500 for the period 1931 to 1945. [reference given] This figure does not include Arab workers who remained in Palestine for a brief time and then returned home. The results of Bachi's closely reasoned analysis have been applied here in estimates of the actual Arab population, and 900 Arabs per year have been added to the figures for the Arab population (table 2.15). The validity of analyses such as Bachi's has been denied in other sources [here another footnote citing From Time Immemorial and concluding "It is difficult to find a demographic basis for her assertions."], which posit a much larger unrecorded Arab immigration. [Then a page discussing the evidence, followed by:] The argument that Arab immigration somehow made up a large part of the Palestinian Arab population is thus statistically untenable." (McCarthy, pp33-34).

McCarthy's assertion that Bachi's analysis was the "only scholarly analysis" satisfies Slim's request for a source asserting what the scholarly consensus is. --Zero^talk 05:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

These references appear to have been copied from Jewish Virtual Library here: [12]. They have nothing to do with the "Ottoman Period" section in which they've been inserted. Avneri is cited for the 1922 census, which does indeed appear on page 28, Porath is also cited for the 1922 census and not the claim that "This development also spurred a considerable immigration of Arabs from the surrounding lands to Palestine", a claim he does not support [13]. Porath says 'As all the research by historians and geographers of modern Palestine shows, the Arab population began to grow again in the middle of the nineteenth century. That growth resulted from a new factor: the demographic revolution. Until the 1850s there was no "natural" increase of the population, but this began to change when modern medical treatment was introduced and modern hospitals were established, both by the the Ottoman authorities and by the foreign Christian missionaries. The number of births remained steady but infant mortality decreased... The Jews were amazed. In spite of the Jewish immigration, the natural increase of the Arabs—at least twice the rate of the Jews' — slowed down the transformation of the Jews into a majority in Palestine. To account for the delay the theory, or myth, of large-scale immigration of Arabs from the neighboring countries was proposed by Zionist writers.... No one would doubt that some migrant workers came to Palestine from Syria and Trans-Jordan and remained there. But one has to add to this that there were migrations in the opposite direction as well. For example, a tradition developed in Hebron to go to study and work in Cairo, with the result that a permanent community of Hebronites had been living in Cairo since the fifteenth century. Trans-Jordan exported unskilled casual labor to Palestine; but before 1948 its civil service attracted a good many educated Palestinian Arabs who did not find work in Palestine itself. Demographically speaking, however, neither movement of population was significant in comparison to the decisive factor of natural increase.'. This was the main reason for Arab population growth". Clearly, the references are not relevant here. --Ian Pitchford 18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading something like that online in the last couple of days, although I forget where. It seems the Arab population of Palestine increased by 400% in a short time. Sources vary as to whether this is due to high birth rate, low death rate, or immigration.

Is there an article or a section of one, which documents this increase? And which covers the disputes over the causes of it?

Pro-Israel sources want to say that Jews made Western Palestine so hospitable that Arabs drifted in en masse. Or that Jewish economic success made for improvements in sanitation and medicine which reduced the Arab death rate. I guess Jews simply make great neighbors! (no sarcasm intended, my light-hearted tone stems from optimism)

Pro-Arab sources want to say that Jews came in and pushed out the indigenous Arabs.

At issue, of course, is "how long" you have to live in a place before battle or deportation makes you a "refugee". If I become a Japanese citizen this year, and next year North Korea invades and I flee for my life, am I a Japanese refugee? Or just an American immigrant with bad timing? (not arguing here; I really want to know) --Uncle Ed 18:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

UNRWA definition

You may take notice of how UNRWA define a "refugee" - someone who have been in palestine for at least two(2) years prior to 1948. Why not use the standard definition of resident (which is 5 or even 10 years) ?????

• Because they know many of the so-called "Palestinian refugees of 1948/49" have emigrated into Palestine in the 1942-1947.

This is logical, the country was blooming economically (because of the zioniost activity) and more and more workers came to work there from Syria, Jordan and even Sudan and Egypt.

Zeq 19:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I just read this a few minutes ago at Daniel Pipes's web site. So, why don't you cite him as a source and describe the UNRWA definition in the article? --Uncle Ed 19:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ed please go ahead as I never read Pipes web site. if you want I can try and find the original UNRWA def. Zeq 19:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes? Might as well quote Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on authoritative matters. Zeq, how can you expect me to deal with you in good faith when you say things like "so-called refugees"? What kind of hateful history denial is that? Plus, anybody with any knowledge of Arabic culture (especially back then) would know that a few years, or even a few decades, absence of people from their original tribes is not enough time for them to be forgotten by these tribes - a family who came from a tribe in Syria, for example, would not be excommunicated from their Syrian origin in only a few years - what about their aunts, uncles, cousins, etc? These people would easily have gone back to their original places of residence and not have to live in camps like the rest of the Palestinians. Therefore, it makes total sense that those Palestinians who ended up in camps were originally from Palestine and not elsewhere, because they had no place else to go. Are you actually trying to tell me that Egyptians who came to Palestine in 1942, and were expelled in 1948, had to live in a camp in Lebanon? Bullshit - they would have taken their asses back to Egypt where they belong. My next door neighbor is from a little town in Jordan, just south of Amman, but has lived in Palestine since age 16 (he's now 70), married a Palestinian and all his children were born in Jerusalem. But he is still considered Jordanian, he hold Jordanian citizenship (most Palestinians in the West Bank can not) and can still go back to his town to visit and be greeted as a family elder by the rest of his clan. And that's just one example of what is actually normal behavior in our culture (for better or worse). So let's stop this nasty talk please. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ramallite, I didn't say Pipes was correct, just that he is a significant source in the scholarly community. If other scholars dispute his version of history, we should quote them as well. --Uncle Ed 21:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, it's just that any reference to the likes of Pipes (hey that rhymes) very much cheapens the material I'm dealing with. He is the main authority on how to dehumanize and delegitimize Palestinians, among others. In any case, could you please refer me to the link where Pipes is apparently talking about UNRWA? I can't find it - but it makes total sense to me that UNRWA would restrict eligibility for unlimited funding on their part. They wanted to make sure that only people living in Palestine immediately prior to the expulsions (that started to occur during the skirmishes of the 40s) would receive money. If they extended the eligibility dates, who knows how many more who lived in but left Palestine prior to 1946 would have enrolled to take benefits (free health, school, food) from UNRWA? You would want to limit that as much as possible. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ramallite, they did the oppostite as you calimed they did. They included aqll the newcomers . this is why their definition is 2 years only: So that anyone that came from Egypt in 1946 and went back in 1948 is considered a "refugee" 9acording to UNRWA) Zeq 21:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That's just ridiculous to say that all these refugees in Lebanon and Syria are actually Egyptians and not Palestinians. Egyptians, Lebanese, Jordanians, etc would just have gone back to their homes and not have to live in camps - I'd like to see proof to the contary - and I'd like to see proof that anybody who went back to Egypt in 1948 is considered a refugee - the definition (did you read the whole thing?) is whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. (my emphasis). Do you think people with homes in other countries would fit the definition? I think not... Ramallite ^(talk) 22:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not the weeniest, tiniest, scrap of evidence that there was an influx of Arabs into Palestine during the period between June 1946 and May 1948 or in the period shortly before then. Does anyone even claim to present such evidence? Not only that, but as everyone knows (see Palestinian Exodus), starting in November 1947 there was a steady flow of Arabs out of Palestine. By May 1948 they totalled several hundred thousand, but they are not included in UNRWA's definition of refugee. Why aren't the Pipes and Peters of this world lamenting that fact rather than restricting their attention to the imaginary hoardes who moved in the other direction?
Source: "a part of the total 1948 refugee population-professionals who had been living outside of Palestine from 1946 to 1948 and were unable to return, persons who chose to leave the Near East, and persons who fled Palestine with personal property or fled before May 1948-were not registered as refugees by UNRWA. (footnote: As a practical matter, however, it is not clear whether refugees who left before 15 May 1948 were actually distinguishable from those refugees who left Palestine after this date in the early days of registration.)" - Human Rights Quarterly, vol 16 (1994) p313, citing UNRWA documents. And why is this discussion here? This is not supposed to be an article on every topic related to Palestine. --Zero^talk 01:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Zero, could you please stop giving your personal opinions, because none of our opinions matter. We're only interested in what specialists in this area have published. What is your quote above supposed to show? Also, is it really a quote? "[O]utside of" is an odd mistake for a publication to make. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything I put in quotes (here and elsewhere) is an exact quote unless otherwise specified. This includes the "outside of", which is not perfect English but within the envelope of what English speakers say. (My children say it, alas.) The author (Christine M. Cervenak) may not be a native English speaker. As for what it proves, it proves that the rule about being resident in Palestine for a particular 2 year period probably excluded more refugees than it included. --Zero^talk 02:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"[I]t proves that the rule about being resident ... probably excluded more refugees than it included." If they were excluded, and therefore not counted, how could you know that? Do you have a source saying that explicitly? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What I quoted says explicitly "were not registered as refugees by UNRWA", perhaps you missed that. --Zero^talk 04:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Demographic changes

Cut from article:

due mostly to the high birth-rate of Arabs and immigration of Jews

This is what "everyone knows", but is it true?

If it's true, then it should be easy to find a quotable source, in the form of:

• A. Kwerky, historian with the Arab Demographic Project, wrote The Palestinian Arab birth rate is 3 times higher than that of Arabs anywhere else in the Middle East. That's why they call this area the Fertile Crescent. (okay, I made that up, but you get the idea)
• Rush Inin, population expert with UNESCO, says that the Jewish influx was unprecedented, causing an area virtually devoid of Jews since biblical times to become "lousy with them". (okay, another fabrication)

I hope nobody's too offended at my silly examples. Try to glean the form from the fun, though: X said Y about Z. --Uncle Ed 18:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to Zero et al

Zero's flexible interepration of the English language, as well as of plain mathematics, never ceased to amaze me. Some examples:

• British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab ..." This also does not say that Arab immigration was massive, only that it was "uncontrolled". If it were not massive, it would have been of no concern to the commision. Or maybe they were worried about an "uncontrolled trickle" of immigrants? Your statement strikes me as naive at best.
• Another quote from the Hope-Simpson commision: "The Chief Immigration Officer has brought to notice that illicit immigration through Syria and across the northern frontier of Palestine is material." Just to make sure I know english- from Google's definitions of material: substantial: having substance or capable of being treated as fact; not imaginary
• But why bother with quotes? Let's do a simple math excersize. According to many sources, including [14] (this is a Palestinian site, so Zero should not consider it "junk") the Arab population in Palestine grew from 673.388 in 1922 to 861.211 in 1931. Just so this is clear- nearly 28%(!!!) in 9 years. For comparison, the populations of Egypt and India, both nations with population growth among the highest in the world, had growth rates of 10% and 9% respectively in this period. [15] [16]. These "foreign Christian missionaries" must have worked wonders! I don't see why you are all so fervently trying to deny this- it's normal human behaviour to emigrate to a place of higher standards of living. The Palestinians did it again much more recently- at the end of the first Gulf War Kuwait expelled 400,00 Palestinians 'guest workers' [17]. My guess is they were not indigenous there either.

-Sangil 20:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is all well and good - although the link to the Palestinian site above doesn't work and I can't find the 673388 to 861211 figures you site. The problem I have with this is that if there was indeed immigration of Arabs into Palestine, whether 10, 649, or 300,000 of them, there is absolutely no evidence (or reason) to suggest that such people would have considered themselves Palestinian - Arabic culture is not like that - you are from where your tribe is from. If your surname was a Syrian one and you came to Palestine and claimed to be Palestinian, you would be laughed at. If non-Palestinian Arabs did indeed come in 'material', 'substantial', or 'significant' numbers, a claim that has yet to be reliably shown, this is an entirely different matter than stating that the 'Palestinian population' in and of itself grew. Kuwait, for example, has almost as many foreigners as they are Kuwaitis, but that doesn't make the foreigners 'Kuwaiti' nationals although the population figure for Kuwait would include them. So I don't see what the point being made is, but if it's the age old argument made by some anti-peaceniks that most Palestinians are not Palestinians because they came from Libya, Lisbon, and Mount Kilimanjaro, well, that is the sort of logic that is really hard to have the time to deal with. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that "Palestinian Arabs" are a tribe or group of tribes? That has the ring of truth to it, so let's list the various tribes. If 30,000 Syrian Arabs immigrated into Palestine (or Western Palestine), perhaps we can identify which tribes they came frome.

On the other hand, if all this stuff about migrations is only speculative, than it isn't "fact" - it's just someone's point of view. --Uncle Ed 21:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have referred you to my explanation of Arab culture and origins on another page on a previous occasion. Basically, as Gil says below, nationality in the modern sense was a European concept. In the middle east, people belonged to their family (clan or tribe, depending on how 'modern' they were) and to their land (i.e. land where they individually or collectively held title deeds). Although I did not live in that time period (although people insist on holding me responsible for everything that happened at that time), it culturally and logically makes sense to me that you are from where your family/clan/land is based. If this land happened to be in a place where the British decided to call 'Palestine', yippee! That makes no difference. Nationalism arose precisely when it had to, i.e. when this way of life became threatened. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Zero- did you even read what I wrote? Where did I mention that the British were commited to a Jewish homeland in *all* of Palestine? All I said was that it "could be understood" in that manner. However, as there was no mention of an 'Arab homeland' in any official paper of that period, one must wonder what was the plan regarding the portions not included in the Jewish homeland. The British, on their part, increasingly adoped a policy of appeasement to Arab violence (which helped about as much as it did with Hitler) until finally they went back on their commitments completely- as the 1939 white paper makes obvious (no significant Jewish immigration, and no Jewish national home anywhere in Palestine [18]).
• Ramallite- First of all- here is the site [19]. Regarding what you said- this is in no way true. Jordan today is comprised of 80% Palestinians, yet they all consider themselves "Jordanian" (or am I mistaken?). The Palestinian national identity was not very developed at that time (ironically, it was the Jews who acted as a catalyst in this regard), and many Arabs living in Palestine considered themselves as "Southern Syrian" (see Palestinian people). And generally speaking, you can be sure that when the British conducted the censuses (or is it censi?) of 1922 and 1931, they could barely make the distinction between indigenous Arabs and immigrants (at least this distinction does not show anywhere). Furtheremore, it is the natural tendency of immigrants to "blend" in the host population, especially when the culture, language etc. are very similiar. (For example- the majority of those descending fron English immigrants to the US do not consider themselves "English").My point has nothing to do with what Palestinians consider themselves- it was merely that there was in fact a considerable Arab immigration to Palestine.

-Sangil 21:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Snajil is correct. While the word "Palestine" was in use (for the area) the word "Palestinian" is rather new. Zeq 22:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Gil -

• "Jordan today is comprised of 80% Palestinians" - There is no census available of that, they may or may not be true.
• "yet they all consider themselves "Jordanian" (or am I mistaken?)" - you are mistaken - with my limited contact with them when I go there in order to fly abroad, the majority of people I meet who are originally from Palestine say so, and the majority of those have said they would leave Jordan and come back to Palestine (even just the West Bank) in a second if they could - and I can definitely understand why.
• "The Palestinian national identity was not very developed at that time" - national identity at the time was a European invention - see my comment to Ed Poor a few lines above.
• "many Arabs living in Palestine considered themselves as "Southern Syrian"" - no some Arabs were devoted to this nationalistic (greater Syria) movement which is based on what became Pan-Arabism. That concept luckily evaporated, and within a few years the people who continued to hold such hopes were negligible in number. But these Southern Syrians, as you call them, were still individuals with family/clan/land origins in Palestine, regardless of what they called themselves.
• "when the British conducted the censuses ... they could barely make the distinction between indigenous Arabs and immigrants" - and that is EXACTLY my point - the British couldn't tell, but the local people did. Furthermore, even within Palestine itself, if somebody from Hebron came to live in Ramallah, he would (and to this day still is) considered a 'foreigner'; a 'Hebronite'. And that's just a few miles south. As I also gave in an example in a section above (today), you would still be called Syrian or Jordanian regardless of how long you lived in Palestine.
• "the majority of those descending fron English immigrants to the US do not consider themselves "English"" - they consider themselves American by nationality, English by origin. I am very familiar with Americans.
• "My point has nothing to do with what Palestinians consider themselves- it was merely that there was in fact a considerable Arab immigration to Palestine. " - and my point is that that is probably irrelevant - as soon as they were expelled, those not Palestinian in origin probably returned to the countries they came from and were not refugees in camps.

Ramallite ^(talk) 22:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• In my opinion it is relevant, as a number of people here vehemantly deny such an immigration ever existed, claiming the surge in number of Arabs in Palestine resulted from birth rates. Some have even speculated as to my integrity regarding this subject. Furthermore, while you may not consider it relevant to the current political situation, it is relevant to an article about Palestine.
• 80% may be inaccurate, but I think there is a concensus that the more than 60% of Jordan's population are Palestinian (example [20]).
• I am not saying the immigrants were indistinguishable from the local population. In fact they stood out so much that the term "Hourani" (meaning an Arab from the Houran region in Syria) exists in Hebrew(!) to this day. Some of them may have fled back to where they originated, some probably stayed, and maybe some ended up in refugee camps. I really don't know. Until some sources are found regarding this matter I suggest we leave it as an "open issue".
• they consider themselves American by nationality, English by origin... I also am very familiar with Americans- and I agree. Just as inhabitants of the WB/GS/Refugee camps/whatever today may consider themselves "Palestinian by nationality, and ___ by origin". And since they regard themselves as Palestinians (or Americans..)- so do I.
• national identity at the time was a European invention.. - perhaps. But the claim of Palestinians today to the land where they live, their "right to self-determination" as you say on your talk page, rests entirely on this 'national identity'. It is odd you choose to belittle it here.

-Sangil 22:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hold the phone. I'm hearing two different things.

1. that Palestinian "identity" is merely ethnic
2. that Palestinian "identity" is national

Is there any source (including the PLO) which says the Palestinian Arabs (or any other group called "Palestinians") has or ought to have a 'national identity' as "Palestinians"? That is, some sort of connection to the land around the Jordan River (or even just to the west of it) which gives them a claim or right to establish a sovereign nation there?

If so, is this anything different from the reasoning that entitiles Arabs or "Palestinian Arabs" indigenous to the lands east of the Jordan river ALSO to have an independent sovereign state (called Transjordan and then Jordan)?

Don't give your own opinion, I'm not trying to hold a debate here. Please provide sources, so that we can use those sources to write the darn article! Uncle Ed 00:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. No one cares what any of us think. We need to find good published sources, and then use them properly, nothing more. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, no more personal views

I want to second what Ed wrote about about the need for sources, and for everyone to stop giving their personal opinion. We're not here to debate the issues. To the best of my knowledge, no one posting to this page has any academic qualifications in the history of the area (Palmiro and Ian, I'm not sure about you, so I apologize if you do). But even if we were all Oxford professors of mideast history, our personal opinions would still be irrelevant. Please, let's stick to A says X but B says Y. Also, please stop trashing sources just because they might support the Israeli position. It's getting too tiresome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

just noticed this request after posting a few words of my OR below. so i appologize. Yes I agree that we need to look for sources. Zeq 04:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Futile arithmetic

Sangil wrote: "the Arab population in Palestine grew from 673.388 in 1922 to 861.211 in 1931" and this is supposed to be impossible. In fact it was perfectly possible. As you can calculate, assuming the censuses were exactly 9 years apart, that is a 2.8% per annum growth rate which is high but not exceptionally high. During the early 1960s, when Israel's borders were very firmly shut against illegal immigration, the natural rate of growth of the Israeli Arab population was more than 4.5% per annum (source: Friedlander, Population of Israel). The reason for the high rate of growth was that women had lots of babies (more than 7 births per adult woman during the mandate period combined with much lower infant mortality than earlier; source 1931 census etc). There was also some Arab immigration, but it was small compared to the natural growth. This is analysed over many pages of the 1931 census report, including a chapter devoted to illegal immigration. We can also find there (page 59) a direct count that the census made of people according to place of birth. Here are the percentages of people born outside Palestine: Moslems 2%, Christians 20%, Jews 58%. --Zero^talk 02:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Zero, we need secondary sources who say this, not your personal analysis of primary-source material. Please. Just stick to A says X but B says Y. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a secondary source, it only has to be published and "reliable". Nevertheless, it actually is a secondary source: Census of Palestine, 1931 (ed. E. Mills), published in two volumes by the Palestine Census Office (Alexandria, 1933). This is not a primary source but a few thousand pages of summary of truckloads of primary material. Several libraries near me have it. I'll be happy to provide scans of pages quoted in the article. --Zero^talk 13:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In what sense is it a secondary source if it's census information from the census office? Even if it has been summarized, we need a secondary source to interpret it for us. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand your first sentence. The primary data was the couple of hundred thousand census forms filled in by all the households in Palestine on census day, together with the vast quantities of vital statistics and other materials collected by the mandatory government. The census report is the interpretation. Anyway, I didn't analyse it, I just quoted it. A published source with a reputable author. There's nothing wrong with that; I don't think you have a case at all. --Zero^talk 14:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The publication of the data by the office that collected it is primary-source material. It's not a question of simply quoting it, because in choosing which parts to quote, you're selecting and interpreting (i.e. this is more important than that). This wouldn't matter if you were quoting, say, Stats Canada's figures for the number of atheists living in Toronto. But with an issue as complex and sensitive as this, we need expert selection and interpretation. You said yourself elsewhere that the big problem with analysing primary sources is the "amateur interpretation." We need as sources professional historians or specialists in the demographics of the area who have written about this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong about "primary source". You are wrong about selection; I quoted the figures most relevant to this discussion which is what I am supposed to do, and some choice has to be made in using any source. You are wrong about analysis; I didn't analyse anything. Yes, it is exactly the same as quoting a report from Stats Canada, you have no justification for ruling one in and the other out so you are wrong about that too. You are also wrong about the source (do you think that the Chief Statistician of Palestine was not a professional specialist?) If other specialists write on these numbers, we can quote them too. Sorry if you don't like these numbers. --Zero^talk 16:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by I am "wrong about primary source" and "wrong about selection"? We only have your word that the figures you quoted are the most relevant. You could be mistaken. And how am I "wrong about the source"? If he is a scholar in this area and if he has included his own interpretations, we can quote him, but you can't quote whatever figure you feel should be quoted. For example, you wrote above: "The reason for the high rate of growth was that women had lots of babies (more than 7 births per adult woman during the mandate period combined with much lower infant mortality than earlier; source 1931 census etc)." So which bit comes from the source? Just the figure or also the interpretation of the figure? The problem as I see it is you have a tendency to add your own spin to what sources say. I apologize if you're not doing it on this occasion. All I'm asking is that, because this is a sensitive and complex issue, all source material be used in the most transparent way possible, that only relevant professional experts be used, and that no additional interpretation be made of their material. That is, we should stick extremely closely to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Zero is providing data beyond cherry-picked clips from less-reputable web sites preferred by others, by the same authors who are originally quoted. Why is this a problem? If I understand correctly, the complaint is that you are not sure that the sources provided are the most legitimate? But Zero made clear - these are the numbers that exist by this source. If other sources also exist, they need to be brought on board. If no other sources exist to support the alternative POV, then either we just stick with what we have (and present it neutrally), or we just drop any mention of immigration from the article. Isn't that fair? But if people want to insist on the POV that Palestine was flooded with Arab immigrants based on shady sources that provide quotations but no numbers (sort of like saying "the Buddhist population of my classroom just doubled in the last year" without mentioning the fact that the doubling was because the number went from one to two buddhists in a class of 2300 people), I think that's a legitimate complaint, isn't it? Ramallite ^(talk) 17:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Zero seems to be the person here who is actually providing real information and date from reliable sources, so it's interesting that he's also the one who's taking all the accusations of POV-pushing, subjective writing, original research, etc. Palmiro | Talk 21:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Zero, I'll give you some OR: Many of my Paletinians friends can trace their family to Egypt, to Syria and most Bedouins know which areas in Saudi Arabia they came from. Some bedouins trace to Egypt, Jordan and Sudan. Migration is a basic human phenomena and your attempt to show that only in Palestine it did not took place is funny. Zeq 04:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Zero- you conveniently make claims which support your view, without any evidence.

• During the early 1960s, when Israel's borders were very firmly shut against illegal immigration - on what basis are you making this claim? It has no connection with reality. Only now, with the construction of the security barrier, are Israel's borders starting to become anything near to "firmly shut".

There were continuous patrols of all the borders and even though there were occasional incidents of infiltration there is no claim that there was permanent immigration of sufficient magnitude to perturb the birth-rate statistics. --Zero^talk 13:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Several people have asked that you stop offering your personal opinions and start providing evidence. Please do that from now on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have brought more sources and more scholarly sources to this discussion than anyone else. In this instance I already brought a source (Friedlander). Perhaps you should devote yourself to other things, such as explaining to Sangil that doing his own population calculations is Original Research. --Zero^talk 06:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't present or use the sources in a scholarly manner, and that's the problem. We need to know: X says "this," and in quotes, and then exactly how you intend to use it. We don't want long-winded posts mixing up what the sources say with your personal interpretations. No matter how many sources you present, and no matter how reputable they are, if you're adding your own spin, they are useless to us. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I see Zero as the least guilty on this particular dispute of not providing sources - he has provided scholarly sources (as opposed to non-scholarly propaganda websites) and the only spin he is introducing is countering the claims of many others in this debate who are not providing scholarly sources but spinning their own opinions to a much greater degree. I hope that when you say "We don't want long-winded posts mixing up what the sources say with your personal interpretations", that applies to everybody here. As you can tell, there is a dearth of concrete "scholarly source X says 'this'" on this topic. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does apply to everyone, but Zero seems to do it more than most. Whether he is introducing spin to counter other spin or not is irrelevant. What we need is clean research: quoting sources and leaving out personal interpretation. If there really are no good sources on this topic, then we can't cover it. If there are, we should use them. But the long-windedness has reached the point where I suspect most people have lost track of what's being talked about. Not only futile arithmetic, but futile discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also more direct quotation from sources put on this page by me than by anyone else. Moreover, you seem to be unwilling to distinguish between my opinion and the opinion of the cited sources that I am trying to accurately summarise. No, I don't have to present everything in the form of quotation; that would be a hardship that is not imposed on anyone else. If you don't find my summaries convincing you can ask for more information, or, even better, you can get the sources and look at them yourself. As for whether this discussion is futile or not, I think 90% is indeed futile but I have watched in vain for you to write a single word against the people who started it and continue to drive it using hardly any sources at all and their own private calculations. Have they brought a single scholarly source in support of their claims? --Zero^talk 07:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm unable to distinguish between your position and the position of the sources you quote, because the way you write makes it unclear who is saying what, and when I ask for clarification, you either ignore me or give a reply that bolsters the confusion. For example, I posted:

"[Y]ou wrote above: 'The reason for the high rate of growth was that women had lots of babies (more than 7 births per adult woman during the mandate period combined with much lower infant mortality than earlier; source 1931 census etc).' So which bit comes from the source? Just the figure or also the interpretation of the figure?"

You didn't answer. So I'll ask again: which part of this statement came from the source — everything, or just the part in brackets? When you attribute a statement to a source, people shouldn't have to ask which part is the source, and which part you. If they do have to ask, it means you're not writing up the information properly, which means it's useless. You also rarely explain the context. It's just one figure after another after another. It's pseudo-scholarship, because there's no clarity to it. I'm sorry to write this way to you, but the subject is complex enough without needless complexity being added. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't answer that. The figure of 7 is in the census report and other places (like McCarthy's book). The claim that natural increase (births minus deaths) was responsible for most of the increase of the Arab population is in the census report and in many British reports. For example I earlier quoted "... unlike the Jewish, the rise [of Arab population] has been due in only a slight degree to immigration" (Peel Royal Commission, p125). I'll add from p282 of the same report: "It has been estimated that the Arab population is increasing at the rate of 24,000 persons per annum. This is largely due to the fact that, since the War, conscription has ceased and health and sanitary conditions have greatly improved". Below you can read a similar statement from the 1946 Survey of Palestine (which was a joint USA-UK report). These statements are very clear and don't admit interpretation other than their plain meaning. To the best of my knowledge, this same opinion was given consistently by every British report that clearly stated an opinion on this question. I also don't know of any scholarly source that denies this opinion, and I quoted McCarthy as saying that there isn't any such source. So, to summarise, the British opinion and the scholarly consensus is that immigration was a minor component of the Arab population increase. I believe that I have established this thoroughly. It is also true that a few non-scholarly sources such as Joan Peters and Sangil make a different claim; this could be mentioned but not given equal time. --Zero^talk 10:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

These constant attacks on Zero are beginning, to my mind, to look like harassment. As Ramallite and myself have said more than once, Zero is the person more than anyone else bringing scholarly sources to this page, and yet he is being put through the mill. This seems pretty unfair. Palmiro | Talk 21:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Does Friedlander say Israel's borders were very firmly shut against illegal immigration, or is that your addition? And BTW, the population statistics I brought are not my OR, unless dividing two numbers is considered "research"-Sangil 14:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Friedlander considers immigration and emigration in addition to births and deaths. Let me explain something (no, Slim, this is not just my opinion). The year-by-year rates of natural increase published by the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (and tabulated by Friedlander) are calculated by subtracting deaths from births then dividing by the population size. They don't (except as a very fine adjustment) rely on the accuracy of immigration figures. The only way that unseen immigration can make such calculations seriously incorrect is if the total population is really much different from what is believed. So, if the rate of increase was really 2% but appeared to be 4%, it could be because the total population is really twice as large as thought. However, the regular Israeli censuses show that no such gross error in the Arab population of Israel was made. This same method of calculating the rate of natural increase was used by the British and showed a high value (over 2%) for the whole Mandate period. Again, this does not rely to first approximation on assumptions about illegal immigration. The only problem encountered was that the 1931 census found more people than was expected from the 1922 census plus natural increase plus known immigration balance. Several possible explanations have been proposed by the experts. The British statisticians argued that 4,000 illegal Arab immigrants between 1922 and 1931, together with known deficiencies in birth registration, were enough to explain it (1931 census report, pp61-65). The census report also notes that the 1911 Australian census and the 1921 UK census had the same problems. McCarthy argues that a more important reason was that the 1922 counts were inaccurate. The main reason he gives is that the number of women and children counted in 1922 was impossibly low relative to the number of men. It is not for us to decide if he is right. The problem for your case is that an explanation based on much higher illegal immigration has no support from the specialists. --Zero^talk 03:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Next, you ask whether "dividing two numbers is considered 'research'". In many cases I would argue that it isn't, if all that we needed was the ratio of the two numbers. However, in this case you are doing original research by assuming that all that is required is to divide these two numbers. Amongst the things you chose to ignore are: adjusting for recorded immigration and emigration (which has to be done year by year because it's erratic), accounting for the 1923 border adjustment with Syria, and accounting for the fact that the totals you give include His Majesty's Forces and that the contribution for bedouin was a guess (they refused to be counted). You also assumed that all the Christians and Others were Arabs, even though a large part of the Christian immigration was Armenians, Greeks, Russians etc.. If McCarthy is correct, you also should have accounted for the provable inaccuracies in both censuses (especially 1922). Point being, dividing two numbers is not all that is required. The proper calculation is a lot more difficult and we should leave it to the experts. --Zero^talk 06:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources please! Without them this is meaningless OR. -Sangil 03:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• You also cannot compare the 1960's with the 1920's in labelling what is "exceptionally high" growth rate. The periods were completely different in regards to infant mortality and medical facilities.

Maybe that's why the rates in the 1960s were much greater than in the 1920s. But even in the 1920s this was not an exceptional rate. There were similar rates in eastern Europe, for example. Btw, the actual rate of growth was more like 2.2%, see McCarthy for the (complicated) explanation. --Zero^talk 13:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Incidentally, if you look at the end of the 1929 report [21] you'll see that the rate of natural increase in that year (from birth registrations) was 2.6% for Arabs and 2.2% for Jews. It isn't even that much different, especially when we realise that most of the Jews were from Europe. --Zero^talk 14:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• There were similar rates in eastern Europe - Once again- sources please!
• the rate of natural increase in that year (from birth registrations) was 2.6% for Arabs - well it seems either the British or the Palestinians can't count. The paper you mention gives the 1929 Arab (Moslem+Christian) population as 650,000. Two Palestinian websites, both supposedly based on British census information, paint a different picture. The first [22] gives the 1922 Arab population as 673388, and the second [23] gives the 1918 Arab population as 689000(!). So I guess there the Arab birth rate during the 1920's was actually negative! Or maybe, as one website claims [24], the British statistics were inherently consistent, and that's about *all* they were consistent with.
• see McCarthy for the (complicated) explanation- It's always possible to give a complicated explanation so that the facts fit your POV. Let me offer you a simple explanation: assuming the population figures are correct, the growth rate was 2.8%, as can be easily calculated.

-Sangil 03:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, dear Sangil, it's not my complicated explanation, it's McCarthy's complicated explanation. He is the world-famous demographer, not me. I'm just the poor messenger who keeps getting attacked for telling you where to look for a scholarly opinion if you want one. Btw, you can find McCarthy's analysis of the 1918-1922 problem in the same chapter. --Zero^talk 06:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well my dear Hermes, from quotes of McCarthy you have brought above, it is plain he regards the British statistics as "less then" accurate. Instead he prefers to rely solely on the figures of Bachi, who he considers the "only scholarly analysis of the Arab immigration". That is hardly a concensus. If you agree with him, then a great deal of the evidence you have presented (i.e. all the British documents) are next to worthless. Otherwise, you shouldn't use him as a source. And taking the British figures at face value, the figure of 2.8% growth rate is unavoidable (even the British found it rather amazing, but brought no explanation as to why it should be different from the surrounding Arab lands which, bar the Jews, enjoyed the same conditions as Palestine).-Sangil 14:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• You still have brought no logical explanation as to why the growth rate in Palestine should be almost triple that of India and Egypt.

But SlimVirgin would hit me again for giving an opinion! --Zero^talk 06:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that's a bad thing? -Sangil 14:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Being hit by SlimVirgin is a terrible thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept your claim necessarily, but anyway each country has its own culture and history. Demography is a difficult discipline, you can't just divide some numbers and make claims. --Zero^talk 13:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. This is a textbook example of how to respond without saying anything. Thank you for enlightening me regarding the discipline of Demographics. As for I don't accept your claim necessarily- if I may paraphrase you "Your assumptions and inferences and personal opinion are not important".-Sangil 03:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• If you had read Ramallite's (and my) remarks above- you would have seen that the British had no way to distinguish between locally born and immigrant Arabs, and I personally doubt they made any serious effort to do so. Your odd attempt to bring Place of Birth statistics based on the 1931 census is "of little interest".

Except that it undermines your calculation entirely. The British knew very well how many children each woman had and how many people died. Their registration system was quite advanced. That's why they could estimate how many 1931 people were not descended from 1922 people; they didn't need to be able to distinguish individuals. --Zero^talk 13:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It undermines my calculations?? A registration system where one was not "able to distinguish individuals", not to mention whether they are local or foreign born (again see Ramallite's opinion on the subject) is not advanced at all, but rather quite laughable. As for the accuracy of the British statistics, see my response two bullets above. -Sangil 03:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I take it you accept my argument here.-Sangil 14:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Unless you do not accept that the economic situation in Palestine was much better than in neighboring Arab countries (e.g. Egypt, Syria), in which case I will provide more sources to base this claim, I do not understand why you insist there was no 'significant immigration'. Immigrating to better one's life has been the natural behaviour of people all over the world for millenia. Why should the Palestinians be any different?

Your assumptions and inferences are not important. The only important thing is what the facts were. --Zero

Yet you insist that your assumptions and inferences be taken seriously. You're not a historian, not an expert in demographics, not a specialist on the Middle East. Even if you were, we'd still need published sources. But you're not, so your attempt to blind people with your own opinions gets us nowhere. SlimVirgin ^{<font color="Purple" (talk)} 16:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. Let's count how many sources I have brought and how many of those were written by specialists, and compare that to the other editors whom you don't seem interested in criticising. Oh well, here is another quotation. It is from the same document (Hope-Simpson report) that Sangil claims in support, so make sure you include his quotations from it when you explain why it is not reliable, or against Wikipedia policy, or something. The topic, defined by Sangil, is economic conditions in Palestine and how they must have brought in lots of Arabs from outside.

It is thus evident that Arabs are unemployed in at least considerable numbers, and that that fact is resulting in a distinct reduction of the standard of life among the Arab labouring classes. As has been pointed out, the Jewish Labour Federation is successful in impeding the employment of Arabs both in Jewish colonies and in Jewish enterprises of every kind. There is therefore no relief to be anticipated from an extension of Jewish enterprise unless some departurte from existing practice is effected. (Hope-Simpson report, page 135)

Cheers. --Zero^talk 06:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

So please, stop your rather crude attempt to keep this out of the article.

-Sangil 09:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with any of the following three causes of Arab population increase in Western Palestine or the more inclusive British Mandate of Palestine

1. High birthrate, low deathrate (yielding large natural increase per year)
2. Migration from other places
3. Combination of #1 and #2

Our task now is either (a) to bicker amoungst ourselves about what it could or could not be; or (b) to look for sources. Who wants to help me with Task B? :-) --Uncle Ed 14:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think enough sources have already been cited in the discussion above to support the existence of significant Arab immigration.

Some examples-

• illicit immigration through Syria and across the northern frontier of Palestine is material. - Hope Simpson Commission
• This must have been due—as elsewhere in Palestine under similar conditions—to in-migrants attracted by economic opportunities, and to the beneficial effects of improved health services in reducing mortality—just as happened in other parts of Palestine around cities with a large Jewish population sector. Schmelz, U. O. (1990) Population Characteristics of Jerusalem and Hebron Regions According to Ottoman Census of 1905, in Gar G. Gilbar, (ed.), Ottoman Palestine: 1800-1914 (Leiden: Brill), p. 42., quoted in Gottheil, F. M. (2003) The Smoking Gun: Arab Immigration into Palestine, 1922-1931, Middle East Quarterly, X(1)

As I wrote elsewhere, you are mistaking "in-migrant" for "immigrant". --Zero^talk 16:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• The number of persons deported during the year for immigration offences was 2,407, of whom 772 were Jews. No need to mention the origin of the other 1635 deportees, an incredible number assuming Arab immigration was negligible. League of Nations Report 1934 [25]

Didn't you say that Arab immigration was not restricted? --Zero^talk 16:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I said Arab settlement was not restricted, meaning they could setlle anywhere they wanted, as opposed to the Jews who could not settle in Transjordan. Arab immigration de-Jura had the same limitations as Jewish immigration, although, being overland, it was much harder to control, and the British often turned a blind eye to it.-Sangil 20:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, it has been mentioned that this whole debate regarding the Arab immigration into Palestine is not directly related to the "Ottoman period" section, as this immigration (whatever its scale) took place both during the Ottoman and Mandate periods. For this reason I suggest moving the whole discussion to a different section, probably "Demographics".

-Sangil 15:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

I just added something on current demographics based on what I could find on other wikipedia pages. Just thought I'd let you all know so that you can edit it if not correct. --Horses In The Sky 12:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Gottheil versus Schmelz

Someone introduced a quotation and an alleged paraphrase from Schmelz, U. O. (1990) Population Characteristics of Jerusalem and Hebron Regions According to Ottoman Census of 1905, in Gar G. Gilbar, (ed.), Ottoman Palestine: 1800-1914 (Leiden: Brill), pp15-67, taken from an article of Gottheil. The effect is to make Schmelz appear like a supporter of the mass Arab immigration thesis for Ottoman times. This is quite incorrect. I'll treat the two statements separately.

By way of introduction, Uziel Schmelz was one of Israel's leading demographers until his death ca. 1992. If he believed in mass Arab immigration, we should take him seriously. On the other hand, Fred Gottheil is the economist who provided Joan Peters with the much-criticised population figures she used in From Time Immemorial. The widely-cited paper of Schmelz covers the Hebron and Jerusalem kazas of Palestine, which were fairly large regions including about a quarter of the population of Palestine. As well as Jerusalem and Hebron cities, they covered places like Bethlehem and Ramallah and a large number of villages.

1. "of Arabs residing in areas other than their place of birth—with most migration due to economic factors—roughly half represented previous immigration from outside Palestine itself, with roughly 43 percent originating in other areas of Asia, 39 percent in Africa, and 20 percent in Turkey" (supposedly from page 43 of Schmelz, but actually Gottheil's take on a table on page 42). Gottheil's actual words are: "of those Arab Palestinians born outside their localities of residence, approximately half represented intra-Palestine movement—from areas of low-level economic activity to areas of higher-level activity—while the other half represented Arab immigration into Palestine itself, 43 percent originating in Asia, 39 percent in Africa, and 20 percent in Turkey."[26] Question: what percentage of all Arabs were born outside Palestine? It is impossible to tell, because Gottheil fails to tell us what fraction of the total is "those Arab Palestinians born outside their localities of residence". Fortunately, Schmelz is not so sloppy. Here, from Tables 1.5 and 1.8 of Schmelz, are the figures: For Muslims (total population for these regions 123,500), 93.1% were born in their current locality of residence, 5.2% were born elsewhere in Palestine, and 1.6% were born outside Palestine. For Christians (total population 24,600), 93.4%, 3.0% and 3.6%, respectively. For Jews (total population 13,300), 59.0%, 2.0% and 39.0%, respectively. Only Ottoman citizens are included, which is why the counts of Jews (and also Christians to some extent) are lower than you might expect. Conclusion: Schmelz's figures are not consistent with mass Arab immigration, but Gottheil concealed the information we needed in order to see that. Finally, note that even Gottheil's "half" is out by a factor of 2, and that he assumed that the Muslims from Turkey were Arabs!

2. "The above-average population growth of the Arab villages around the city of Jerusalem, with its Jewish majority, continued until the end of the mandatory period. This must have been due—as elsewhere in Palestine under similar conditions—to in-migrants attracted by economic opportunities, and to the beneficial effects of improved health services in reducing mortality—just as happened in other parts of Palestine around cities with a large Jewish population sector." (an exact quote from p32-33 of Schmelz). But again, there are problems. First how populous were these "Arab villages around the city of Jerusalem"? Schmelz doesn't say, but the total population of the whole subregions that contained them was 13,200 (Table 1.4). Second, what does "in-migrant" mean? Webster-Merriam: in-migrate = "to move into or come to live in a region or community especially as part of a large-scale and continuing movement of population"; Oxford: in-migrant = "One who migrates from one place to another in the same country". These aren't identical, but in any case what it doesn't mean is to come from outside the country (that's what distinguishes "in-migrate" from "immigrate"). So this statement from Schmelz tells us nothing at all about migration into Palestine. He also (in the next sentence) gives an additional explanation for the expansion of these villages, that Gottheil fails to quote: "Besides, some sedentarization of bedouin may have taken place".

In other words, especially in view of point 1, the study of Schmelz contradicts the mass Arab migration theory for the Ottoman period. --Zero^talk 16:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the Webster definition you've quoted is consistent with coming from outside the country, so to claim, as you've done that "what it doesn't mean is to come from outside the country" is simply wrong. But more importantly, even if we were to accept for the sake of argument that this is what it means, the country we're talking about in this time period is the Ottoman empire, which comprised of the territories known today as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon etc... - so a movement from Iraq, Syria, Lebanon etc... into Palestine would be in-migration. In other words, your point #2 is meaningless in this context. Isarig 16:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just like in the main article regarding "Palestine and Transjordan" (which you rudely reverted without another edit summary), you seem to be failing to read things properly. No, the country Schmelz (not we) are talking about is actually not a country, it is the Jerusalem/Hebron axis, including (as stated above) Ramallah, Bethlehem, and surrounding villages. In the data by Schmelz quoted by Zero above in part 1, "Palestine" versus "outside of Palestine" is clearly distinguished. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary would have been to admonish you for pushing your POV, and using personal attacks while doing so. It is equally valid for your latest contibution on this Talk page. I can read perfectly well, thank you very much, and can condescend with the best of them, so I urge you to lay off. Now, to the point you are making: "the Jerusalem/Hebron axis" is not a country. It is a region. When Schmelz talks about in-migration into that region, he is talking about movement into that region (which is actually not "the Jerusalem/Hebron axis", but rather "the Arab villages around the city of Jerusalem") from outside of that region. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that "in-migartion" can only mean movement within a specific country, that does not preclude in-migration from one Wilayat of the Ottoman Empire (e.g. Beirut) to another Wilayat or Sanjak (e.g. Jerusalem) of the same Empire. Isarig 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the moment you started to refer to my own POV in the edit summary - and attack it - was when you became uncivil to me. This is especially true since I have never interacted with you before. What, by the way, is my purported POV in this matter, may I ask? As for in-migrants, and especially after Schmelz does distinguish - in the very same manuscript - between 'in Palestine' and 'outside of Palestine', and also explicitly mentions 'Turkey' as a separate entity, it is very hard to fathom how in-migration would translate into coming from outside the immediate area. It is not impossible, but it would be a very far stretch indeed. In any case, such a quotation, in and of itself without clarification, is not suitable as evidence of mass Arab migration into Palestine. Your speculation of what 'in-migration' may mean, contrary to dictionary definitions, does not count. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a very unique notion of what being uncivil means - you apparently define it as disagreeing with you. You pushed your POV , and I called you on it, and in response you posted a personal attack written in a condesending tone. The POV you were pushing is that the time that the area East of the Jordan river was reffered to as 'Palestine' is insignificant. The speculation as to what 'in-migration' means was introduced into this discussion by Zero, and my usage of it is perfectly consistent with the (first) dictionary provided by him. What would really be very hard to fathom is how economic based in-migration would happen from every region within Palestine, yet for some strange reason would not happen from neighboring regions which are just across the river. Isarig 02:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Look I apologize if you were taken aback, I just get very irritated when mention of 'my POV' appears in edit summaries - it's a pet peeve of mine but let's just let it slide. I actually wasn't pushing a POV, I was 'pulling' the POV that Transjordan was actually called 'Palestine' in the sense that a bedouin living in Karak in 1920 would refer to himself as a Palestinian - he would not. The indigenous people east of the River did not call themselves 'Palestinian' - regardless of what a foreign occupying power called the land. People seem to forget that little important fact. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you're correct but lets face it, in 1920, that guy wouldn't refer to himself as a Jordanian either, he would probably just think of himself as Arabic more than anything else. The only reason why Jordan exists today as a nation is becasue it was administered as one political unit for conveinance more than anything else.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And that's exactly my point, he wouldn't have called himself (or his land) anything that we're trying to pin on him 80 years later... yet some insist on doing so. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't manage to figure out who is arguing about what here, so I'll just say what I think. When Schmelz talks about "in-migrants" to a particular few villages, he is talking about people who moved to those villages but it is hard to say whether he is implying anything about where they came from. The meaning of "in-migration" in demography seems to vary a bit; see [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] for some sample definitions. These sources agree that it includes moving from another part of the same country, but they don't agree on whether it also includes moving from outside the country. The summary statistics that I quoted above for Schmelz's whole sample break the places of birth into 12 explicitly defined categories, so we don't need to know what "in-migration" means in that case. --Zero^talk 08:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Call for immigration figures

Ramallite said above:

But if people want to insist on the POV that Palestine was flooded with Arab immigrants based on shady sources that provide quotations but no numbers (sort of like saying "the Buddhist population of my classroom just doubled in the last year" without mentioning the fact that the doubling was because the number went from one to two buddhists in a class of 2300 people), I think that's a legitimate complaint, isn't it?

I agree 100%. That's exactly the kind of sneaky stuff that an encyclopedia article should not do.

If the sources merely say, "We suspect that hordes of immigrants streamed into Western Palestine because the Jews made it so wonderful to live there" then let's quote that POV and be done with it.

But if there are sources that mention, say, 30 thousand Syrian Arabs migrating into (what is now called) the West Bank between 1937 and 1950 - then a substantial figure like this ousd be quoted (along with any other quotable source which denies it).

Anyway, the article should reflect the opinion of some governments or historians, etc. who endorse or oppose the idea that the Arab population increased in Palestine chiefly because of "natural increase" alone, i.e., birth rate far exceeded the death rate. I'd be interested in any facts and figures about why the death rate dropped. Was it due to improvements in economy, hygiene, or medicine? (Recall that the germ theory of disease was only discovered and popularized a few decades earlier!) --Uncle Ed 18:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The two sources I have provided above (Hope-Simpson and League of Nations Report 1934) are far from shady. The first plainly speaks of illicit Arab immigration, and the same can be clearly deduced from the second- i.e. more than 1600 Arab illegals caught, this being just a fraction of the actual amount since the British could hardly control entry from overland routes, and until the 1936-39 uprisings they didn't care much.

In addition, as I have stated before, in the 9 years between 1922-1931 the Arabs population increased by 28%. If you assume this is all because of birth rate, this figure is unprecedented in the entire world for that time, including countries with very fast population growth such as Egypt and India. For a relative backwater, poor, barren, and lacking in medical facilities (although they improved much under the British) this is nothing short of miraculous. Obviously part of this increase was due to immigration.

I really don't see what other proof is required to include this claim in the article.

-Sangil 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Shit - this land has always been considered the place where miracles occur, who are you to come now and question that? Ramallite ^(talk) 21:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sangil, you've given your reasoning before, about the 2.8% but the idea that the figure is "unprecedented" requires a source. We can't just say some guy calling himself Sangil says so. Dig into it, will you?

Well, whoever you are, had you looked at what I had written before, you would have seen that I did provide a source- the population growth statistics for both Egypt and India, and their growth ratio was 10% and 9% respectivly for the period 1922-1931 (as opposed to 28%). In fact, I challange you to find a country with higher growth, anywhere in the world, for the 1920's. So please read before you write.

-Sangil 01:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Natural growth, of course- without immigration. -Sangil 01:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

British Mandate of Palestine Image

1. The original image had vast innacuracies, such as refering to Arabia as what would later be Saudia Arabia, depicting a future border between Jordan and Saudia Arabia negotiated well after the Mandate had ended, and various other errors discussed by another editor on that image page.

   Which is why I modified your map instead of the older one - and I tried to improve it with the Dead Sea, the missing land below Acre, and the missing Lake Houla. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

2. The section is titled "... (1920-1948)". Transjordan was not seperated from Palestine until 1922. Even still, the entire Mandate was reffered to as the "Mandate of Palestine". —Aiden 18:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The territory of Transjordan was still called that before it was separated (and by the way, except for a few beduin it was mostly an empty desert). You are correct in that the entire region was called "The British Mandate of Palestine" which consisted of the territories of Palestine and Transjordan. These are all represented in my modification. Don't you think? You place the words 'Great Britain' over the map of the UK, but you don't write it in small letters inside Wales. Wales is a part of Britain, and Palestine and Transjordan were the two units of the British Mandate of Palestine - even though Transjordan quickly was given autonomy. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to upload your modification. —Aiden 18:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? It's there - it just got reverted, see map in the most recent 'Ramallite' version. I hope you will agree that it's more neutral (and the map is a bit more accurate). Ramallite ^(talk) 19:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this? Does it relate to the extent of the area called "Palestine" and how this has expanded and shrunk over the centuries? --Uncle Ed 19:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The relevance is that the current map, where the words PALESTINE in big letters encompassing the entire Mandate area, is inaccurate and misleading. The entire entity was called 'The British Mandate of Palestine' in much the same way that the entire island is called 'The United Kingdom'. You may place 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' over Northern Ireland, but you cannot place the name 'Wales' over a map of Northern Ireland. You may place 'British Mandate of Palestine' over the map of transjordan, but cannot just put 'Palestine' there. It makes no sense. One is the name of a mandate, the other is a specific territory which happens to share the same name as the mandate. This is ridiculous. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy is misleading. Wales and NI are distinct, mutually exclusive territories. "Palestine" and "Transjordan" are not. I am ok with your changes to the map, since it does not delineate where, exactly, the territory of "Palestine" ends, and wher 'Transjordan" begins. Isarig 20:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BritishMandate_Palestine1920.jpg. I implemented your changes and attempted to compromise on the title. —Aiden 20:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Aiden - I must be missing something because I don't see a difference between this and the one you did yesterday - what about mine? Here it is. Let me know. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This area was not called "Palestine" and this article is not about the British Mandate of Palestine. I have corrected some of the dates and claims in the text and have included a map from a published source. I don't have time to correct the whole text today. --Ian Pitchford 21:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This section is about Palestine at the time of the British Mandate of Palestine. And at that time, that area was called Palestine. Isarig 21:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys arguing over whether the entire British Mandate should be called "Palestine"? I used to think so, and I used to think that Jordan was an "independent Palestinian state" and that therefore all the arguments that "Palestinians" deserve such a state can be countered with "go live in Jordan".

But let's try to stay on topic here. The extent of territory that ANYONE ever called "Palestine" is relevant to the Palestine and History of Palestine articles.

Okay, maybe also Definitions of Palestine and Palestinians. Once we straighten this out we might be able to do some merging. Who's with me on this? --Uncle Ed 23:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Ramallite's map is fine. Hey wait a minute- I'm Israeli and he's Palestinian, and we agree! Does this count as a miracle? -Sangil 01:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised why you are surprised - do you have grandparents who are still alive? I think one thing they and my grandparents can agree on is how everything in Palestine was relatively harmonious between Arab and Jew before the British came and messed everything up with this divide and conquer thing - kind of the same thing that is happening now in Iraq with this Sunni / Shiite charade. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of the word "Palestine" in European usage prior to the British Mandate is described at the start of the section "The 19th and 20th centuries" based on a paper by the Israeli geographer Biger (who seems to be a darling of the right-wing these days from what I see in the press) devoted entirely to that subject. --Zero^talk 04:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Peel Commission (1937) and Survey of Palestine (1946)

I bring you quotations from two important Mandate period reports regarding Arab immigration. --Zero^talk 08:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the conclusion paragraph from Chapter X, Section 2, part (b), "Arab Illegal Immigration" from the report of the Peel Royal Commission (1937).

The dimensions of the volume of illegal immigration from neighbouring territories are not known. There is evidence that many of these illegal immigrants have land in the neighbouring territories and leave their wives and families in those territories while seeking to augment their livelihood by labour in Palestine. There is evidence also that this form of illegal immigration is seasonal. It is probable that seasonal immigration leaves a residue in Palestine of people who have decided to settle permanently in the country. There is no evidence available to show that this residue is so considerable as seriously to disturb the general economy of Palestine. (Peel report, p292) --Zero^talk 08:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are the main parts of subsection "Arab Illegal Immigration" of Chapter VII of the Anglo-American Survey of Palestine (1946).

Arab illegal immigration is mainly of the types described in the first paragraph of this memorandum as casual, temporary and seasonal. It is illegal in the sense that the entry and the mode of entry do not conform with the provisions of the Immigration Ordinance and it is therefore not susceptible of statistical record. On the other hand, it is not illegal in the sense that the immigrants settle permanently in Palestine.
...
That some movement of this kind may lead to a residue of illegal permanent settlers is possible, but, if the residue were of significant size, it would be reflected in systematic disturbances of the rates of Arab vital occurrences. No such systematic disturbances are observed. It is sometimes alleged that the high rate of Arab natural increase is due to a large concealed immigration from the neighbouring countries. This is an erroneous inference. Researches reveal that the high rate of fertility of the Moslem Arab woman has remained unchanged for half a century. The low rate of Arab natural increase before 1914 was caused by (a) the removal in significant numbers of men in the early nubile years for military service in other parts of the Ottoman Empire, many of whom never returned and others of whom returned in the late years of life; and (b) the lack of effective control of endemic and epidemic diseases that in those years led to high mortality rates.
[Then paragraphs on the Transjordanian and Syrian borders.]
The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purposes of permanent settlement is insignificant. (Survey of Palestine, pp210-212) --Zero^talk 08:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In another place, the Survey gives the following estimates:

out of a total number of 360,822 immigrants who entered Palestine between 1920 and 1942, only 27,981 or 7.8% were Arabs. (Survey of Palestine, p795) --Zero^talk 08:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I commend you for bringing sources. Now let's up the ante a bit and actually bring sources that are relevant to your claim. The three documents you brought are certainly not.

• The Hope-Simpson report- Yes we all know the Jews preferred to employ Jews. But even if the economic situation of the Arabs got worse (a rather dubious claim), it's not relevant. what is relevant is the economic situation compared to the neighboring countries. What you are saying is that if the US is in recession, Mexicans would stop immigrating to it- a rather unfounded statement, to say the least.

I didn't infer anything from that paragraph of the report, it is you who is making inferences. --Zero^talk 11:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• The Peel commission report- There is no evidence available to show that this residue is so considerable as seriously to disturb the general economy of Palestine- there is obviously also no evidence to the contrary- and so the Peel commission members just assume what is convenient for them (and you). And in any case it doesn't even say the "residue" is not considerable- merely that it doesn't "seriously to disturb the general economy"- which is not relevant here at all.

You can see that two other statements from this report that I quoted above which imply that the residue was small. --Zero^talk 11:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• The Anglo-American report- this document is from 1946, and as stated below, this was at the height of British antagonism to the Jews, and so any claims in this paper can hardly be considered neutral, even more so since there is no mention as to who authered these 'researches', when they are from, how accurate they are, etc. Interestingly this paper actually contradicts McCarthy, since it states in a table in chapter IV that the Arab natural growth during the 1920's was 28.27 until 1928, and 26.19 in 1928-1931 (in one of the quotes you have brought above, McCarthy admits the British "seriously undercounted women and children").It is obvious that in no way can the British be relied upon for accurate information. It is also obvious the British had created the myth of magical Arab natural growth in the 1920's, and were now simply relying on their own myth, as often happens.

McCarthy does not agree with the British analysis of their statistics, that's true. So what? He agrees that immigration was a small component. (Interesting how you finally got around to insinuations of British anti-semitism; it's a good sign that you are getting desperate.) --Zero^talk 11:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. British anti-Semitism — whoever heard of such a thing? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• out of a total number of 360,822 immigrants who entered Palestine between 1920 and 1942, only 27,981 or 7.8% were Arabs- Oh so irrelevant. Since my claim is that the Arab immigration was mainly illegal, and that the British had no way of stopping it, tracing it, or otherwise knowing its magnitude (and they didn't try very hard either)- this quote is meaningless. And still in 1934 the number of Arab illegal immigrants caught was more than twice as much as the Jews!

Again, you are making things up. How do you know that the deported persons were would-be immigrants? Why couldn't they have been the seasonal laborers which multiple reports stated made up the bulk of the illegal entrants? --Zero^talk 11:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, assuming you have at least a fleeting knowledge of the history of this area, you should know that from the 1930's onwards the British were becoming increasingly pro-Arab, so it is no surprise they choose to marginalize the effects, or even existence, of Arab immigration. The existence of such an immigration would destroy the basis for their effort to stop Jewish immigration- which was their goal out of a political desire to appease the Arabs. And because of their pro-Arab leaning, finding evidence to support my claim in their documents (such as the quote from Hope-Simpson) has that much more weight.

That's only your opinion. Where is your support from scholarly sources? --Zero^talk 11:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

-Sangil 13:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

UNSCOP report

Here is the summary from the report of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (the committee which recommended the partition of Palestine in 1947).--Zero^talk 11:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics, a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health.

"The 1935 British report to the League of Nations noted that:"

One thousand five hundred and fifty-seven persons (including 565 Jews) who, having made their way into the country surreptitiously, were later detected, were sentenced to imprisonment for their offence and recommended for deportation.

This one instance of those who were apprehended for illegal immigration (even at a time of heightened resentment to Jewish immigration) shows roughly 36% as Jews, while roughly 64% are presumably Arab. This does not include the vast number who may have entered the mandate illegally and where not apphrended. —Aiden 17:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not say that they were arrested for illegal immigration, only for illegal entry or other breaches of the immigration laws. If you want to continue this original research, I suggest you next look at the Peel Royal Commission which only two years later heard evidence from experts on all sides on exactly this same data and concluded that most of the illicit entry was seasonal (people came to work in the agricultural off-season and went home afterwards) and that only a small residue of permanent settlement resulted. --Zero^talk 03:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources format

Please start using the new reference method. Putting sources in brackets at the end of the sentence doesn't cut it. —Aiden 17:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Schmelz

The current "Smoking Gun" article by Gottheil, which is being used as a source to argue that Schmelz's opinion was that there was 'mass Arab immigration' to Palestine, is unverifiable in my view. This paragraph, which is quoted in the article:

The above-average population growth of the Arab villages around the city of Jerusalem, with its Jewish majority, continued until the end of the mandatory period. This must have been due—as elsewhere in Palestine under similar conditions—to in-migrants attracted by economic opportunities, and to the beneficial effects of improved health services in reducing mortality—just as happened in other parts of Palestine around cities with a large Jewish population sector.

...has apparently been used numerous times in many propaganda (i.e. non-scholarly) articles that argue the same thing, and always quoting Gar G. Gilbar, ed., Ottoman Palestine: 1800-1914 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), pp. 32-3. There is absolutely no reference to what the paragraphs immediately above and below this statement consist of, plus, propagandists are obviously relying on the fact that the aformentioned book is out of print and thus hard to explore. Zero, regardless of what others think of him, has provided evidence here - from the same book - that clearly disputes that Schmelz held the idea that there was mass immigration of non-Palestinian Arabs into Palestine. The insistence on keeping an unverifiable paragraph, but reverting an explicit breakdown of numbers by the very same demographer, is not just POV pushing, it is acting in bad faith.

Oh - I regard the Gottheil piece (and the others like it) as unverifiable not because I question the existence of the above paragraph, which I don't, but because there is strong evidence that it is being maliciously used out-of-context given what else Schmelz clearly stated. And for those who may start accusing me of pushing my own POV, it is irrelevant, because I am completely and utterly apathetic to the fact that there was immigration to Palestine - it's a beautiful country in an economically strategic spot by the sea, why wouldn't people want to come? And their coming and going was irrelevant to the Nakba of '48, because that was a 'Nakba' only for the original natives of Palestine, not for any immigrants who could and did return from whence they came. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I immediately regretted my edit summary of "Trying to incorporate dichotomies..." - That out-of-context paragraph, in and of itself, has nothing inconsistent at all with the data Zero provides from the very same source. I hope the current version, which incorporates both, is acceptable. Maybe it's because I'm a scientist, but at the risk of being accused of providing my own spin, I'd be happy to explain why the two are perfectly congruent if anybody is interested (although it should be crystal clear to any careful reader). Ramallite ^(talk) 18:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the numerous sources which suggest that in-migration to urban centres during the period in question was due to dispossession of the peasantry elsewhere in Palestine as a result of the establishment of Jewish agricultural settlements on land which had previously been farmed by Arab peasants. A facet of the situation which is passed over in silence here. Quotes to follow, obviously. Palmiro | Talk 21:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the numerous sources which suggest that in-migration to urban centres during the period in question was due to dispossession of the peasantry elsewhere in Palestine as a result of the establishment of Jewish agricultural settlements on land which had previously been farmed by Arab peasants. A facet of the situation which is passed over in silence here. Quotes to follow, obviously. Palmiro | Talk 21:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the stupid mistake due to viewing a cached diff. I have fixed some problems in the current version: the detailed discussion here shows that 1. Schmeltz's quotes do not constitute support for the thesis of massive immigration; 2. the material on in-migration to Jerusalem deals with internal migration, not immigration (or at any rate, it is not clear that it deals to any extent with the latter), and is therefore of no relevance; 3. Gottheil is an outlier in terms of scholarly opinion. Most importantly, as has been clearly demonstrated above and not contested by anyone, academic opinion is pretty clear in rejecting the idea that there was massive Arab immigration. Therefore, it would be quite dishonest to present it as a major debate and in a way which privileges the extreme minority view. Palmiro | Talk 22:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

as has been clearly demonstrated above and not contested by anyone,... I am contesting this. I am currently compiling the various sources, academic and otherwise, that support my claim. DO NOT unilaterelly change the article. if you wish, you can add a "citation needed" or "needs verification" or whatever label until I present my sources. I have plenty to say about this issue, however I do have a life to live outside Wikipedia and I can't be expected to instantly respond to everything (Passover vacation is over..).

Moreover, it is quite pretentious to present a source as "outlier" just because he doesn't agree with your POV. There are enough sources that support the existence of Arab immigration, not to mention the contradictions within your own sources (e.g. McCarthy vs. British documents) so that you do not blow this off as "outlier".

-Sangil 22:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Contest it first, with evidence, then propose a change to the article. Until your unsupported assertion, nobody had contested it. Meanwhile, opinions from respected academics - Khalidi and Porath are two of the most respected working in the field of Palestinian history in this period - indicate that this theory simply isn't taken seriously in the academic sphere. Easter vacation is still under way here, so I probably won't be around too much either... Palmiro | Talk 22:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Khalidi and Porath are two of the most respected working in the field.. of course, but they are not the only ones working in the field. I think I have already brought enough sources that support my claim (I think I am second place after Zero in sheer volume...:P ) to show that it is taken seriously whether or not Porath supports it. So don't just blow it off. It's un-academic and rather insulting.

-Sangil 22:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What's significant is not just that Khalidi and Porath take the view that there was no massive Arab immigration, but that they both refer to the idea as being a political myth rather than a matter of academic debate. One imagines that they have good reason for saying so. Secondly, while you've come up with a lot of figures, what Zero has done is produce academic experts in the field who give an interpretation of those figures in line with what he is saying; you have really mainly been making speculations and extrapolations on the basis of those figures in order to argue the case for massive immigration, but however eloquent your arguments may be, you need suitable scholarly sources for your conclusions. Palmiro | Talk 23:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. I have given plenty of other references apart from the population statistics (which by the way are supported by British documents- such as [32]). - the Hope-Simpson report for one. Zero on the other hand has provided lots of academic sources, but has intermingled his own opinions so often it's hard to tell the difference (SlimVirgin had pointed out one occurence, me another). Not to mention that Zero's numerous sources are at odds with each other. This is hardly as clear-cut as you portray it.

-Sangil 23:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The Schmelz quote discussing 'in-migration" refers to the Ottoman period. At that time, there was no administrative or political entity called 'Palestine'. 'In-migartion' in the Ottoman empire could include someone moving from a Hebron-area village to the City of Jerusalem, or equally someone moveing from Beirut to Acre. Further, if we agree that according to Scmelz there was significant in-migration due to economic conditions, it would be quite a phenomena if this in-migartion would be limited to geographic areas which today belong to a different political entity, but at the time were indistinguishable from other geographies. There is no reason to believe that Hebronite villagers would move to Jerusalem to take advantage of the economic situation there, but that equidistant trans-Jordanian villagers would not. Isarig 16:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Zero has provided us (temporarily) with the actual scans of Schmelz's book. He is talking about in-migration within this area. His table clearly distinguishes between migration within the two Kazas, migration within Palestine itself, and then immigration from outside Palestine. It's pretty clear. Ramallite ^(talk) 16:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, if we agree that according to Scmelz there was significant in-migration due to economic conditions, it would be quite a phenomena if this in-migration would be limited to geographic areas which today belong to a different political entity, but at the time were indistinguishable from other geographies. There is no reason to believe that Hebronite villagers would move to Jerusalem to take advantage of the economic situation there, but that equidistant trans-Jordanian villagers would not. And in fact, if we look at the table table we see that of those residents living ouside the locality they were born in, more than half came from outside of Palestine, while slightly less than half came from within Palestine. So, if the "in-migration" is significant, clearly using the same source the immigartion is even more significant. Isarig 17:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The table does not show what you claim except for Jerusalem city (first column), but the villages which the quotation refers to lie in the category covered by the third column where the fraction born outside Palestine was 7% of 6.1%, that is about 4 persons in each 1000 persons. The paper does not give statistics for these specific villages. --Zero^talk 10:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

More expert opinion

Editorial: Population Index, Vol. 4, No. 1. (Jan., 1938), pp. 2-3 (this was a demography newsletter published by Princeton University and the Population Association of America).--Zero^talk 04:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

the Jewish population has grown chiefly from migration, the Moslem, from natural increase. Indeed, from 1922 to 1938, migratory increase among the Moslems was less than 4 per cent, whereas among the Jews it was about 280 per cent.

J.P. Loftus, Features of the demography of Palestine, Population Studies, Vol 2, 1948, pp92-114. (This paper is a good illustration of how complex and difficult demographic calculations are.) --Zero^talk 04:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In October 1944, after consultation with the military authorities, it was decided that the demand for unskilled labour was no longer acute and that Palestine's local man-power was adequate to meet both civil and military requirements. The period of emergency had passed and the time had arrived to put the law into force and to deport to their countries of origin the Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian and other foreign labourers found to be illegally in Palestine. These illegal immigrants fell into two classes: (a) Those employed directly by the War Department and the Royal Air Force. [About 4400, of whom 2400 were repatriated and 2000 retained "for the time being"], (b) Those working for contractors engaged on military or R.A.F. construction or in other civil employment. When these foreign workers are discovered by the police they are repatriated. No precise figures of their number are available but a recent police estimate [totalled 9687]. [Later Loftus considers over many pages a claim that there was a large unrecorded immigration of Moslem females and concludes:] Nor is there any evidence of considerable illegal immigration of Moslem females of marriageable age.

Any mention of the many sudaneese that were broght by the British as slaves ? There are today many bedouins who are called members of the "Al-Ubied" caln (Ubied =slave in Arabic) they have VERY dark skin and look afaricans and claim to be sudaneese. They clearly are still here in Israel/palestine - any mention of them ? Zeq 05:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Britain outlawed the slave trade in the first half of the nineteenth century, if memory serves, makes me somewhat doubtful as to whether you have got this quite straight! Palmiro | Talk 14:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

immigration into Palestine

Most arabs who came to work in Palestine settle near Jewish vilages . They did not came to live in Jerusalem and Hebron - so those figure are not a good indication of the immigration. Zeq 05:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Source? 1- Many state just the opposite, that Jews preferred that Arabs stay away, and 2- How many Arabs where there around Jewish villages anyway? And how many of those were born abroad? How many of the Jews were born abroad? Ramallite ^(talk) 05:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, this area, according to the source, comprised around 25% of the total population of Palestine, which statistically is a rather good sampling pool. Furthermore, Jerusalem was a majority Jewish city, which would (by your assertion above) make it a prime place for those immigrants you are talking about. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The statistics are for Jerusalem and Hebron kazas, not just the cities. Most of the population was in villages. --Zero^talk 13:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A sample has to be representative. Many jews settle in the Izrael valley, they had Arabs workers who lived around the area where agriculture was grown. in the 1930s roughly 30,000-60,000 workers came from Syria. Many of them came to buld the new port. Here ius some good sources about it: http://www.acpr.org.il/cloakrm/clk98.html Zeq 13:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Good source? Are you joking? This is just a non-scholarly opinion sheet regurgitating the same old BS. It even states that it is relying on discredited sources (The aforementioned data are contained in the book The Claim Of Dispossession (Arieh Avneri, 1982) and in From Time Immemorial (Joan Peters, Harper, 1984). ). Please do not refer to non-scholarly propaganda sources as 'good'. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Same old discussion about sources. A syrian news paper from 1934 is good enough source for me and for Wikipedia.

They say:

""30,000-36,000 Syrian migrants (Huranis) entered Palestine during the last few months alone" (La Syrie daily, August 12, 1934). Syrian rulers have always considered the area as a southern province of Greater Syria. "

Zeq 17:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And according to the Peel Commission report there were only 2,500 of them left in 1937 (pp. 291-292). --Ian Pitchford 18:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The 36,000 claim was raised in a Mandates Commission meeting, one of the other delegates dismissed it as grossly exaggerated, and that was the last anyone heard of it until Joan Peters resurrected it. There were some Haurani illegal immigration of course. The Survey of Palestine (1946) decided: "the 'boom' conditions in Palestine in the years 1934-1936 led to an inward movement into Palestine particularly from Syria. The depression due to the state of public disorder during 1936-1939 led to the return of these people and also to a substantial outward movement of Palestinian Arabs who thought it prudent to live for a time in the Lebanon and in Syria." (p211)

• At least we have established that there was large population movment.... Zeq 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Academic sources are fairly clear that one effect of Jewish settlement, from the time of the second aliyah on and the implementation of Jewish labour policies in the agricultural sector, was the movement of dispossessed Palestinian peasants to the cities. A further effect noted in at least one academic study is the "devastating effect" of Jewish industry on Palestinian artisanal production in the textile sector inter alia. Palmiro | Talk 15:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral source

http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm - see their conclusions.

more sources: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Summaries/V82I1P31-1.htm

Zeq 06:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sense of proportion?

The thesis of mass Arab immigration into Ottoman and Mandate Palestine is one which, as has been shown above, is dismissed by the majority of scholars working in the field as not only having been shown to be unjustified but as a myth. Not only is the academic consensus that there was no such phenomenon, but its existence is not, in general, even a subject of serious debate or controversy in academic circles. Since there are all sorts of issues in the several thousand years of history dealt with here that the article does not deal with or summarises in a line or two, it seems completely out of proportion that a "myth", as Yehoshuah Porath puts it, would be the single largest topic of discussion in the article. The question needs to be considered in proportion to the rest of the article, and in proportion to its status as a thory which is not generally speaking a matter of serious academic debate. An in-depth treatment of it does not belong on this page; it might possibly belong on British Mandate of Palestine, but really considering the length it has already achieved, would probably be better served on a separate article. Palmiro | Talk 15:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

We need Demographics of Palestine, which can over the period up to 1948. --Zero^talk 09:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an historical demographer (though am an historian) specializing in this area of the world, but I must say I'm finding a lot of the discussion above to be often barely intelligible — which is not a good sign, since I do know a thing or two about Palestine and one would think that the average reader would be less, not more, familliar with the subject than myself. What proponents of massive migration(s) need to better establish involves less explanations of the how and [the much less sourced] why, but rather, illustrating the status of the premise in scholarship, within whichever pertinent intellectual currents. So, less on the idea itself, for now — more on who writes what about it. El_C 21:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it. And by the way, the fact that the 'proponents' of the idea that there was no Arab immigartion refer to the sources (of which there are enough) of the opposing side as "non-scholarly opinion sheet regurgitating the same old BS" or "non-scholarly propaganda sources" in no way makes them so. All it does is light these 'proponents' in a rather unfavourable and slightly hysterical POV-ish light.

-Sangil 22:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sangil is talking about me, folks! Except that I'm not a proponent of the idea that there was 'no Arab immigration', I am a proponent of the idea that those who are desperately trying to prove there was 'massive' or 'significant' immigration (as if there is something wrong with that), and doing so to push some age-old political POV, have a little too much time on their hands. Chag Sameach! Ramallite ^(talk) 22:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, If people who are 'working on it' still want to do so, keep in mind that one needs to show 'net immigration', i.e. how many came in, and how many moved out. Showing proof of how many came in while ignoring how many moved out destroys the entire argument. However, if it were me, I'd be doing something much more useful with my time. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. Migration out of the region is frequently ignored in these discussions even though it was frequently as great or greater than inward migration. There was even a year (1927) when Jewish emigration exceeded immigration. For Arab recorded immigration this was quite common, which is one reason that many writers give for doubting that there was a strong pressure for Arabs to illegally migrate inwards. --Zero^talk 09:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is important, but can we find reliable records documenting emigration for every year?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Every person whose entry or departure was known to the authorities was recorded, and a statistical summary for each year was published. The book by McCarthy reprints many of them. As for "reliable", I don't remember reading anyone claiming that the emigration figures were unreliable (more than official statistics always are). Incidentally, the annual reports 1922-1938 that can be found on domino.un.org are incomplete; the versions on paper also have appendices with tables including immigration/emigration data. --Zero^talk 10:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean relaible as in misleading or purposely not true or somthing, I meant can we expect them to give real indication of the actual number of emigrants? One would kinda expect it to be difficult to keep track of these sorts of things during the chaos of 1936-1940 especially when the people doing the recording really didn't have that big of a presence in the region.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you say they didn't have much of a presence. The army and police force were greatly expanded at that time. People who were legitimately leaving the country had no reason to avoid the border controls and good reason to register (so they didn't keep getting tax bills, for example). Other people like armed gangs obviously didn't register when they moved across the border in either direction. I don't know what sort of estimates exist and how accurate they are believed to be. --Zero^talk 12:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I was under the imopression that the British never had as much of a presense in Palestine and Jordan as they did in other parts of their empire, because it was just their mandate and they couldn't extract the same kind of wealth or really treat it as a colony.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Zero hit the nail on the head

"known to the authorities was recorded" - exactly. These are the leagl ones but we all know tha migrant workers are not recorded. They came fro work either from Syria (which was considered Palestine to be part of Syria in pre-british time so no "migrtaion records" exist or they were ilegal. Bottom line it is impossible to detrmine how many came.

What we can do is look at pople who are there today, many of them know were they came from: Syria, Egypt, Sudan etc... Zeq 10:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that would qualify as speculation so I don't know how admissible it really is.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think quite a few editors above from both sides are acting increasingly disrespectful towards each other and I think most uninvolved people are kinda put off by reading such rude comments.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

Time to time

To User:Isarig, do not assume I failed to "take the time" reading the article, and do take the time in looking at the passage more closely (i.e. according to whom is not clear, even though there's a ref at the end, refs go at the end of paragraphs, anyway – easily remedied, though). But beyond that, I suggest for you to cease inserting it until you are able to demonstrate the significant migration thesis you are promoting as per the guidelines I set out above. Let's see a worked formulation on the article space; please limit what is still being worked on to the talk page. El_C 05:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not promoting a significant migration thesis , Schmelz is. His quote (which gets repeatedly removed by those with a POV to push, who prefer to add their POV interpretation of his work instead of citing his actual words) calls the in-migration significant. To support his thesis, Scmeltz provides a table outlining in-migration and immigartion into the relevant areas. The immigration in that table is larger in scale than the in-migration. It follows that if Schmeltz believes the in-migration is significant, so is the immigration. I have no probelm with including his entire findings, which clearly shows that the majority of Muslim residents were neither immigrants nor in-migrants - but I won't tolerate someone removing a relevant, sourced comment by an acknowledged expert on the topic just because it clashes with their POV.

That dosen't respond to where that position stands elsewhere in the scholarship and unless you take the time in qualifying it (in any way whatsoever), especially if it is a minority position, then you will continue to see it being removed. Also, that whole part of the article relies far too heavily on quotes, and a quote that lenghty should be indented, as the ones bellow it are. I did, then, miss it being a quote (my error) simply because I expected a quoted passage of that length to stand out as the ones bellow it are. Even if you are able to give us some (any) context into the significant migration thesis beyond merely quoting Schmelz (& that table), you will need to write more of that section yourself rather than rely on quotes to such an extent. Reinserting it over & over will not prove productive. El_C 21:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

J'Accuse- The Case for the Existence of Arab Immigration

There have been many claims that I personally, as well as other 'proponents' of the existence of Arab Immigration into Palestine, do not bring any sources to back our claims. Although I have no intention nor pretence of equaling Zero's vast knowledge and acquaintance with scholarly sources, and I myself have only limited time and resources available, I will present here a number of sources I came across. I believe I have brought here enough sources to prove that this idea is not some far-fetched pro-Israeli fanatical fantasy with no serious support, as some portray it, but rather that this controversy has two valid sides to it, and that both should be presented fairly. (Wheow what a long sentence..)

Note- since I do not reside inside the Library of Congress, some of the sources here are not cited directly, but rather by that method so abhorred by Zero- third-party citing. Since this is not the article itself, I believe this method is acceptable here.

My argument is composed of two parts. First-

Sources denying the existence of Mass Arab immigration into Palestine are problematic

They can be generally be divided into two groups:

• Those that accept the British and Ottoman population figures, and
• Those that claim these figures are not accurate.

The Arab rate of population growth, as derived from British census information, is 2.8% yearly (and this not my OR, it is mentioned in British documents, such as the table in chapter IV of the 1946 Anglo-American report). The sources that accept these figures, claim that the causes of the remarkably high rate are exclusively the Arab high birth rate and low death rate. This is problematic, because

1. they couldn't know the scale of illegal immigration into Palestine, as this was unknown even to the British themselves. For example-
   Evasion of the frontier control.—Another serious feature of immigration is the number of persons who evade the frontier con-trol and enter Palestine without formality of any kind. It is exceedingly difficult to maintain any effective control of the various frontiers of Palestine. At the present time such control as exists is carried out at police posts on the roads. The immigrant who wishes to evade the control naturally leaves the road before reaching the frontier and takes to the footpaths over the Hills. (Hope Simpson Commission)
2. they give no explanation whatsoever as to why this rate should be so much higher than in neighboring Arab countries, and specifically those ruled by the British and therefore enjoying similar conditions such as medical facilities, etc.

The second group, of which McCarthy is a notable member, is even more problematic. The reason is that since they do not accept the accuracy of much of the conventional statistics, they are left with very little information. Since McCarthy has been cited so often in this Talk page, we will use him as an example. McCarthy chose to limit himself almost exclusively to the figures provided by Bachi, which he considers the "only scholarly analysis of the Arab immigration". However, as noted in an article by Fred M. Gottheil, McCarthy's use of Bachi's data is much less scholarly (this example is a bit long, but for us veterans of Palestine Talk page it should be a cinch)-

(Taken from Gottheil's article in the 'The Middle East Forum' website: [33])

Consider first McCarthy's analysis of Arab immigration during the Ottoman period. That he finds no illegal immigration of consequence is not surprising because McCarthy uses official Ottoman registration lists that, by the nature of its classifications, take no account of the unreported, illegal immigration. That is to say, if you look in a haystack for a needle that wasn't put there, the probability is high you won't find it. It is strange that that idea had not occurred to McCarthy. Choosing to focus on the official registration lists allows him to write:

From the analysis of rates of increase of the Muslim population of the three Palestinian sanjaks [Ottoman sub-provinces], one can say with certainty that Muslim immigration after 1870 was small.[34]

Reflecting elsewhere on the possibility that the immigration may have occurred over an extended period of time, McCarthy writes:

To postulate such an immigration … stretches the limits of credulity.[35]

McCarthy's treatment of the linkage between economic disparities and migration impulses appears to be even more disingenuous. He writes:

The question of the relative economic development of Palestine in Ottoman times is not a matter to be discussed here.[36]

Nor is it considered anywhere else in his book. That is to say, McCarthy does not contest the linkage so much as ignore its relevance to the Palestinian situation.[37]

Here we see again why Gottheil should not be taken seriously, since these are serious misrepresentations of McCarthy's book. He does not restrict himself to the Ottoman population lists. He clearly says "no Ottoman records of that immigration have yet been discovered", which is a much stronger statement especially from someone regarded as one of the top experts on the Ottoman archives. Gottheil also fails to mention that McCarthy explains why the existing data argues against a large immigration, not because it doesn't mention immigration but because immigration would have perturbed the data in a recognisable fashion. Finally, Gottheil attacks McCarthy for not straying outside his area of expertise (demography) into another area (economics), which is pretty rich for an economist like Gottheil trying to do demography. --Zero^talk 01:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

He does restrict himself to the lists. Your quote merely gives the reason for why he does this (i.e. there were no other records of the immigration). This does not excuse him for completely ignoring the possibility of such an immigration occuring - this is still "if I can't see it it's not there" thinking. What he should have done, like many others, including Bachi, did, is to admit he can't know whether there was large scale illegal Arab immigration. Instead he prefers to claim with no basis that it never happened.

-Sangil 13:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be just quoting Gottheil repeatedly. McCarthy's section on sources includes mention of several apart from population lists, such as the annual yearbooks published by each provincial government describing the affairs of the province for that year. His point that a large scale immigration would have been mentioned in such places is a good point and Gottheil's wishful thinking doesn't alter it. McCarthy also cites the study of Schmelz that provides direct evidence of the lack of large scale immigration, and other specialist studies. --Zero^talk 02:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Gottheil attacks McCarthy for not straying outside his area of expertise (demography).. - if McCarthy has no expertise in Economics, that's too bad, but then he shouldn't make conclusive claims regarding an issue in which economics play a vital part. What he could have done is claim, like Gottheil or Bachi, that he doesn't have enough information. Instead he merely ignored what he didn't like, or didn't understand, and went ahead anyway in making unequivocal conclusive statements.

-Sangil 15:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

His dismissal of Arab immigration into Palestine during the mandate period is based on a set of assumptions concerning illegal immigration that is both restrictive and unsubstantiated. He contends that even if the illegal immigrants were unreported on entry, their deaths in Palestine would have been registered. So too, he argues, would their children born in Palestine. Deriving estimates based on such registrations, he arrives at this conclusion: immigration was minimal.[38] But he provides no evidence to show that these supposed registrations of births and deaths were actually made. Had McCarthy considered the fact that detection of illegal immigration during the mandate period resulted in imprisonment and deportation and that immigrants, aware of this, may have avoided any formal registration of deaths and births, he would have had to revise his assessment of illegal immigration.

Perhaps the more serious charge against McCarthy's analysis of Arab immigration is his use of Roberto Bachi's estimates. McCarthy's numbers are based, in part, on Bachi's reporting of 900 illegal Arab immigrants per year over the period 1931-45.[39] But McCarthy misrepresents what Bachi's estimate is meant to show. Bachi is careful to identify his 900-per-year illegal Arab immigration estimate as only those discovered by the mandatory authorities. Illegal Arab immigration that went undetected and unreported is not included. He writes:

A detailed analysis presented in Appendix 6.5B on the basis of the registration of part of the illegal migratory traffic, discovered by the Palestine police, shows that legal movements (as reflected in Tables 9.4-9.7) constituted only a small fraction of total Muslim immigration.[40]

To emphasize this point, Bachi writes:

It is hardly credible that illegal movements which were actually discovered included all the illegal entrances which actually occurred, or even the majority of them.[41]

As a result, Bachi can only conclude that

in the present state of knowledge, we have been unable to even guess the size of total immigration.[42]

Such a cautionary comment finds no place in McCarthy's analysis or conclusions. Using Bachi's estimates inappropriately, deriving estimates based solely on registration lists, and ignoring completely the linkages between regional economic disparities and migratory impulses, McCarthy confidently concludes,

the vast majority of the Palestinians resident in 1947 were the sons and daughters who were living in Palestine before modern Jewish immigration began. There is no reason to believe that they were not the sons and daughters of Arabs who had been in Palestine for many centuries.[43]

[32] For a sub-district by sub-district count of population and for the methodology used to separate subdivisions that became 1948 Israel and those that did not, see Fred M. Gottheil, "Arab Immigration into Pre-State Israel: 1922-1931," Middle Eastern Studies, 9 (1973): 315-24. The analysis here is a summary version of this article.

[33] Justin McCarthy, The Population of Palestine (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), pp. 16-7, 33-4.

[34] Ibid., p. 16. Emphasis added.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid.

[37] The closest McCarthy gets to a linkage discussion is his insistence that the increase in Muslim population had little or nothing to do with Jewish immigration. His findings contradict those of Ruth Kark, Charles Issawi, Roberto Bachi, U.O. Schmelz, Fred M. Gottheil, and Moshe Braver, among others. McCarthy chooses not to address their evidence and competing findings although he refers liberally to both Schmelz's and Bachi's research on other demographic issues.

Gottheil is misrepresenting McCarthy again. He doesn't just "insist" on this, but gives an argument supported by facts and figures. The one revelant paper of Ruth Kark that I have handy says more or less the same thing as McCarthy, proving that Gottheil is deceiving us about her too. --Zero^talk 02:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Gottheil is misrepresenting McCarthy again- just as McCarthy is misrepresenting Bachi? Odd you make no mention of this in your responses, since Bachi was the major source for McCarthy's work, thus making this mis-representation much more severe, unlike the case with Kark and Gottheil.

-Sangil 13:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You ignored my point and seem to be just quoting Gottheil again. Did you look at Bachi's book and compare it to McCarthy's? Why do you trust everything Gottheil says, when the propagandistic nature of his article has been well established?

[38] McCarthy, Population of Palestine, p. 33.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Bachi, Population of Israel, p. 133. Emphasis added.

[41] Ibid., p. 389.

[42] Ibid., p. 390. Emphasis added.

[43] McCarthy, Population of Palestine, p. 34. Emphasis added.

Here is another proof that Gottheil is a propagandist: "A footnote accompanying the census's population time series acknowledges the presence in Palestine of illegal Arab immigration. But because it could not be recorded, no estimate of its numbers was included in the census count.[31] Ignoring illegal migrants does not mean they don't exist." His original paper that he says this one is a summary of is even clearer: "no analysis was made of such a residual [gap between the 1931 counts and the projections from the 1922 counts]". So what is the section called "Comparison of the census statistics with the annual records of migration" on pages 61-65 of volume I of the census report that analyses this residual and uses it to estimate illegal immigration? What excuse could Gottheil have for such a blatant deception? --Zero^talk 01:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Puh-lease. If Gotthiel is a "propagandist" for failing to take this into account, then so is McCarthy for twisting Bachi's data so that it fits the point he is trying to make. And again, since McCarthy relies on Bachi's as a major source in his analysis, this "propaganda" is much more blatant.

-Sangil 13:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that you have no answer, and I'll note again that your defence of Gottheil consists of quoting claims from Gottheil. --Zero^talk 02:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

…And the Second-

Presenting sources supporting the claim of considerable Arab immigration

British sources:

" The Chief Immigration Officer has brought to notice that illicit immigration through Syria and across the northern frontier of Palestine is material."

Hope Simpson Commission

"One thousand five hundred and fifty-seven persons (including 565 Jews) who, having made their way into the country surreptitiously, were later detected, were sentenced to imprisonment for their offence and recommended for deportation"

Report to the Council of the League of Nations 1953

Probably you meant 1935. This is already answered; there is no reason to assume these were immigrants rather than seasonal laborers, and the Peel commission two years later decided they were mostly seasonal laborers. --Zero^talk 01:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There was also no reason to assume they weren't, which is exactly the point here- you can't know. And where in the Peel Commission report is this claim made?

-Sangil 15:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I already quoted it, look for "dimensions". Also on the same page, as Ian noted, is the estimate that 2,500 Hauranis remained illegally in the country at that point. --Zero^talk 02:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary sources:

• Census data for Palestine is available only for the years 1922 and 1931.... Since 1931, population estimates were derived by applying natural rates of growth and registered immigration to the 1931 numbers. Because these population estimates make no attempt to measure unrecorded immigration, the reliability of these numbers is considerably less than those of the census years.

Fred M. Gottheil, "Arab Immigration into Pre-State Israel: 1922-1931" in Curtis et al. eds., The Palestinians, p. 31.
Admittedly Gottheil does not unequivocally support the existence of such an immigration in this statement. Rather he says that basically "it's not possible to know"- as opposed to the confidence of such sources as McCarthy and Porath.

If it's not possible to know, why does he support the mass immigration theory? The older paper of Gottheil that you mention (did you look at it?) is even more strident on this than the newer paper. But anyway, this is just Gottheil saying that it isn't possible for him to know. Why should it be, he's not a demographer or even a historian. He also should be treated as a suspicious source due to his close involvement in the Joan Peters saga. His active suppression of Schmelz's real findings clearly indicates his lack of reliability. --Zero^talk 01:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote below the quote that he does not unequivocally support the existence of such an immigration in this statement, so why are you asking this exactly? And why is Joan Peters relevant? I made no mention of her book anywhere, and yet you continue to insert her name into this argument. The fact the she used Gottheil's figures, analysis, or whatever does not make him "suspicious" in any way - it's not his fault that the book is not of high academic quality. I also don't see where he "supresses" Schmelz's real finding- this may be your opinion, but as of now you have not based it on anything.

-Sangil 15:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• In the testimony given before the Palestine Royal Commission by the Jewish Agency's Eliahu Epstein and Moshe Shertok, and on the very pages from which she elsewhere quotes effectively and extensively, there is a lengthy discussion of the immigrants who came from the Hauran in 1934. Epstein complained to the Commission about this Haurani influx; his estimate was that 20,000-25,000 had entered, of whom 6,000 to 8,000 had settled in Palestine. Epstein had done genuine research on the issue, visiting 30 villages in the Hauran to determine how many migrants had been seasonal and how many had left permanently. (He published some of his findings in the Journal of the Royal Asian Society in 1935.)

Erich and Rael Jean Isaac, "Whose Palestine?" p. 34.

Why are you ignoring the evidence (posted here more than once) that the bulk of the Hauranis left Palestine after a few years? And why should we accept evidence given to the Royal Commission by one interested party when the Commission itself came to another conclusion? --Zero^talk 01:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Why are you ignoring the evidence (posted here more than once) that the bulk of the Hauranis left Palestine after a few years - I most certainly am not. I think 12,000 - 19,000 qualifies as the bulk, and this is clearly stated in the quote.
2. And why should we accept evidence given to the Royal Commission by one interested party - because as noted by the commission itself (did you read this at all?) - "Epstein had done genuine research on the issue, visiting 30 villages in the Hauran to determine how many migrants had been seasonal and how many had left permanently."

-Sangil 15:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Taking into account the various rates of net natural population increase as they were reported

By Government of Palestine statisticians, we arrive for 1945 at an unaccounted for addition, since 1920, of 126,000 persons for the Arab sector. Apart from mistakes and inaccuracies in the official vital statistics, which probably cancel out, the increase can be due only to immigration.
The Economic Consequences of Zionism, Rafael N Rosenzweig, p70

What is Rosenzweig comparing the British statistics to? The statement of faith "which probably cancel out" suggests he did no actual analysis, so who is he quoting? --Zero^talk 01:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

he is comparing the projection of Arab population as computed from the rates of natural growth reported by the British in the 20's and 30's, with the actual population in 1945. It is YOUR opinion that "probably cancels out" is a statement of faith.

-Sangil 15:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• In 1932-35 Arab immigration took a sharp upswing from the average share of 8.5, reaching about 16 percent of Arab population growth. These were years of remarkable economic expansion in both the Jewish and the Arab communities (see chapter 1), which may have generated a strong pull factor for Arab in-migration.

The divided economy of Mandatory Palestine, Jacob Metzer, p32

I'll help you to present Metzer's case a little more accurately, since it seems to be a serious book. "This number (8.5 percent...) may thus be interpretted as a net upper estimate of Arab migration, but even this does not alter the picture of a community whose growth was driven primarily by natural increase." (p31). Then he has a footnote in which he calls Gottheil's estimate "exaggerated". He also mentions Joan Peters and says "as Porath (1986) and McCarthy (1990) have unequivocally demonstrated, her numbers do not stand up to any scientific scrutiny" (p32). This book repeatedly refers favorably to McCarthy's work, as do all scholarly works on the subject (including those authors who disagree with him on some of the details). --Zero^talk 01:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again you bring Peters into this. It seems you are so anxious to argue about her that you failed to notice I did not mention her anywhere. the reason I have presented this quote is to show that even a source that does not support Arab immigration admits this very immigration had reached levels of 16%, and more importantly, that "economic expansion" generates a "strong pull factor for Arab in-migration". Apart from 1932-35, there were many other periods of economic expansion in Palestine (such as 1923-1929), so clearly (since Metzer does not claim this was unnatural or unique behaviour) there were also other periods of "sharp upswing" in the Arab immigration.

-Sangil 15:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You are avoiding the issue. Metzer's "upper estimate" is for the whole period of the mandate including all the upswings and downswings, yet you quoted him just on one upswing without telling us that it was unrepresentative. Why was that? --Zero^talk 02:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• The years 1932 to 1936 were marked by unprecedented economic prosperity. In addition to the increased Jewish immigration there was a considerable influx of illegal Arab immigrants from the neighboring countries

The Claim of Dispossesion, Arieh L Avneri, p32

And how many left in the following few years? --Zero^talk 01:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't pretend that you know. The whole point is that no-one knows, so no-one can claim this immigration wasn't a factor in the "miraculous" Arab population growth without entering the realm of speculation.

-Sangil 15:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• The above-average population growth of the Arab villages around the city of Jerusalem, with its Jewish majority, continued until the end of the mandatory period. This must have been due—as elsewhere in Palestine under similar conditions—to in-migrants attracted by economic opportunities, and to the beneficial effects of improved health services in reducing mortality—just as happened in other parts of Palestine around cities with a large Jewish population sector."

Schmelz, U. O. (1990) Population Characteristics of Jerusalem and Hebron Regions According to Ottoman Census of 1905, in Gar G. Gilbar, (ed.), Ottoman Palestine: 1800-1914 (Leiden: Brill), pp15-67, taken from an article of Gottheil
In one of Schmelz's tables provided by Ramallite [34], it can be seen that in Jerusalem (an example of a city with a large Jewish population), roughly 8% (40% of 20%) of the Arab population originates from Asia and Africa (excluding Turkey and Palestine - it is not clear whether Tranjordan is included in this definition). If this rate was similiar in other Jewish populated areas, such as the coastal plains and Izrael valley, than the Arab immigration in no way can be considered "negligible".

Transjordan is included in "Asia". Anyway the table says "Muslims" not "Arabs" which is significant in the case of Jerusalem city (Kurds, Persians, Indians, Balkans, etc). Everyone knows that Jerusalem was an exceptional draw card for people from all over. Your last sentence is your private speculation. The data for 25% of all of the population of Palestine is given by the table in total, and that is the best data available. Also, if you are attempting to connect Shmelz's data for Jerusalem to his statement about in-migration to Arab villages near Jerusalem you are very wrong. Schmelz makes it very clear that the villages he refers to are not included in the Jerusalem city counts and he does not make the connection you want to make. --Zero^talk 01:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for enlightening me as to the location of Tranjordan. The question is, however, whether Transjordan was considered a part of Palestine in this study, since in ottoman times no clear distinction was made between palestine and transjordan.

Like I said, it is in the Asia category. --Zero^talk 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Everyone knows that Jerusalem was an exceptional draw card- Ah, the sweet smell of personal opinion. Actually I am not sure at all that during Ottoman rule Jerusalem was such an international attraction.

It's amazing that you don't know this. Better do some reading. --Zero^talk 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Your last sentence is your private speculation - of course it is, which is why I preceded it with an italicized if. The distinction between sourced material and personal opinion is one that is apparently much harder for you to make.
• attempting to connect Shmelz's data for Jerusalem to his statement about in-migration to Arab villages near Jerusalem - I have made no such atempt, and actually I am quite at quite a loss as to how you reached this conclusion. Actually it is Schmeltz himself who makes this connection-

The above-average population growth of the Arab villages around the city of Jerusalem, with its Jewish majority, continued until the end of the mandatory period. This must have been due—as elsewhere in Palestine under similar conditions—to in-migrants attracted by economic opportunities, and to the beneficial effects of improved health services in reducing mortality—just as happened in other parts of Palestine around cities with a large Jewish population sector

-Sangil 15:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Final word- I think it is by now clear to everyone that there was a considerable (to some degree or other) immigration of Arabs into Palestine. The problem is that (1) no one is sure just how many entered (both legally and illegally), and - (2) no one is sure how many actually stayed and settled, as opposed to returning to their place of origin. I think this issue should be presented in a way that makes this clear. And those of you who think that I will accept statements like "Gotthiel and Avneri are not serious academic sources" just because you say it's so, are very optimistic indeed.

-Sangil 23:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody says there was no Arab immigration. Every scholarly source says it existed but was a small component of the total increase. The 8.5% figure given by Metzer is about as high as serious estimates go for the Mandate period. Why is this of importance to anyone other than a few specialists? Can you tell us why you think this subject is important? --Zero^talk 01:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Every scholarly source - obviously a false claim given the sources I have presented above.
• Can you tell us why you think this subject is important? - Of course. It is important to show that unlike what you claim, it is not at all an established fact that there was no significant arab immigration to Palestine, but rather this is the subject of an ongoing debate. This is also the way the subject should be presented in the article.

-Sangil 15:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a debate between the specialists in the field and a small group of outsiders with clear political motivation. As for my question, you didn't answer it. Why it is important to know whether there was large-scale Arab immigration? --Zero^talk 02:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be surprised there isn't a more focused historiographic debate, and by extension, overview for this issue. The above, for the most part, tends toward the indirect and scattered. I'm glancing through Sydney Fisher's The Middle East: A History, and he writes that:

• "Arab influx and natural growth were high, but did not keep pace with the Jews ... The Arab high birth rate accounted for natural growth of about 20,000 a year. The Jews, with 6,000 births a year, had to find 14,000 immigrants annually to keep pace in their desperate population race"

• "Zionists pledged that Arab tenant farmers would not be driven from lands purchased by by their Jewish National Fund, but this guarantee proved impossible to fulfill. Some of the very best lands in Palestine were purchased at inflated prices from absentee landlords living in Damascus and Beirut. Arab peasents were very adversely affected by poor harvests and falling prices for their products in the 1930s."

• "... the tax structure of the administration bore heavily upon the peasents who worked these ['these' being, at this point: "Arab lands." "Hill-country that could not be farmed by mechanized equipment"] lands, and their poverty was sharply depicted against the higher Jewish standard of living."

• "Yet unemployment figures were low, and many regulations against hiring Arabs were ignored. For example, in 1935 only 28 percent of the labour on Jewish orange plantations were Jewish. Wages for Arab worksmen were higher in Palestine than in neighbouring states [although: "obvious wage disparity and discrimination in favour of Jewish workers incited bitter feelings"], but the higher cost of living held any increase in real wages to a minimum." [i.e. an incentive to move into the BMP due to the promise of higher wages would to some extent be offset by disincentive to stay due to negligible increase in real wages – many of these (largely citrus) workers would have been seasonal, anyway]

But again, what I wish know how Schmelz' focus (and lack thereof elsewhere) is approached by others scholars. Surely there's some vague scholarly consensus which isolates the unknown factors, and extrapolates something, if only to the extent of how much emphasis they place on one cause versus (an)other(s). That aside, the section is problematic for other reasons: 1. it relies far too heavily on quotes (a section should not consist of over 50% quotes). 2. it covers the Arab population much more so than the Jewish one. 3. So that once someone would attempt to account for Jewish demographic, that section would become too lengthy (as Zero suggested, perhaps a Demographic subarticle is the solution. 3. The precise differences in what should be covered here versus the British Mandate of Palestine (versus subarticle/s) should perhaps be (re?)visited. The emphasis should be placed on overall trends and total figures, with exceptions such as Jerusalem accounted for accordingly (this is where Schmelz' "as elsewhere in Palestine under similar conditions" can be viewed as problematic, who agrees with him, who does not? – also, as mentioned, we need to be clear on what he includes as being part of it). El_C 02:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The myth that the Jews displaced the Arabs from productive lands is dispelled in the Peel Commission report, which Zero is so fond of quoting:

The shortage of land is due less to purchase by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought.

As for focused historiographic debate- that is exactly what I am trying to accomplish. Apparently some others are trying to stifle any mention of 'debate' regarding this issue.

-Sangil 15:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fisher says "some of the best land" (see the subesection "the Peel Report," pp. 442-3, for his overview of the Peel report). This dosen't negate the extent to which unproductive land (dunes, swamps) turned productive (for intensive mechanized agriculture). El_C 05:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

First it is necessary to distinguish between the Ottoman and Mandate periods. The study of Schmelz is limited to the Ottoman period. The sentence being quoted is one sentence in a larger paper that otherwise does not return to the subject. Schmelz does not quantify his statement; more importantly he does not attempt in this case to distinguish between internal migration within Palestine and immigration from farther afield. Moreover, he does give a second explanation: sedentarisation of Bedouin (in the next sentence). It is clear from the overall figures he gives that both internal and external migration were a minor phenomenon if all regions are counted together. It is unsafe to attribute to him a more definite opinion on this subject without more information. --Zero^talk 08:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue of whether Arab population grew especially as a result of Jewish enterprise is of course a standard debating point. For the Ottoman period, McCarthy has this to say:

A number of authors have maintained that Muslims migrated to Jewish areas because of better economic conditions, etc. (Footnote: See the citations in Peters, From Time Immemorial, chapters 11 to 13, especially the articles by Moshe Aumann, L. Shimony, Fred Gottheil, and Moshe Braver.) The answer is to be found in the economic history of the Eastern Mediterranean in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Some areas of Palestine did experience greater population growth than others, but the explanation for this is simple. Radical economic change was occurring all over the Mediterranean Basin at the time. Improved transportation, greater mercantile activity, and greater industry had increased the chances for employment in cities, especially coastal cities. At the same time, a population increase, fueled by the same improved security that had contributed to a better economy, had caused the presence of "spare manpower," which could go to the cities for work. Differential population increase was occurring all over the Eastern Mediterranean, not just in Palestine.
  The increase in Muslim population had little or nothing to do with Jewish immigration. In fact, the province that experienced the greatest Jewish population growth (by .035 annually), Jerusalem Sanjak, was the province with the lowest rate of growth of Muslim population (.009). The province that experienced the highest Muslim growth, Acre Sanjak (by .020), showed no effect of the supposed drawing power of Jewish immigration. The kaza of Acre, which had little Jewish immigration, had almost the same rate of increase of the Muslim population as did the kaza of Haifa, which was the center of Jewish immigration (.017 per year for Acre as opposed to .018 per year for Haifa, seen by comparing the figures in Census I and in the 1330 Nufus). The major Jewish centers of the kazas of Tiberias and Safad actually experienced lower rates of Muslim population growth than the kaza of Nazareth, which had almost no Jews. (McCarthy, pp16-17) --Zero^talk 08:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Similary, Ruth Kark (who Gottheil claims as an ally for some reason) writes in "The rise and decline of coastal towns in Palestine" (in the same volume as Schmelz's paper); my emphasis:

It is apparent that the presence of a high proportion of the non-Muslim population (Christian, Jewish and foreign) was not a necessary condition for the development of the coastal towns. Gaza, for example, which was overwhelmingly Muslim, developed despite the paucity of its non-Muslim population; the same is true of Jaffa, in which two-thirds of the population was Muslim. At the same time there was a very high proportion of non-Muslims in Haifa. (Kark p74) --Zero^talk 08:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No Idea who Kark is but she lacks basic understanding in Geography and History. The coastal plain south of Haifa was a swap until the jews (zionist) dried it up. This is the area around Tantura (who later became famous). The area north of Jaffa was sand dunes. Arabs NEVER settle in sand dunes (even today in gaza the whole Gush Katif area was build on un-inhabited sand dune area). Zeq 09:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you ask, Professor Ruth Kark of the Department of Geography, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is one of Israel's best known historical geographers, specialising in the Ottoman era. When you write to President Magidor to complain about her ignorance, be sure to copy his reply to us. --Zero^talk 13:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted comments

Sorry about that

-Sangil 21:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sangil, please restore the comments you accidentally deleted (I'd do it myself but I'm pressed for time), then you may delete this notice. Thanks. El_C 19:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going overseas in a couple of hours and may not be able to edit for a week or two. In the meanwhile, I stand by everything I wrote above ;-). --Zero^talk 02:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Zero- I will postpone replying to your comments until you return- it's no fun playing alone...:P

-Sangil 19:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

Why is nearly every bit of this article concerned solely with demographics? What about administrative styles, forms of government, economic activity, culture, trade, etc.? It seems to me that a lot of people want nothing to be said except for "Jews immigrated here..." "More Jews..." "Oh, there's some more immigrant Jews..." "Here be Jews..." That's not all this article should be about. There is a rich history in Palestine that is not as much concerned with this. —Aiden 06:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Except that is what's lacking; the section disproportionatly discusses/quotes Arab migration and neglects to cover its Jewish counterpart. El_C 12:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As I remember Aidan you were the one who greatly expanded this material by adding the contested quotations from Schmelz et al: [35]. --Ian Pitchford 12:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the quotes constituting a much lesser portion of text. Now once the Jewish migration is also added, we will have a very lengthy section, just the overemphasis he wanrs against (except Jewish migration actually covered!). A self-fulfiling prophesy? El_C 12:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the issue of Arab immigration is 'controversial', you should either leave all the quotes, or remove all of them, putting instead a phrase like "some [scholars] believe that a significant immigration of Arabs occured, while others dispute this claim". As for the Jewish immigration, I see no problem with mentioning this also (beware however of POV and unproven statments like "the Jews displaced the Arabs" etc.).

I agree this article is missing much material other than history and demographics, although I think some of the missing aspects referred to by Aiden (e.g. form of Government) should be (if not already) mentioned in British Mandate of Palestine.

-Sangil 14:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian, I only responded to the addition of one-sided material by other editors. That said, and I haven't checked the history, whoever organized the Demographics section did a good job and I think it is near-NPOV. Nice work. —Aiden 19:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Harmony in Palestine

Sangil and Ramallite were discussing harmony before the British came. I reckon that the whole pre-Mandate region was fairly harmonious until (1) Jews got the idea they could grab a hunk of it for the State of Israel and (2) Arabs and Nazis decided this was a Very Bad Idea.

Strangely enough, I like Arabs of all stripes; East European and Palestinian Jews; and most Germans (Jewish or otherwise). I'm kind of a culture hound that way. 1001 Nights, Fiddler on the Roof, Havah Nagila, Beethoven und Bach. No accounting for taste, I guess!

Now can we try to describe the people of the region and how they got there without any more fighting, please? --Uncle Ed 21:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

fairly harmonious? I reckon this little corner of the world has known more conflict, suffering, and bloodshed than any other its size (and not its size)- for over 3000 years mind you!

Actually a little harmony would be very welcome...

-Sangil 00:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The British actually encouraged Jewish immigration to Palestine from the moment they opened the first consulate in Jerusalem in 1839 - way before Zionism. Anyhow, the region hasn't done so badly compared to Europe, that's where all the real troublemakers hang out :-) --Ian Pitchford 12:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would reply something regarding your comment on British encouragement of immigration, but I really don't want to spoil this "harmonious groove" that's developing here...so let's all just lay back, inhale the Narghile and be one with the universe..(as for Europeans- they gave us Classical Music and Alpine Skiing- how dare you complain!)

-Sangil 21:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment. Best wishes, --Ian Pitchford 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually 1001 nights is originally Persian, not Arab. But my colleagues at the Palestinian Society for Coconut Engraving (a private institute subsidized in part by the Ministry of National Procrastination and also by the Government of the Philippines) are working on an Arabic translation of "If I Were a Rich Man" to perform later this year in Bnei Brak. But since they are counting on not getting Israeli permits to cross the wall, they are not taking rehearsals seriously, and are actually arguing on how to translate the 'daba daba deeba dum' part of the song into Arabic. What I was talking about is merely listening to stories from my grandparents, how continued to have Jewish Israeli friends throughout their lives based on what they said was the harmonious relationships between Arab and Jew prior to foreign intervention. I do not know how successful Zionism would have been had it not been for British intervention (both initial support and later obstruction, which only enhanced the zeal of the Zionists). But something my Israeli friends (those who I can only meet abroad now, unfortunately) and I have in common is the similar stories of peaceful coexistence before the European concept of 'Nationalism' came to our shores, which is what caused all hell to break loose on the only spot on earth where at least two prophets are thought to have ascended to heaven. Go figure. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources for the immigration dispute

Lots of people came to Palestine (or the greater region thereabouts, e.g., eastern shores of the Jordan River. As Ian just said, Jewish immigration was encouraged (by the British). I just want to know if Arab immigration was also encouraged, facilated, allowed, winked at, etc.

• 'some [scholars] believe that a significant immigration of Arabs occured, while others dispute this claim'

Can we name a few of these scholars, please?

Three scholars are named and quoted in the article itself. Many more (for both views) can be found above in the Talk page.

-Sangil 16:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sangil, please add these references to the article. --Uncle Ed 17:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This may be off topic, but...since you guys now accept Israel as the modern day version of Palestine, perhaps my case for adding the following table [36] could now be reconsidered. I also had other useful info, such as growth rate, literacy, etc.Bless sins 03:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

since you guys now accept Israel as the modern day version of Palestine - when did this happen??

-Sangil 00:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to get into a language battle again. The point is that in the Palestine article, modern day demographics of the state of Israel and occupied territories have been included. WHy not put into a table form??Bless sins 04:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the focus is on pre-Israel demographics. i really don't see the point of including modern-day demographic data in an article about an entity which does not presently exist.

-Sangil 22:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sangil, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. Have a look at this. HTe modern day demographics are there already. Wouldn't it be better to put them in a table?Bless sins 22:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

They were recently inserted by Horses in the Sky. They're clearly not relevant, this article is discussing the period up until 1948. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should make an article that treats Palestine as a country

since the West Bank and Gaza Strip are considered as beng the actual country of Palestine. In addition, Palestine was a country and not a region. Robin Hood 1212 13:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A. Open your history book, there was never an independent country in this region named "Palestine". B. "Considered" (by who? Internet trools?) is not good enough, when there'll be a country named Palestine it may be optional. Psychomel@di_(s)cussion 14:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What was the name of the country that the Jews originally immigrated to and settled in before it was named Israel? Thanks! --TimeDog 23:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Arab and Muslim POV

The Muslim and arab point of view is missing from this article. It refers to Egyptian references but fails to mention that at time of Abraham arrival from Ur it was already populated by its native people. 04:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The user Humus sapiens writes Partially RV OR/POV: maybe Siddiqui's other additions are fixable, but this one is totally wrong. There are other quotes from Bible that don't need fixing but my quote needs it. All quotes from Bible should be allowed or none. The anti-Semitism and holocaust occurred in Europe committed by Europeans against the European Jews. Palestinian did not play any part in it but were punished by taking away their land. The European colonial powers gave the land to the Jews without the consent of its native population and opposition from other Arab and Muslim nations, most of them were under colonial rule. That is the view of 1 billion Muslim and Arab people.

Siddiqui 06:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I left the Bible text: I will let others decide whter it belongs here or not. Your paragraph on the UN partition is false. The Arab leaders didn't even want to participate in negotiations and rejected every poartition plan from 1937 and on. PLease review WP:NOR and WP:V. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There are other quotes from the Bible that should also be removed from this article if my quote is removed.

They rejected partition plan because according to their view The anti-Semitism and holocaust occurred in Europe committed by Europeans against the European Jews. The Arabs and Palestinian did not play any part in it. So talking about partitioning their land to compensate the European Jews is not negotiable. Essentially, they said it is European problem and should be solved in Europe.

Siddiqui 07:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the corresponding references and stop adding unsubstantiated POV/OR. The Arab leaders refused to participate in negotiations and rejected every poartition plan from 1937 and on. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes they did !! But you are intentionaly don't seem to pay attention to the explanation of why did they do that ? They said The anti-Semitism and holocaust occurred in Europe committed by Europeans against the European Jews. The Arabs and Palestinian did not play any part in it. So talking about partitioning their land to compensate the European Jews is not negotiable. Essentially, they said it is European problem and should be solved in Europe. You are avoiding this explanation and just reverting my additions.

Siddiqui 08:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Who exactly "They said"?

In 1922, the League of Nations established the British Mandate of Palestine in order to "secure the establishment of the Jewish national home". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also having trouble following Sid's reasoning, it seems more like his personal take on the matter instead of any kind of organized viewpoint.- User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 08:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqi, you must read WP:NOR and WP:V and conform with those policies. Otherwise your edits have no hope of staying, because they violate Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

End of British Mandate

I Added a paragraph describing the causes for the withdrawal of the British and the end of the Mandate. I tried to keep it short, but I thought it was necessary because to me it seemed odd the article just "jumps" from the mandate to the UN resolution, without explaining why the British decided to leave (and they had a great many reasons to want to stay).

As always, comments are welcome.

-Sangil 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

יפה, as we say in Jalazon. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Parlez-vous l'Hebreu?

...and thanks :)

-Sangil 20:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

de temps en temps! Ramallite ^(talk) 03:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Demographics during the Ottoman period

RE: Demographics during the Ottoman period

<<In 1900, Palestine (according to Ottoman statistics) had a population of about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs.[17]>>

It should be noted that in 1900 "Palestine" was comprised of TransJordan AND what is today Israel, the above line is very misleading, because other statistics point out that in 1892 there were only 295,000 people living in Palestine (referring to Israel and the territories, not Jordan)

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Arab-Israeli_Conflict_1_Pre-State_Palestine.asp

Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh. Your source is an excerpt from a book entitled "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict," by Mitchell Bard. If I were you, I wouldn't rely on books aimed at complete idiots, because that's what they would take the reader for. I'd read books aimed at clever intellectual persons, since they may tend to be more accurate. In any case, that the majority were recent arrivals is a well known canard (and if you think about it, absolutely irrelevant to people living in the 21st century). The Wikipedia article uses demographers as sources, but this Mitchell Bard fellow (a right-wing propagandist) does not, as far as I see, provide any sources for his figures. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying the title of the book dismisses the research? Maybe you're not familiar, but in the US the "Complete idiot's guides to..." are pretty popular and widely available for a wide variety of sometimes difficult to understand topics (such as Physics, Computers, History, etc.) None-the-less, I can see that this article is definitely pro-Jew and possibly cherry-picked facts from the book, but perhaps the anon is correct that the source cited in the article is referring to both Palestine and Transjordan as "Palestine"? I'm not sure. —Aiden 13:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wonder if there are any books for partial idiots. If the books are only for complete idiots, what about partial idiots (as many would categorize me as)? I feel left out :) It's like when people say "Oh no, I completely forgot"... is the word "completely" necessary in that sentence? Those are the kind of thoughts that prevent me from having a vibrant social life. Anyway, I don't know that the area east of the Jordan was ever referred to as Palestine except for the brief period that the British applied the label 'British Mandate of Palestine' (which is actually the name of the political apparatus and not the territory per se) to it for 1-2 years before the official Transjordan took hold. So demographers (like McCarthy) who cite numbers about 'Palestine' in 1900 as taken from Ottoman records do not necessarily find an Ottoman document that refers to 'Palestine', but refer to the Vilayaat which correspond to present day Palestine. In the early part of the century, the territory actually looked like this. The word 'Palestine', in regards to actual territory, has never included what is today Jordan. Ramallite ^(talk) 14:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This is completely not relevant, but just for common knowledge, during the Byzantine period there existed Palestina Secunda and Palestina Tertia, both of which included terrotory located in today's Jordan. So you see, there are actually three Palestines- enough for everyone! So there is nothing to fight about.. :P

-Sangil 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Palestine

The whole article is written from Zionist point of view. The whole article is hijacked and any addition of Muslim and Arab view is consistingly removed. My addition from Bibles were deleted so were view view of Palestinian and Muslim nations on eve of UN partition plan. This is clear example censorship by Zionist Wikipedians. Siddiqui 03:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I edited away the reference to United Monarchy which according to the Bible existed in Palestine, as according to modern historiography it never existed. Also, I edited away other Bible-based refernces, as this is not a Jewish Encyclopaedia, to the best of my understanding. Israel Shamir

Well if you look at this article Land of Israel almost the whole thing is based on the Bible's mention of the "Promised Land". I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it just saying if the Bible can be used to talk about Israel it can be used to talk about Palestine. :-) Yas121

There's no reason to remove the material when it is clearly attributed to the Bible. Let the reader decide whether or not to believe. We report what X says about Y, nothing more. —Aiden 20:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)