How Big is Your State?
We repeatedly hear about the population density and paucity of land in the West Bank and Gaza. I decided to take a look at the statistics and see what the situation is really like.
The population of Gaza is around 1,100,000 living on 365 square kilometers of land. That is, indeed, crowded at about 2,980 per square kilometer, although not as crowded as, say, Hong Kong with more than double that density.
The West Bank is far less densely populated. Today there are about 1.9 million people living on 5,640 square kilometers, with a population density of 333 people per square kilometer. Now, let’s assume that the Palestinians would have accepted the Camp David and Taba proposals (without any adjectives, such as “generous” or “stingy”). That would include roughly 97% of the net land of the West Bank (5,626 square kilometers) and 100% of Gaza, for a total of 5,991 square kilometers, for the total population of 3,019,637 Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza. A very liberal estimate of the refugees, assuming they all wanted to come back to the new Palestinian state, is about 3,500,000. The total is, therefore, about 6.5 million. I’m not including the 1.2 million Israeli Arabs, because all surveys and polls indicate that, while they feel part of the Palestinian nation, on the whole they show no inclination to participate in a Palestinian state. At any rate, this yields a population density of 1,084 people per square kilometer. (By way of comparison, Los Angeles County has a population density of 960 people per square kilometer. And LA is a pretty comfortable place to live, density-wise.)
“But,” our antizionist friends are saying, “How much of the land is arable?” Well, I maintain that that is a moot point. In fact, it is the crux of the problem.
For 57 years the dream of the Palestinian refugee has been to return to his house, and land with its bustan and grape arbor, and to, again, till the soil with his trusty turiyya. Considering that, despite the purported “genocide” of the Zionists, the Palestinians have one of the highest population growth rates in the world (around 3.5%), there probably isn’t enough arable land to support all 7.7 million Palestinians (including the 1.2 Israeli Arabs) for very long based on their “traditional” subsistence farming. Most Palestinians today are urban, and that is probably the way they will have to remain in the future to support themselves economically.
By way of comparison, I decided to look at the Republic of Ireland. Ireland has always interested me, particularly because of its economic explosion of the past decade. Today, for example, many of the common laborers are brought over from the UK! Ireland has a population density of 58 people per square kilometer. Around 20% of that land is arable. That’s much more favorable than all Palestinians on all of Mandatory Palestine. Despite this fact, Ireland, as an agrarian economy was a basket case a few short decades ago. Large families and primogeniture resulted in extreme poverty, and horrible urban slums (but a thriving clergy). If you’ve ever visited Limerick, it’s not too hard to imagine what it was like! The turnaround came in the late 70s and early 80s when the Irish abandoned their reliance on farming and began as offshore production plants for multinational companies. They invested in education and developed a generation of IT professionals. (They also removed the ban on selling condoms!) Today, Ireland has a vibrant economy. The population growth rate is steady at about 1%, and they are ranked number 8 in GDP per capita (the UK is 23 and Israel 43).
Let’s look at another country: Syria. Syria’s population density is a meager 95 people per square kilometer. Fully 26% of their 184,000 square kilometers of land is arable, so they can grow a lot of olives. Syria is the poorest country in the region - poorer than Jordan and Egypt – and ranked 144 in world GDP per capita.
There are a lot of people who get upset at people who drive gas-guzzlers and people who waste water and other resources. Land is also a scarce resource. Why encourage people to waste it? I think that in the twenty-first century we can’t really afford to preserve “quaint” traditional societies that are based on outmoded tribal ideals, particularly those that bundle honor and power together with economic considerations such as land holdings.
We repeatedly hear about the population density and paucity of land in the West Bank and Gaza. I decided to take a look at the statistics and see what the situation is really like.
The population of Gaza is around 1,100,000 living on 365 square kilometers of land. That is, indeed, crowded at about 2,980 per square kilometer, although not as crowded as, say, Hong Kong with more than double that density.
The West Bank is far less densely populated. Today there are about 1.9 million people living on 5,640 square kilometers, with a population density of 333 people per square kilometer. Now, let’s assume that the Palestinians would have accepted the Camp David and Taba proposals (without any adjectives, such as “generous” or “stingy”). That would include roughly 97% of the net land of the West Bank (5,626 square kilometers) and 100% of Gaza, for a total of 5,991 square kilometers, for the total population of 3,019,637 Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza. A very liberal estimate of the refugees, assuming they all wanted to come back to the new Palestinian state, is about 3,500,000. The total is, therefore, about 6.5 million. I’m not including the 1.2 million Israeli Arabs, because all surveys and polls indicate that, while they feel part of the Palestinian nation, on the whole they show no inclination to participate in a Palestinian state. At any rate, this yields a population density of 1,084 people per square kilometer. (By way of comparison, Los Angeles County has a population density of 960 people per square kilometer. And LA is a pretty comfortable place to live, density-wise.)
“But,” our antizionist friends are saying, “How much of the land is arable?” Well, I maintain that that is a moot point. In fact, it is the crux of the problem.
For 57 years the dream of the Palestinian refugee has been to return to his house, and land with its bustan and grape arbor, and to, again, till the soil with his trusty turiyya. Considering that, despite the purported “genocide” of the Zionists, the Palestinians have one of the highest population growth rates in the world (around 3.5%), there probably isn’t enough arable land to support all 7.7 million Palestinians (including the 1.2 Israeli Arabs) for very long based on their “traditional” subsistence farming. Most Palestinians today are urban, and that is probably the way they will have to remain in the future to support themselves economically.
By way of comparison, I decided to look at the Republic of Ireland. Ireland has always interested me, particularly because of its economic explosion of the past decade. Today, for example, many of the common laborers are brought over from the UK! Ireland has a population density of 58 people per square kilometer. Around 20% of that land is arable. That’s much more favorable than all Palestinians on all of Mandatory Palestine. Despite this fact, Ireland, as an agrarian economy was a basket case a few short decades ago. Large families and primogeniture resulted in extreme poverty, and horrible urban slums (but a thriving clergy). If you’ve ever visited Limerick, it’s not too hard to imagine what it was like! The turnaround came in the late 70s and early 80s when the Irish abandoned their reliance on farming and began as offshore production plants for multinational companies. They invested in education and developed a generation of IT professionals. (They also removed the ban on selling condoms!) Today, Ireland has a vibrant economy. The population growth rate is steady at about 1%, and they are ranked number 8 in GDP per capita (the UK is 23 and Israel 43).
Let’s look at another country: Syria. Syria’s population density is a meager 95 people per square kilometer. Fully 26% of their 184,000 square kilometers of land is arable, so they can grow a lot of olives. Syria is the poorest country in the region - poorer than Jordan and Egypt – and ranked 144 in world GDP per capita.
There are a lot of people who get upset at people who drive gas-guzzlers and people who waste water and other resources. Land is also a scarce resource. Why encourage people to waste it? I think that in the twenty-first century we can’t really afford to preserve “quaint” traditional societies that are based on outmoded tribal ideals, particularly those that bundle honor and power together with economic considerations such as land holdings.
posted by JES at 6:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home