Israel debate

[dcfcsteve]

Israel is not part of the continent of Europe. It is part of the continent of Asia, and should play in the Asian qualifying group.

What would happen if Israel were to actually qualify for the World Cup? It would be ruined because the other Asian teams would refuse to play against them.

I don't think the issue is so much other teams refusing to play Israel. If, say, Iran and Israel both qualified for the World Cup finals, were paired in the same group, and Iran refused to play them, then the Iranians would forfeit the game. Simple as that.

The issue is more one of security, or at least perceived security, in qualifying groups. There's a big difference between Israel playing Iran or Syria in Damscus/Tehran than there would be in Stuttgart. This should be fairly obvious to anyone with a degree of objectivity. For feck sake, the English team can't play in Turkey without a major security operation. Therefore, just imagine for a second what it would be like if the Israeli's attempted to play a game in Damascus.....

Again - the simple fact is that politics has prevented Israel from playing qualifying games against its Arabic neighbours. That means they can either play no-one at all - which means that football loses out to politics, and the game suffers in Israel - or they can seek to play elsewhere - meaning football does not lose out and the game does not suffer in one of its constituent countries. As a parallel - Derry City is geographically located within Northern Ireland. Should they therefore not be allowed to participate in the southern Eircom League....?

[Closed Account 2]

For the numerous poepl on here who've been questioning Turkeys credentials for claiming 'European' status, a wee look at a map mightened go astray.

This map (http://www.comp-archaeology.org/EuropeMapCAWEB.gif) will do for me, notice the word "Asia" written over eastern Turkey.


Meanwhile, on an East-west axis, Turkey is broadly on a parallel with Ukraine, Belarus and Estonia.

That same map annotated (http://img232.exs.cx/img232/2302/turkey4yr.jpg) shows that Turkey's eastern edge extends approx 5 deg. further east than the Ukraine's eastern edge (45 deg versus 40 deg). Looking at the map you can see its width of approx. 5 degrees is equivalent to the distance from Belgrade to Senj/Rijeka (Western Croatia, just below the Slovene Border). When measured this distance (http://img232.exs.cx/img232/9730/thedistance6qh.jpg) is approx 220km. A distance that would span the width of many significant EU member states including almost the whole of Ireland (http://img232.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img232&image=ireland8js.jpg) as well as Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Czech Rep (give or take 5 kms in its case), Slovakia ( http://img232.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img232&image=otherctrs9hg.jpg) and most probably Slovenia (tho I cant be bothered to measure it - feel free to check for yourself).


As well as a large chunk of Turkey being further west than all of Cyprus, the country also extends further west than Moldova. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of Turkey lies further west than its neighbours in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. So where's the chorus of calls for those countries not to be considered part of UEFA/Europe ?

Well there is certainly a degree of debate as to if those last three countries are part of Europe or not. Moldova seems to be considered part of Europe, as you can tell from the map, its eastern border is at 30 deg., so the total area of Moldovan land mass lies well west of the total area of Turkish land mass.

Norman Davies in his book, "Europe: A History" suggests that Europe is deliniated by the following major boundaries.

1) The Hellespont/Dardanelles/Bosphorus. West of which is Europe, and east of which is Asia. He sites the fact that throughout history east of this point has been known as terms such as Asia Minor, the Near East etc.

2) * The Ural Mountains (seen on 1st map as yellow streak near cities of Ufa, Perm, and Chelyabinsk).

3) The Caucuses (seen on map as yellow streaks above and below the city of Tiblisi).

*Davies also considers the fact that the Eastern frindge is perhaps the least formally defined of the three and has at times been considered as the Volga and Don Rivers, though the accepted is now the Ural Mountains.

Using those criteria the majority of Turkey's land mass and population is located outside of Europe, as is Armenia. Azerbaijan and Georgia straddle that boundary approx. 50-50. (Although Azerbaijan geographically is about 60-40 in Asia, it major urban centre, Baku (pop 1 million) and Sumgait (population 250-300,000) shift the majority of its popultion into Europe.

Another consideration is the land borders of the countries. Turkey shares the following (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tu.html) land borders: (incidently that website considers Turkey to be predominantly in Asia)

border countries: Armenia 268 km, Azerbaijan 9 km, Bulgaria 240 km, Georgia 252 km, Greece 206 km, Iran 499 km, Iraq 352 km, Syria 822 km

I think most people would acknowledge Iran, Iraq and Syria to be outside of Europe (though if you have a different opinion please do tell). 1673kms are with non European countries, 492 kms are with commonly acknowledged European Countries (Greece, Bulgaria) and including the rest of the countries that can be considered European the total is 975kms. 975 versus 1673, that an excess of almost 700kms of border with non-European countries.

So historically, in terms of land mass and population post Ottoman Turkey (and indeed Ottoman Turkey itself when you take into account its Eastern provinces in Arabia and Western Persia) has been more in Asia than in Europe.


And aside from it's long-simmering relationship with Greece (no different than England v Ireland/Scotland, Germany v France etc)

I would class Greece - Turkey as qualitativly different from England - Ireland/Scotland, Germany - France in modern terms. Since WWII the governments of Ireland and England (for sake of arguement the UK) have never looked like going to war against each other. Some might debate this, and say in the 60s and 70s a conflict between the Irish Defence Forces and the British Army looked likely, but imo that is not true. Either way if you take it as since the end of the cold war then an armed conflict between the governments of Ireland and the governments of the UK has never looked likely. Similarly the chances of Scotland and England going to war since WWII have been nil. And a similar situation is true of France and Germany (little prospect of armed conflict post WWII).

However the Greece - Turkey situation has been decidedly more tense. During the invasion of Cyprus a Greek counter-offensive was a distinct possiblity. The Evros River (between Turkey and Greece) was heavily land-mined region and remained mined until as late as 1999 (http://www.icbl.org/lm/1999/greece) (see 2nd last paragraph) and may well still be mined for all I know.

Contrast this with the situation in Northern Ireland.

Despite the legacy of a long conflict on the island of Ireland spanning the last thirty years, there exists no record of any civilian, or member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Garda, the British Army, the Irish Defence Force or any person engaged in paramilitary activities ever being injured or killed by antipersonnel landmines. No antipersonnel landmines have been found in the ground in the State or along the Northern Ireland border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. (from here (http://www.icbl.org/lm/1999/ireland)).

I do not know if the Scottish - English border is heavily mined, but I'd hazard a guess it isnt, when visiting Hadrian's Wall many years ago I cant say I noticed any minefields.

This (http://www.icbl.org/lm/1999/germany) report doesnt mention any mines on the German - French border.

So the prevalence of mines in the Greek - Turkish situation suggests, recently the conflict has been decidedly more tense than the conflicts between the governments of Ireland - UK, England - Scotland, or Germany - France.

As recently as July 1998, during the Cypriot Missile Incident, the Turkish government threatened to respond (to the Cypriot purchasing of SAMs) with "appropriate measures". Causing many to fear an armed conflict between Turkey and Greece might happen. (For more on this see here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/europe/131699.stm)). And in 1996 Turkish Airforce F-16s were regularly violating Greek airspace over the Agean Sea. Indeed a Greek Mirage managed to shoot one down, and in a bizzare twist of fate the pilot of the downed plane turned out to be an Israeli Air Force serviceman seconded to the Turkish Airforce for Training Purposes. (See here (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_mishaps_year-1996.html) entry at 8th October). Again I do not recall similar incidents happening in regard to Ireland - UK or France - Germany (exception possibly being the 1968 incident, but I dont think the Brits intentionally shot down the civilian airliner, I think it was an accident). Either way there hasnt been any incidents like the 1996 ones between UK and Irish jets in the same time scale (ie over the past 10 years).


what other elements regarding Turkey's history vis-a-vis its European neighbours is "very bad" ? And which of those are worse than the history Germany, England, Spain, France, Italy, Serbia, Russia, Sweden, Portugal and Hungary have had with their neighbours ?

Well I'd say that the Ottoman Empire left a bad legacy on many of the countries it controlled. Greece has been discussed above, and the brutality of the Ottoman Regieme on native inhabitants in countries like Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania etc was in my opinion bad. The first half of M. Glenny's book, "the Balkans" deals with this extensivly. One of the things that sticks in my mind from reading it about 18 months ago was the Ottoman's use of janissaries. The were a group of soldiers who were pressed into fighting for the Ottomans, but were made up of war captives and slaves. However they were soon made up of boys taken from mainly Serb, Bulgarian and Romanian families in a human taxation called the devshirmeh. This practice of taking children (without the families consent) and forcing them to serve in the Ottoman Army is akin to the slavery carried out by colonial powers and didnt end until the 1800s. However perhaps the most telling fact is that fact that, like the Armenian situation, there has been no official apology and no general recognition (by any Turkish Government) that the system was morally bad. Understandably this is a source of sorrow for many in the Balkans.

(...cont)

[Closed Account 2]

(...cont due to going over 10000 characters)

You might also want to look into the incident at Otranto, Italy. A Turkish Fleet laid siege to the town killed 12,000 people, found another 800 survivors demanded they renounce their Catholicism, and when they didnt chopped marched them to the top of a hill and chopped their heads off. They then found the Bishop and sawed him in half. (Ref "Rough Guide to Italy" p 948-9). I'd describe that as "very bad", and although its might not be that much worse than what other countries youve listed have done, its quite a high number for about two weeks of combat. Again no appology that im aware of.

Other countries that have done very bad things to their neighbours have usually apologised for them in one way or another (eg Germany WWII, Serbia saying Srebrenica was "a dark day for Serbs and Serbian History" etc), but Turkish governments have persistantly failed to say sorry for things like the Armenian Genocide and the bad things the Ottomans did. That tends to cause problems vis-a-vis their relationships with nearby countries.



The reality is that geography is often used as an excuse here in place of other reasons - primarily religious and cultural - against Turkish credentials to be 'European'.

Well that is not the case for me. I think that both Bosnia and Albania (majority Muslim countries like Turkey) are European, as geographically they are located in Europe... religion plays no role in if consider a country to be in Europe or not. Again culture is not a factor for me. I would say that for example Irish, Italian and Romanian cultures are significantly different yet I would consider all to be part of Europe despite these differences. Even within for example Italy I would argue there is a difference in culture within the country - yet geographically I would class all regions of Italy as Italian, irrespective of divisions of culture within the country.

[SÓC]

Anyone know the name of the Arabic team in Israel who've been doing wonders, I think they even qualified for Europe this season?

[lopez]

Anyone know the name of the Arabic team in Israel who've been doing wonders, I think they even qualified for Europe this season?Bnei Sakhnin

http://www.jkcook.net/EEE/N014.htm

There was also one of the Maccabi or Hapoel sides a few years ago with a large Arab following in one of the towns which claimed it had suffered from poor refereeing, racist crowds, etc.

[dcfcsteve]

(...cont due to going over 10000 characters)

You might also want to look into the incident at Otranto, Italy. A Turkish Fleet laid siege to the town killed 12,000 people, found another 800 survivors demanded they renounce their Catholicism, and when they didnt chopped marched them to the top of a hill and chopped their heads off. They then found the Bishop and sawed him in half. (Ref "Rough Guide to Italy" p 948-9). I'd describe that as "very bad", and although its might not be that much worse than what other countries youve listed have done, its quite a high number for about two weeks of combat. Again no appology that im aware of.

Other countries that have done very bad things to their neighbours have usually apologised for them in one way or another (eg Germany WWII, Serbia saying Srebrenica was "a dark day for Serbs and Serbian History" etc), but Turkish governments have persistantly failed to say sorry for things like the Armenian Genocide and the bad things the Ottomans did. That tends to cause problems vis-a-vis their relationships with nearby countries.




Well that is not the case for me. I think that both Bosnia and Albania (majority Muslim countries like Turkey) are European, as geographically they are located in Europe... religion plays no role in if consider a country to be in Europe or not. Again culture is not a factor for me. I would say that for example Irish, Italian and Romanian cultures are significantly different yet I would consider all to be part of Europe despite these differences. Even within for example Italy I would argue there is a difference in culture within the country - yet geographically I would class all regions of Italy as Italian, irrespective of divisions of culture within the country.


Very lengthy and well-researched response edmondo.

Too much to tackle point by point without hi-jacking the Foot.ie board though !

So one main response I would have is this. In terms of the key criteria you give for determining which continent a country 'belongs' to - location of land mass & population, shared borders, perceived geographical boundaries of Europe etc - Russia's arguement for being in Europe is much more tenuous than even Turkey's. Why aren't you and others on here who've been using such points to denounce Turkey's European credentials also doing the same with regards Russia ? You could say that it's because the debate has only been considering Turkey, and therefore you can only discuss what's been raised. But the debate here actually began with Israel - not Turkey. People here have chosen to bring Turkey into the debate in order to question it's claim/right to be European. Why are people choosing to use only Turkey as an example, when somewhere like Russia (and again, Cyprus) have even more tenuous claims upon being European ?

As I said before - geography is often used to deny Turkey European credentials by some people, who then fail to apply the same factors to other countries with similar/more tenuous European claims. This leads me to suspect that, consciously or subconsciously, there's broader issues at-play in rejecting Turkey's European-ness than mere geographical location. Primarily religious and cultural differences. Am I merely being paranoid in pointing out that Turkey seems to be everyone's favourite 'you're not part of Europe' whipping boy, even when there are better examples that could be used instead......?

[Schumi]

As I understand it, the traditional boundary between Europe and Asia is the Ural mountains, Ural river, Caucasus mountains and the Black Sea. This leaves part of Turkey in Europe and none of Israel.

[pineapple stu]

I always thought the small bit attached to Greece and Bulgaria (including Istanbul) was in Europe, while the rest was classified as Asia. You could argue that they could then choose which federation to be in as they straddle two continents? Would Cyprus being in UEFA be a legacy of the Greek ties?

Israel, Cyprus and Turkey are all in the Eurovision too - maybe it's not just a UEFA classification?

[Colbert Report]

Nobody has yet given an argument stating that Israel is part of the geography of Europe. Hence, they should not be allowed to compete in the UEFA qualifying groups. Period.

[Metrostars]

Nobody has yet given an argument stating that Israel is part of the geography of Europe. Hence, they should not be allowed to compete in the UEFA qualifying groups. Period.


So then you would also agree that Derry City should not be in the Eircom League because Derry City is not within the geographical borders of the Republic Of Ireland, right?

[dcfcsteve]

Nobody has yet given an argument stating that Israel is part of the geography of Europe. Hence, they should not be allowed to compete in the UEFA qualifying groups. Period.

Nobody is arguing that Israel is in Europe because it blindingly obviously isn't !

As stated numerous times before on this thread, Israel play within the UEFA system because of the hostility of their Arab neighbours towards them. A hostility stems as much from anti-zioinism as it does pro-Palestinian sentiment (hence why the Palestinian refugees have been badly looked after in a number of the neighbouring Arab countries they moved to).

If you belive it would be right for football to suffer at the hands of politics/anti-zionism, then that's your view. Fortunately - UEFA and FIFA don't believe likewise, which is why they let Israel play in Europe.

And to raise my previous question again : if Israel shouldn't be allowed to play within UEFA because they aren't part of Europe, how can you then justify Derry City playing in the Republic's Eircom League ? Both were unable to play in their original jurisdictions for essentially political reasons.

[Closed Account 2]

Very lengthy and well-researched response edmondo.

Too much to tackle point by point without hi-jacking the Foot.ie board though !

So one main response I would have is this. In terms of the key criteria you give for determining which continent a country 'belongs' to - location of land mass & population, shared borders, perceived geographical boundaries of Europe etc - Russia's arguement for being in Europe is much more tenuous than even Turkey's. Why aren't you and others on here who've been using such points to denounce Turkey's European credentials also doing the same with regards Russia ? You could say that it's because the debate has only been considering Turkey, and therefore you can only discuss what's been raised. But the debate here actually began with Israel - not Turkey. People here have chosen to bring Turkey into the debate in order to question it's claim/right to be European. Why are people choosing to use only Turkey as an example, when somewhere like Russia (and again, Cyprus) have even more tenuous claims upon being European ?

Russia is very debateable, the sheer size of it means its difficult to classify in terms of its location. In terms of land mass its much bigger than the rest of Europe put together, and if placed in Asia it becomes the biggest single Asian country in terms of land mass. In terms of border, again its difficult when you consider a country that borders both Norway and North Korea. Russia shares more of its border with definitivly Asian countries (China 3605km + 40km, Mongolia 3485km, N.Korea 19Km total = 7149km). Russia's European borders (Belarus 959, Estonia 294, Finland 1340, Latvia 217, Lithuania 227, Norway 196, Poland 206, Ukraine 1,567) total 5006km. So in terms of borders with definitvily Asian or definitivily European countries its approx. 2000km more Asian.

The other trouble in terms of border classification is what to do with borders of Russia. Kazakstan 6846km, Azerbaijan 284km, Georgia 723km are all hard to class as either definitvly European or Asian. For instance all are in the UEFA group (Kazakstan having recently moved to UEFA from the Asian groupings). If these are included as European then Russia's European border count goes up to 12,823km (almost half of which is Kazakstan). As its Russia's single largest border Kazakstan is a big problem in terms of classification. If its considered European then Russia has more European border than Asian, if its considered Asian (or left out) the Russia has more Asian border.

So in terms of location of land mass Russia is more Asian than European, in terms of border location its hard to say. That leaves population density.

This (http://www.whrc.org/russia/images/landscanpopulation2002.jpg) map shows the population density of Russia. Using the 3 limits described in my previous post (Dardanelles - not relevant it Russia's case; Caucuses, none of Russia is south of these; Urals, within Russia itself). Its clear that the one to watch is the Ural Mountains. Populations west of these are located in Europe, east of these are located in Asia.

The above map annotated (http://img188.exs.cx/img188/41/annotated6ug.jpg) annotated with the Urals on it, shows in my opinion. That the majority of Russia's popultion lies to the west and so in Europe. The notable clusters of high density population (yellowy-white in colour on the map) are Moscow (Russia's capital, and the largest city (population) in Europe). Nizhniy Novogorod (just to the East of Moscow), the towns by the Black Sea, Krasnodar, Rostov etc. Other towns with a population of at least 1 million to the west of the Urals are Volgograd, Voronezh, Kazan, Saratov, Perm and Leningrad. To the east of the Urals the land is very sparsly popultated, with the exception of a strip along the Trans-siberian railway. The only towns with a population of over 1 mil. east of the Urals are Omsk, Novosibirsk, and Krasnoyarsk. (Chelyabinsk, Yekateringberg and Ufa are all cities in the Ural Mountain Range).


This map (http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/russia/maps/Soviet_Pop_82.jpg) is easier to see, but is of the USSR, so you have to ignore bits west of Karkhov-Tallin, south of the Caspian-Omsk, and south of Krasanodar-Grozny as all of these regions are no longer in Russia. On this map the Urals would run down from the Artic through the towns of Ufa and Orenberg (where they would then meet the Kazakstani border).

A population density map of Turkey (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_middle_east/turkey_pop.jpg) shows that it doesnt have a significantly denser population west of the Dardanelles, and the majority of its population does, without doubt, live to the east of the Dardanelles and so live in Asia.


As I said before - geography is often used to deny Turkey European credentials by some people, who then fail to apply the same factors to other countries with similar/more tenuous European claims. This leads me to suspect that, consciously or subconsciously, there's broader issues at-play in rejecting Turkey's European-ness than mere geographical location. Primarily religious and cultural differences. Am I merely being paranoid in pointing out that Turkey seems to be everyone's favourite 'you're not part of Europe' whipping boy, even when there are better examples that could be used instead......?


Personally, I would say that geographically Russia has more of a claim to being in Europe than Turkey (due to where the majority of its people live), but there is still a degree of debate. Im sure that much of the interest in Turkey's geographic question is a result of its pending membership of the EU (which is a more significant body than UEFA), and im sure that if Russia (or Georgia, Kazakstan etc etc) was to apply for the EU then the I think similar debates over its geography would arise. Like you say Cyprus is also a potential source of debate, and I can only assume the lack of interest in its geography arises from its small size (when compared with countries like Russia and Turkey).

[Colbert Report]

So then you would also agree that Derry City should not be in the Eircom League because Derry City is not within the geographical borders of the Republic Of Ireland, right?

Right.

[dcfcsteve]

Russia is very debateable, the sheer size of it means its difficult to classify in terms of its location. In terms of land mass its much bigger than the rest of Europe put together, and if placed in Asia it becomes the biggest single Asian country in terms of land mass. In terms of border, again its difficult when you consider a country that borders both Norway and North Korea. Russia shares more of its border with definitivly Asian countries (China 3605km + 40km, Mongolia 3485km, N.Korea 19Km total = 7149km). Russia's European borders (Belarus 959, Estonia 294, Finland 1340, Latvia 217, Lithuania 227, Norway 196, Poland 206, Ukraine 1,567) total 5006km. So in terms of borders with definitvily Asian or definitivily European countries its approx. 2000km more Asian.

The other trouble in terms of border classification is what to do with borders of Russia. Kazakstan 6846km, Azerbaijan 284km, Georgia 723km are all hard to class as either definitvly European or Asian. For instance all are in the UEFA group (Kazakstan having recently moved to UEFA from the Asian groupings). If these are included as European then Russia's European border count goes up to 12,823km (almost half of which is Kazakstan). As its Russia's single largest border Kazakstan is a big problem in terms of classification. If its considered European then Russia has more European border than Asian, if its considered Asian (or left out) the Russia has more Asian border.

So in terms of location of land mass Russia is more Asian than European, in terms of border location its hard to say. That leaves population density.

This (http://www.whrc.org/russia/images/landscanpopulation2002.jpg) map shows the population density of Russia. Using the 3 limits described in my previous post (Dardanelles - not relevant it Russia's case; Caucuses, none of Russia is south of these; Urals, within Russia itself). Its clear that the one to watch is the Ural Mountains. Populations west of these are located in Europe, east of these are located in Asia.

The above map annotated (http://img188.exs.cx/img188/41/annotated6ug.jpg) annotated with the Urals on it, shows in my opinion. That the majority of Russia's popultion lies to the west and so in Europe. The notable clusters of high density population (yellowy-white in colour on the map) are Moscow (Russia's capital, and the largest city (population) in Europe). Nizhniy Novogorod (just to the East of Moscow), the towns by the Black Sea, Krasnodar, Rostov etc. Other towns with a population of at least 1 million to the west of the Urals are Volgograd, Voronezh, Kazan, Saratov, Perm and Leningrad. To the east of the Urals the land is very sparsly popultated, with the exception of a strip along the Trans-siberian railway. The only towns with a population of over 1 mil. east of the Urals are Omsk, Novosibirsk, and Krasnoyarsk. (Chelyabinsk, Yekateringberg and Ufa are all cities in the Ural Mountain Range).


This map (http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/russia/maps/Soviet_Pop_82.jpg) is easier to see, but is of the USSR, so you have to ignore bits west of Karkhov-Tallin, south of the Caspian-Omsk, and south of Krasanodar-Grozny as all of these regions are no longer in Russia. On this map the Urals would run down from the Artic through the towns of Ufa and Orenberg (where they would then meet the Kazakstani border).

A population density map of Turkey (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_middle_east/turkey_pop.jpg) shows that it doesnt have a significantly denser population west of the Dardanelles, and the majority of its population does, without doubt, live to the east of the Dardanelles and so live in Asia.




Personally, I would say that geographically Russia has more of a claim to being in Europe than Turkey (due to where the majority of its people live), but there is still a degree of debate. Im sure that much of the interest in Turkey's geographic question is a result of its pending membership of the EU (which is a more significant body than UEFA), and im sure that if Russia (or Georgia, Kazakstan etc etc) was to apply for the EU then the I think similar debates over its geography would arise. Like you say Cyprus is also a potential source of debate, and I can only assume the lack of interest in its geography arises from its small size (when compared with countries like Russia and Turkey).


So to summarise your argument - a country's continental location is to be primarily determined by the location of the majority of its population, regardless of where the country as a whole is physically located ?? Therefore - even if a country's land-mass was, say, 99.9% in Asia, but a majority of its population lived in the remaining 0.1% of its land-mass in, say, Europe - then that country would therefore be European ? Not only that, but their defined continental location could ebb and flow with population shifts - even if their political borders remained the same ?

So -if the annexed territories that Spain owns in North Africa (opposite Gibralter) were to face an influx of 21m Spaniards, Spain would suddenly be an African country.....?

Therefore - all Turkey needs to do to be undebatedly European is encourage a c. 20m of its inhabitants to shift across the Bosphorous ??? Problem solved..... :)

[Closed Account 2]

I'd say the continent on which the majority of a country's popultion live is a determining factor. It certainly of good value if a country is hard to define geographically in other ways (eg Turkey, Russia, Georgia etc).



Therefore - even if a country's land-mass was, say, 99.9% in Asia, but a majority of its population lived in the remaining 0.1% of its land-mass in, say, Europe - then that country would therefore be European ?

Its a determining factor and should be judged in conjunction with other factors. That example you list is fairly unlikely, for a country to have the majority of its population living on 0.1% of its land mass, it would have to be a very large country with a tiny popultion, I think even countries like Canada and Australia (which have very uneven densities) are not in the 0.1% situation.

In the case of Turkey vis-a-vis the Dardanelles the majority of its population live to the east, the majority of its landmass is to the east, and most of its border(s) are with commonly acknowledged non-European countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran). All three factors would indicate its Asian.

In the case of Russia vis-a-vis the Urals, an overwhelming majority of its inhabitants are to the West, the majority of its land mass (I'd estimate 60-70%) is to the East, and the border issue depends on if you consider countries like Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakstan etc to be European and Asian. So overall its Russia is a very hard call, as factors point in both ways. On balance I'd say its population distribution would lead me to say its geographically European.


Not only that, but their defined continental location could ebb and flow with population shifts - even if their political borders remained the same ?

If they spanned two continents, and a majority of the population left one continent to live in the other then yes.


So -if the annexed territories that Spain owns in North Africa (opposite Gibralter) were to face an influx of 21m Spaniards, Spain would suddenly be an African country.....?

The two enclaves are Ceuta and Melilla. There total area is as follows:-

Ceuta (http://www.ine.es/en/pob96/imun5196.htm) has a population of 68,796. Making it a fair bit smaller than the town of Watford (http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/GBH_match_page.jsp?ons=Watford) (pop, 78,481).

Melilla (http://www.ine.es/en/pob96/imun5296.htm) has a population of 59,576. Making it a bit smaller than St. Albans (http://www.localhistories.org/stalbans.html) (pop 63,000).

Ceuta (http://lexicorient.com/e.o/ceuta.htm)has an area of 19.7km(sq), Melilla (http://lexicorient.com/e.o/melilla.htm)has an area of 12,5km(sq). So the total area is just under 35km(sq), now if 21m people left mainland Spain and moved here - assuming they could fit in this area (and it would be a big squeeze, even if skyscrapers of record proportion were build), it would very much change Spain, and Europe and North Africa. If they all moved to one particular town, it would be the most populus city in the world (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762524.html) by some way. If they were to live evenly between the two cities (10.5 in Ceuta, 10.5 in Melilla) then both cities would be the most populus cities in Africa (Lagos, the current front runner has 8.6m). Ironically if both were considered as European cities, they would be second equal behind Moscow, but that is by the by. Both towns would dwarf Madrid (http://www.gomadrid.com/practic/location-climate.html) (pop 2.9m) and Barcelona (http://www.ine.es/en/pob96/imun0896.htm) (either town (pop 1.5m) or province 4.6m). Geographically the majority of Spain's population would then reside on the continent of Africa (incidently much of mainland Spain would be totally deserted, instead of being half yellow, this map (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/spain_pop_1974.jpg)would be totally yellow), were such a change to occur it would be hard to say Spain hadnt become more geographically African. But of course such a change would be impossible unless there was a change in the political border.

A better example would be Russia. If the majority of its population were to move the other side of the Urals, leaving cities like Moscow, St.Petersberg and Volgograd and living instead in the vast uninhabited areas of Siberia, then more of its population would live in Asia, and if a clear majority did, imo, Russia would be more Asian than European.

[Green Tribe]

going for post of the month, by any chance??!!!!!!

:D :D :D