Israel debate

[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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 has a population of 68,796. Making it a fair bit smaller than the town of Watford (pop, 78,481).

Melilla has a population of 59,576. Making it a bit smaller than St. Albans (pop 63,000).

Ceutahas an area of 19.7km(sq), Melillahas 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 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 (pop 2.9m) and Barcelona (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 mapwould 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??!!!!!!