Sicily for Israel
Friday, October 10th, 2008The United States is a “nouveau riche” country. In fact, the main Western countries (UK, France, and Germany for example) are all “nouveau riche” societies, when compared to the great histories and former wealth of such countries as Persia, India, China and Egypt. As is the tradition with all “nouveau riche,” after the first generation of wealth, the Western countries try to do all they can to wipe out the history of their “humble origins.” The histories of the “rags to riches” have been re-written by many families and nations to the point that Stalin would be proud of the whole process.
This process of “reshaping the past” may have benefit for the “nouveau riche” nations (and families), but it gives the leaders and the populations of these a vastly distorted world view, especially in the eyes of the nations who are somewhat akin to the “fallen nobility of the 18th and 19th century” of Europe (those all the pretensions of nobility, an actual family history going back centuries, but no real resources to support the lifestyle.)
It is perhaps this “nouveau riche” mentality that explains why Americans mostly hate the study serious history. Yes, we may want to know some Greek or Roman history (our pseudo ancestors). But we shy away from the history of any other nation, especially nations that we consider less important then us (which just about means all the other nations) It maybe that this information will contradict our self conception and challenge our “nouveau riche” re-write of history.
We, as a culture, support this limited knowledge of the past. Our schools teach little history, and have made it so “politically correct” that what knowledge is passed along is “peplum.’ I’ve heard American historians state it was more important that American know the “legends” of the United States, then the actual history. We know so little about our own real history and the history of the world that it is almost insulting to other peoples. An Egyptian friend once said to me, after spending some time in West Virginia, Ohio and Tennessee, that the “stupidest Fehheyen (Egyptian peasant farmer) knows more about the history of the world those people “out there.” I could not argue with him.
It’s not just the average American who is “ignorant” of history, but our leaders as well. I know someone high up in the “military industrial complex” who believed that Jesus and Mohammad were contemporaries. I have yet to meet an elected official, or a high ranking military office who has heard of Hasan ibn al-Sabbah, the historical inspiration of Osama Bin Laden.
This utter lack of a foundation of history leads to bad choices by our leaders. The Iraq war is only the most recent example. The Viet Nam War and the support of dictatorships around the world can all be linked to the distorted view of history that our leaders have, and the views of those who elect them.
In addition, it leads us to fail to understand potential options to solve current world. We are trapped in our thinking by the very limits of our knowledge. We think mostly of the world as a stagnant situation, when the history of the world is one of the constant movements of peoples and boarders. Lands have been occupied by one people only to have another come in within a few centuries (if not sooner) and the cultures changed, almost completely. (Perhaps we don’t want to remember the 200 years of wars with the Indians on the Eastern coast that come with the establishment of the nation, endless broken treaties and eventual “ethnic cleansing in the 1830’s) Lands have been conquered and held for hundreds of years only to be lost again based new wars or new waves of immigration (Perhaps we don’t want to remember that we only conquered half of Mexico some 160 years ago, which is almost nothing in world history, and now the Hispanics are coming back).
So our view of a “nouveau riche” stagnant world keeps us trapped in the idea that things have to remain as they are, when some of the best solutions maybe to make a major change in the current locations of peoples and ownership of land. Some of the problems we face are really quite ancient, and perhaps we need a modified version of ancient solutions to address these issues, the ancient solution of moving people.
Israel perhaps is most noted for this “people movement.” For centuries, the land was fought over by the Hebrews, Canaanites and Philistines. Eventually the Hebrews, (now Israelites and Jews) were expelled by the Assyrians and Babylonians respectively. The Israelis never returned (the infamous 10 lost tribes), and the Jews returned with a newly refocused religion (many historians believe the Bible was first written while the Jews were in exile in Babylon. But the battle over the land currently called Israel did not end, with the Jewish return under Persian protection, and then under Greek control. Over the last 2000 years or so the land was owned and occupied by many civilizations and peoples.
o The older Jewish state of the Hasamones descendents of Judas Maccabeus gave way to Roman rule around 40 BC.
o By 140 AD or so, Jews were expelled and (after three major wars of independence lost by the Jews) completely banned from the lands.
o The lands were occupied by Greek and Romans as well as some Semitic peoples. This was the status of the land for close to the next five hundred years, with the culture shifting to Greek and Christian, from Roman and Classical (with a few incursions of Persians, one lasting for about 40 years).
o Then, next came the Arabs and Islam. These new rulers did not expel the Greeks, but created a new educated and elegant Arab/Greek culture, with Islam slowly replacing Christianity (and the Arabs allowed the Jews back in.).
o Then, after some 400 years of this transition, came the Crusaders, who slaughter all they could, including the entire population of Jerusalem. They tried to repopulate the land with Germanic Franks and descendents of the Vikings. But the majority remained Arabs.
o This Christian rule lasted to some degree for about 150 years until the Turks (under the leadership of a Kurd, known in the West as Saladin.) took the land.
o Since about 1200 AD or so, one Turkic people or another occupied the area with the population being primarily Arab, but with large amounts of Turks and some Christians and Jews. The Ottoman Empire held the land from about 1600 until 1918, when the English gained controlled.
o British rule lasted less then 30 years.
While the Turks allowed Jewish immigration into the land during its rule, there were less then 50,000 when the British took over, and only about 600,000 at the time of Israeli independence (the increase coming mostly from the remains of European Jewry). Now, in just the past 60 years the population rose to over 7,000,000 in Israel, (mostly Jews, some Muslim) as well as 5 million Palestinians Muslims in the two sections of the area called the Palestinian Authority. The huge growth in population of Israel is largely the result of massive relocation of Russian, Persian and Arab Jews. So, now the land is once again mainly occupied by Europeans, with a large Semitic minority, as it was under the Romans, and under the Crusader states.
But, as dramatic as this story is (since it also mixes in the issues of religion) this is not the territory that in the European/Mediterranean world that has changed hands and populations the most. That honor actually rest with Sicily. As stated in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicily#Geography
The original peoples of the island were Italic peoples (or possible Iberians). The island’s location made it the center of conflict of the ancient world (much like the location of ancient Israel.) At first there was the struggle between the Phoenicians and their colony of Carthage and the Greeks (who occupied all of Southern Italy and eventually half of Sicily. The two sides fought over the island and its center to trade for over 350 years. The land was populated and repopulated time and again. The Carthaginians brought in tens of thousands of Gauls, Celts from what is now France. The Greeks brought in Greeks from what is now the coast of Turkey, as these Greeks fell under the control of the Persians.
The Greeks ended up fighting each other as well. The greatest military disaster of Athens was their effort to conquer the Sicilian city of Syracuse. They lost their entire fleet and army, upwards of 40,000 men.
But, perhaps the most remembered war over Sicily is the Punic War, or the war between the rising Roman state and the aging Carthage. By 242 BC, the Romans had won the first round of the war, and occupied the island. They began to repopulate it with Roman and Italian stock.
However, as stated in the encyclopedia:
o The initial success of the Carthaginians (Hannibal in Italy) during the Second Punic War encouraged many of the Sicilian cities to revolt against Roman rule. Rome sent troops to put down the rebellions (it was during the siege of Syracuse that Archimedes was killed). Carthage briefly took control of parts of Sicily, but in the end was driven off. Many Carthaginian sympathizers were killed—in 210 BC the Roman consul M. Valerian told the Roman Senate that “no Carthaginian remains in Sicily”.
The famous Carthaginian statement about Roman conquest was: “You make it a desert and call it peace.”
o For the next 6 centuries Sicily was a province of the Roman Empire. It was something of a rural backwater, important chiefly for its grain fields which were a mainstay of the food supply of the city of Rome. The empire did not make much effort to Romanize the region, which remained largely Greek.
With the decline of Roman, Sicily again became a major strategic battle field. For the next 350 years Sicily was ruled by a series of different peoples, including the Vandals (for 3 decades). For the next six decades the Ostrogoths and the Byzantines (Greeks saying they were Romans) fought over the island, leaving much of it in ruins and depopulated. The Byzantines won out, and ruled the island (again repopulating it with Greeks from the Balkans.)
The Byzantines ruled more or less unmolested until the island was invaded by the Muslims from North Africa. Starting in 827 the war of conquest continued until 902 and the land was occupied by Moors (Berbers) from North Africa. Like in Spain, under Muslim rule, the island became the center of progress and religious tolerance. The Kalbid dynasty made Sicily one of, if not the richest kingdom, in all of Europe. But the descendents of the Vikings, the Normans, invaded the Mediterranean in 1060 and started a 30 year systematic conquest of Sicily. They basically became a ruling class of Berber (Arab), Greek and German population, and maintained the tolerance of the former Muslim rulers.
However, with the coming of the Crusades, and a new ruling house of Germans, toleration ended, and persecution of Muslim (and the small Jewish population) became standard. In 1224, the last of the Muslim were expelled.
Soon after France conquered the island, but only held it briefly. In 1282, Aragon invaded and brought a “Spanish” presence. Either as part of the independent kingdom of Aragon, or as part of the unified Spanish Kingdom (Aragon, Castile and a few other smaller parts) Sicily remained in Spanish hands (and Spanish speaking rulers) for some four hundred and fifty years. The population ruling classes became Spanish speaking and many Aragonese moved into the island, bring another new population change. Also, in 1656 a major plague hit Sicily hard. Spain ended up importing Italians from the mainland to help repopulate. It was only then that the island got its first major populations who actually spoke Italian.
In the early 18th century, the island was under the rule of Savoy, then Austria and then a French monarch who, starting in 1734, ruled the island and southern Italy under the name of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.
o Sicily was the scene of major revolutionary movements in 1820 and 1848 against [the monarchy’s] denial of constitutional government. The 1848 revolutions resulted in a sixteen month period of independence from the Bourbons before its armed forces took back control of the island in 1849.
Sicily only became part of the newly formed kingdom of Italy in 1860. However, it was not a “happy union” and in 1866 there was a major revolt. Descent and revolts continued leading to the collapse of the economy and the massive movement of Sicilians out of the island. As noted in the encyclopedia;
o Palermo revolted against Italy. The city was soon bombed by the Italian navy ….. Italian soldiers summarily executed the civilian insurgents, and took possession once again of the island.
- A long extensive guerrilla campaign against the unionists (1861-1871) took place throughout southern Italy, and in Sicily, inducing the Italian governments to a ferocious military repression. Ruled under martial law for many years Sicily (and southern Italy) was ravaged by the Italian army that summarily executed hundreds of thousands of people, made tens of thousands prisoners, destroyed villages, and deported people. The Sicilian economy collapsed, leading to an unprecedented wave of emigration.
Depopulation of the island took place as millions moved to New York and other areas. The island itself fell mostly under the control of local “lords” or organized crime networks commonly known as the “mafia.” The status within Italy as being something different from the mainly was recognized when Sicily was made an autonomous region starting in 1946. Despite reforms offered, the relationship between the island and the mainland government continues to be uncomfortable at best.
With a serious review of the basic history of Sicily, we see that the perspective that Sicily is a quaint happy Italian island to be mostly false. It is not happy, and it is actually barely Italian. In its people’s histories are Celts, Phoenicians Greeks, including Greeks from Asia and the Balkans, Romans/Italics, Germans of several groups, Arabs and Berbers, Scandinavians, Spanish, French, Austrians and the modern Italians. Each one of the groups ruled the land from a few generations to hundreds of years, bringing about many changes in culture and religion with each shift in rulers and populations.
Israel and Sicily have had extensive changes, as we have seen. However, other nations and lands have similar stories, if not as dramatic. The “Hungarian Plain,” the Balkans all throughout the Americas, and as we learned better the history of Africa, we see a similar pattern in much of the southern part of the continent; peoples and cultures are constantly moving.
So, why did I do this long review of the land and populations changes in Israel and Sicily? Because, if we look at history from a long time view, we see that “things” are not stagnant. With this understanding we can start to think of a potential solution to the crisis in the “Middle East” from an “ancient view point,” that of looking at the fluidness of the populations movement. What can we learn from this long term perspective?
1) Land occupation by any nation can be tentative at best.
2) Land is often exchanged as part of a war and peace process.
3) Peoples around the world have relocated many times.
4) Often people relocate to avoid destruction and war other times for economic reasons (including population increases)
5) The occupation of lands by new people can bring about destruction or it can bring about a great expansion of wealth and culture.
From a “stagnant” point of view, we see the crisis in the Middle East as two peoples (Israel and Palestinians) fighting for the same land, each making claims to the land based on, history, religion and by right of conquest. Both sides have holy places under their controls and not under their control that are bound tight to their, and others, religious foundations. In addition, both groups see their land as a place of salvation and security, having both experience extensive discrimination, (with the Palestinians only having this experience as people living in exile during the last 60 years or so, while the Jews have faced destruction many times, in many locations and for centuries.)
In the stagnant world view, there seems little that can be done but to try and divide the land in some fashion (which most Arabs, and a minority of Israelis, do not want.) It has taken some 40 years of war and terrorism to get the parties to roughly agree on a “two state solution” but in fact this seems not to really satisfy the Arabs, as witnessed by the election victories of the Hamas party, which is still dedicated to the elimination of Israel.
The policies of the West, and Israel, caught up much in the stagnant view, are leading to possible another war of extermination of the Jewish people. The signs are everywhere. The radicals, such Hamas, gain power throughout the region (with Iran supporting their efforts towards a new war). The existing governments of the Arab world are hated by the citizens, in large part for their failure to defeat Israel, and are seen by their own people as the tools of the old and new Christian/Jewish imperialism (France, England and the US.)
The “Arab street” has a strong argument. Most of the current nations in the Middle East have “unnatural boarders” of the existing countries of the region are the remnants of European imperialism. These boarders are mainly based on the failed treaty ending World War I, and its aftermath. Iraq is nothing more then a creation of British and French needs and has not historical basis. Israel, Jordan and Arabia are also manifestations of this period. The lack of “Kurd state” is also linked to the post World War I politics.
The Arab peoples are also far better aware of world history then the people of the West. They tend to see Israel as the reincarnation of the Crusaders states. It took the Muslim world more then 200 years to rid themselves of that old imperialist venture. Israel has only been there for sixty years. The Arabs see time as on their side. Most Westerners, when they think of the Crusades, think on terms of the valiant Christian knights trying to protect Christian pilgrims.
The Arabs also see demographics as on their side. The population of the area is growing in leaps. Clearly the younger population is expressing a new “peoples’ will.” Sooner or later, in some fashion or other, the local older populations’ governments representing the “imperialist” will fall and the “will of the people” will come to power. That new “people’s will” is extensively pro-Islamist and, extensively, willing to go to war with Israel no matter what the cost.
In addition, the outward migration of Muslims into Western Europe and the United States make them and their political and religious views important in these democracies. Israel no longer has the monopoly on the internal advocates on the regional politics. How these demographic changes will affect the political support of the Israel by Western powers will be played out over the next 50 years is not clear. (If the Western powers are still the world powers some 50 years from now.) The shifts away from Israel are already beginning, and the trend towards a least a “more balanced approach” is clearly in place. President’s Bush calling for a Palestinian state was a major sign of that shift.
What is clear, however, from a “stagnant” world point of view, the future is not good for the region. It seems clear, that in the long run the “two-state solution” will not last. It seems clear that eventually Israel will fall, or be destroyed. It is also clear that the war possibly will lead to a world wide nuclear war. Perhaps the “Biblical Prophecies of Armageddon” will come true. Perhaps, the “fire next time” will be the fires of Iranian or terrorist nuclear weapons with replies by Israel and US returns. Or perhaps the sequence will be a pre-emptive strike by the US or Israel. It does not matter, if the outcome is a nuclear war.
However, if we look at the situation from a non- nouveau riche,” non-stagnant world view, we see that there are options. In addition, there is now the wealth in the world, in the Arab lands and among the relevant world powers, to make options possible. There are also precedents in the potential warring parties that could give them the basis for accepting options.
Before the option can be expressed, we need to look at the given needs of the two warring factions:
From the Arab point of view:
Israel is an imposition of Western Imperialism that has led to:
o The disposition and impoverishment of millions of Palestinians, and
o The lost of control of holy sites central to the religion of Islam
The Arabs also see that it is a religious obligation to regain control of lands lost to the “Ulmma” or Islamic community.
Israel, or the Jewish peoples, sees, based in history, that:
o There is a need for a “Jewish state” the real need is for the Jewish state to exist within safe and secure borders.”
o The land was both promised to the by God and British Empire and the World through the UN.
They also see the land as the “promised land” and the only rational place for a Jewish State. In the early period of the Zionist movement” Jewish leadership rejected several options for the location of Israel other the Near East, including Uganda, parts of Argentina and even parts of Utah.
There are several ways for the two points to be phrased, but the real issue seems to come down to having Israel, as a safe and secure place as a nation with a Jewish majority and culture. Demographics, the desire of the Arab masses and many other issues show that bottom line appears is not maintainable over the long haul in its current location.
However, extensively the massive Anti Semitism of the last 150 years, (starting in 19th Century Russia) on through the Holocaust and into the modern Islamist movements have more or less proven the need for a Jewish dominated state.
So from the stagnant world view, there seems to be little solution. However, from the fluid world view there is another solution.
o Move the Jewish state (out of harms way).
To many in the West, this sounds like an absurd solution. Yet, as nouveau riche, they forget their own histories. Each of the states of the West (except for perhaps Norway and Sweden) consists of peoples who started in one place and migrated to another. Often there were multiple movements and relocations. Remember, those who created the Kingdom of Spain can trace their origins to nomadic horsemen from the country now called Ukraine. Most of the Balkans nations are populated by peoples with origins as far away as from Siberia.
So, just for the moment let’s put aside all concepts of absurdity, and ask a critical question; How in this modern age would you go about moving a nation? Especially how do you go about moving a nation without war?
o The answer seems to be buying the nation, and, then using that money to buy some other place to relocate.
Currently, with all the oil wealth in the Arab world, there is actually the wealth available to buy Israel. All that would be needed is to determine a price (and what can stay and what can go.)
The Arabs would regain the lands they so sorely want, and they would do so without war.
o In fact, the Arabs had actually sold the lands in question before, during the Crusading period, Fredrick the Emperor of German, during the sixth Crusade, basically bought all of the “West Bank” and Jerusalem (except for the Dome of the Rock) from the Sultan of Egypt, in exchange for cash and military aid. (February 1229). This in fact was the least costly, bloody and most successful of all the crusades.
o Its outcome was rejected by the Western leaders, (including the Pope) for failure to fight with the “infidels”. This rejection led to more (lost) wars and the final collapse of the Crusader states.
Perhaps the Arabs leaders would be able to not make the same mistakes as the Pope.
So, if the land of Israel can be “bought” by the Arabs, where could Israel go?
o One of the best and clearest options is Sicily.
Besides the fact that the island has just a long history of changing of populations and cultures, it is roughly the same size (Israel 20,770 km² Sicily 25,708 km²) and climate as Israel and there is a similar agriculture base. In addition, as noted the island and its people have not really been happy as part of Italy. The people who remain there are in deep poverty.
Therefore, the land is occupied, and in the modern world, peoples can not be forced to leave to make way for another population. Therefore, the part of the deal would have to include incentives for the people of Sicily to either move or to accept new rulers, citizenship and the new influx of the new culture. First of all there would be the incentive of money. The property of the people would be purchased, if someone agrees to sell. Second, the citizens of Sicily are citizens of both Italy and the European Union. Currently many nations in the EU are facing labor shortages, (most often turning to Turkey for workers) and many people from Sicily could easily resettle in other parts of the EU (with their new cash, and perhaps training and education incentives) .
In addition, there would be no absolute requirement for people to move if they accept the new State and the influx of 7 million new people who would be mostly Jewish. Many Sicilians could remain on the island and take on the role that the Palestinians play in the Israeli economy (low-wage workers in the “service economy”)
But Italy also needs a reason to sell the Island. First of all, the nation is in dire need of economy help. The income from selling Sicily would help greatly in getting some needed resources to help modernize the rest of the country’s infrastructure. It would also rid them of a section of the nation that is an economic drain on the rest of the nation, and a source of much of the nation’s crime.
In addition, the other Western states would benefit with the sale of Israel in that it would release some of the “Petro-dollars” that are currently locked in the Arab world. The sales of Israel and Sicily would help offset the “trade deficit” between the West and Arab world.
Israel would gain a place where they could have a nation in safe and secure boarders, and be able to stop putting so much of their resources into military. Once relocated, the cost of the national enterprise would be greatly reduced, and the more original concepts of the land of Israel could be restored.
The issue of religion and the promise of God and all these other issues will of course stand in the way of any type of settlement for Israel. However, there are solutions for part of this issue. The key part of the solution would include the “internationalization” of Jerusalem, especially the holy sites. The city would become the possession of the United Nations, and that organization would relocate to that site. Other specific sites such as the Dome of the Rock, the Wailing Wall, the Masada, and various Christian sites, would become the United Nations with they delegation the upkeep and security for these sites to specific countries or groups of countries.
In addition, the United Nations would have to guarantee the human rights of all peoples who wish to either stay in the area, or to locate there. In other words, just like the Sicilians could not be “forced to relocate,” neither would Israelis be forced to leave by the new Palestinian government. Any Jew who wished to remain in the old land of Israel should be free to do so. Many of the Orthodox Jews may wish to do so, and they would need to be protected, but by the new government, and by the United Nations.
So, here is the deal … in the sequence that seems to make sense. It actually needs to move backwards. The first step would be Italy agreeing to participate, by agreeing to sell Sicily (and the people of Sicily would have to agree to be part of the deal.) Both of these would have to be “in principle” agreements, since the price will not be established for a long time into the process. Then Israel would need to agree in principle to relocate, and to be “bought.” (again in principle), and massive relocation. Then the Arab governments would have to agree to buy Israel, with the caveats about protections of holy sites and Jews who remain, also with the relocation of the UN. Then, the incentives would also have to be in place eventually to enable the UN to relocate and take on the responsibilities of protection of the holy sites, and minority populations.
There would have to be agreements on costs and on a time table for the change (perhaps over the course of 10-15 years.)
