|
One of Machiavelli's observation in his Book "The Prince" is to control an area you must either settle it with your own people AND remove all other people OR if that can not be done then to set up a colony. Now this is a Colony in the Ancient Greek and Roman sense of the world, your own people given the best land and laws that favor them over the natives so that these colonists will fight to keep to in control of that area, for if you lost control they lost their homes given to them by you.
This is the real attempt by Israel as in regard to the Settlements, to provide "Colonists" that can be called on to support continued Israeli occupation of the area. We tend to forget this definition of Colonist for it does NOT reflect the American Experience (The Indians had suffered death rates up to 90% throughout North America in the Century prior to American Colonization, thus we settled in a relatively unpopulated area. Native Americans existed by no where near what they had been in 1492. Most of this death rate was do to Small pox unintentionally passed onto the Indians (The Only official effort at this was by General Amhurst during the French and Indian war, 1754-1763. American Colonist OPPOSED the proposal do to a fear of Small Pox coming back to hit the white Community. American fear of British use of Small Pox was so deep, that George Washington, who had been a Colonel under Amhurst, had the US Army inoculated against Small Pox, being the first Army ever to be 100% inoculated, show you how much Washington Trusted the British, Amhurst by the Time of the American Revolution was Commander in Chief of the British Army, fortunately for the US he refused to leave Britain between 1775 and 1783).
Anyway but to Classical Colonization. Rome was the biggest practicer of Colonization, they moved Retired Roman Soldier and settled them all over the Area they had conquered, so that in what was the Roman Empire there was no place some Roman Colonist was not (An exception was Italy, but most Italians were classified as Roman Citizens by the time of the Empire so not much of problem in Italy after the end of the Second Punic war in 202 BC). As I said, Rome was the big participate in Colonization, but it was done elsewhere. During the Norman Conquest of Britain, the Norman set up "Keeps" for Norman Soldiers to watch the Native English. These Keeps were surrounded by the best land but also had the best defense. Castles were the key to Norman Control of England and these Castle were maintained till the Normans and English more or less merged by the 1300s. At that point the castles were no longer needed and fell into disrepair. William the Conquered did two things in almost any sizable city or town in England, he built or rebuilt the local Church that everyone was a member of and at the same time build a Castle in or by the Town or City for his local Norman henchmen to live in. As soon as the two groups existed they intermingled (as had the Roman Colonists, another factor considered key by both the Roman and Machiavelli for it permitted the Colonists to know what the natives were up to and to prepare for it AND slowly brought the Natives into the Roman way of thinking, thus by 200 AD most people living inside the Roman Empire thought of themselves as Romans NOT whatever was their native background. It was this build up of the Roman Empire that permitted it to survive for another 300 years in Western Europe, 500 years in Egypt and 1200 years in Greece (and that is NOT including the tendency for people to think of themselves as Roman long after the Empire had fallen and the only remaining institution of the Roman Empire was the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, this lasted while pass the Renaissance).
The American Colonial system was replaced by the European rush for Africa and other third world countries in the 1800s. This tended to follow the trend Britain first used in India, becoming the tax collectors and bureaucrats for the native leaders and slowly turn their government into a means of control of the Natives. Sometime the Native leaders retained nominal control, but with the British suppling the Guns and Troops as while as the tax collectors, these third world Countries quickly came under the control of one or another European power (Britain and France being the biggest colonizers during this period). The key here was control of the economics of the Country, and once that was achieved then legal control of the Country. With the advent of Steam powered ships and later Trains, both of which were made in Europe and shipped overseas to these colonies, Europeans could undermine almost any native economic group. In fact as Train became more and more important, these third world Countries became more and more dependent in coal from Europe in addition to the trains and steam ships. Once the advantage of Steam ships and coal disappeared at the end of WWII (And the advent of the age of Oil) such colonies threw off European control in favor of native control. Notice the age of European Conquest reflected the fact that Europe had a huge technology edge, do to steam, over almost any other country of the world. Once that edge disappear so did the control over those third world countries. Like the American colonization period more a product of that time period then use of Colonies as practiced throughout history. I bring it up just to show you that you should avoid using either the American or Rush to Africa colonial experience when evaluating Colonies from other periods. The Romans and Normans (and other countries throughout history) have used what is called the Classical Colonial system NOT the Colonial System that occurred during the settlement of America, the Conquest of Latin America by Spain and Portugal and the 19th Century Rush to Africa and other third world countries.
I know I keep getting off track, for the Israelis are NOT doing everything Machiavelli pointed out the Romans did. The people in the Settlement do NOT interact with the Natives, the hostility is severe. The Normans and English went to the same church and thus interacted on at least one level in addition to buying and selling food and other items needed by the residents of the Castle (One of the great observations of the Churches and Castles of Britain, both tended to be build about the same time, but the Churches survive to this day, most still in use, the Castle were abandoned by the time of the Reformation for better housing inside the nearby city itself for the protection of the castle was no longer needed, the overloads of the Castle had become the one and the same with the people of the area and thus no longer needed the castle for protection from the natives, for they had become the natives). I point this out for, again, the Settlements are violating one of the rules of Colonization, interacting with the natives other then as an occupying force. The Colony must be strong and careful when dealing with the natives, but it must also be the point for the natives to deal with the Government supported by the Colonists.
This has been one of the problems of the Settlements, unlike the Kibbutz of the pre-WWII era there is NO interaction between the Jews and the Arabs, in fact in the West Bank the Settlements have private roads that separated them from the natives even as they travel through Arab held lands. This is all Stick with no club and the key to a successful use of Colonies to control an area is that the Colony provides both a club (A group of people willing to fight for the government they represent) AND a Carrot (The natives get use to using the colony as a way to communicate their needs to the Government). Part of this is the product of Jordan, who kept paying natives in the West Bank as if they were still under Jordanian Rule for Decades after the 1967 war (And thus the Arabs became use to dealing with Israeli NOT through the Settlements but through Jordan) but the biggest problem was the people in the Settlements view the Arabs as people that must be driven out of the area. Unlike Roman Colonist or even Norman Barons (Who view the natives as a resource to exploit, but to exploit them you had to protect and take care of them in addition to guarding them), these Settles of these Settlements view the natives as something that have to be driven out of Israel. The settlers view that duty, i.e. to drive out the Arabs, as their primary duty and that means NO interaction with the natives other then to drive them away.
The Israeli plan for the Settlements is domed to fail OR a set up for an Arab Genocide (i.e. Mass killings of the Native Arabs in "Greater Israel"). I do NOT think the Israeli government willy wants either (And the US Government clearly do not want either, but that is the road we are on), but it is headed that way for Israel is NOT using these Colonies as the Romans and Machiavelli said they should be used (A stick and a Carrot, the Settlements are clearly a stick, but where is the Carrot from the Settlements and once you look at them you see there is no carrol for the Palestinians). The settlements either have to be dismantled OR resettled with people willing to work with the Palestinians. The problem is moderate Israelis do NOT want to go to the Settlements given the radicals in charge of them today AND the hatred of them by the Palestinians, thus they MUST be withdrawn, something the US Government is NOT willing to force the Israelis to do (and the US can force it, but cutting off all aid until it is done).
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
