Watched first 20 mins – all the time I had. So far, he presents some interesting details that I knew nothing about, such as the decision to NOT break the Jordanians in Judea and Samaria in 1949 and annex the West Bank. Who is to say those Palestinians would not have fled across the Jordan river, as those in the coastal areas did to Lebanon or Gaza? We could have been left with the entire land!
I don’t support ethnic cleansing, but I also don’t see a need to force or encourage the Arabs to stay if they want to leave – as was done after 1967 – as a way of demonstrating how morally superior we are. If Arabs want to emigrate, we should open the door and kiss them on the way out.

I think he’s talking about the many Arabs who actually did leave the West Bank during the course of the 1967 War, and were requested to return by Moshe Dayan soonafter that War’s conclusion.
Where did you get the idea that this didn’t happen?

Let’s leave it to everybody else to decide if it’s such a jump in logic…….
kind of like that insane abstraction I made that some JewSchoolers think that the state of Israel is a failure. Remember how you were pretty certain that nobody here had ever written as such, only to have the two most prolific JS Israel-bloggers inform us that they both think the state is a failure?

Jonathan,
Speaking of Moshe Dayan, he was opposed to the taking of the Golan. If I remember correctly, he said at the time that the Golan were a mountain fortress and we would take 30,000 casualties. Instead, the Syrians were so desperate for international mediation after we destroyed their air force that they announced that the Golan had capitulated well before it actually happened. The 70,000 Syrian soldiers stationed in the Golan were so demoralized by this announcement from their own government that they evacuated their positions and we took them with very low casualties.
If that is not a miracle, I don’t know what is.
And a certain someone wants to give them back 🙂
I’m not giving up on you.

Didn’t we have a conversation about keeping the Golan?
I’m pretty sure it was you, Jonathan.

Here, this is that blog Victor. You’re confusing me with Justin again I think.
http://jewschool.com/2009/02/12/15168/i-just-love-these-guys/#comments

This is almost comical — Jonathan, Justin, Jason…and Victor. Plus kyleb. But yes, a preponderance of faceless J-names contributes to confusion. Let’s remember to cut each other some slack.

“I assumed we all knew the history. Moshe Dayan gave his personal assurances and practically begged them (or maybe actually begged them) not to leave, and for the 250,000 who left to come back.”
I’ve heard the claim, but I can’t say I’ve actually seen it documented. Could you recommend a source? However, in reference to the Six Day War and Dayan, here is something some may not know here:
Said Dayan: `I made a mistake in allowing the [Israeli] conquest of the Golan Heights. As defense minister I should have stopped it because the Syrians were not threatening us at the time.` The attack proceeded, he went on, not because Israel was threatened but because of pressure from land-hungry farmers and army commanders in northern Israel. `Of course [war with Syria] was not necessary. You can say the Syrians are bastards and attack when you want. But this is not policy. You don`t open aggression against an enemy because he`s a bastard but because he`s a threat.`
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=18442

Kyleb–
Most books about that war mention it, and have the pictures of Palestinians crossing back over the destroyed bridges, from the East Bank to the West Bank.
Moshe Dayan was the one who designed our working-relationship with the Palestinians, btw. He’s also the Defense Minister who stated that if had had to choose Sharm el-Shiek (sp?) or peace with Egypt he’d choose Sharm el-Shiek. So, we can’t always rely on his judgment.

Excuse my pedantic nature (KFJ) but that numerical claim was made by Victor and not me.
As for Dayan, point is we shoudn’t feel some guilt about holding onto the Golan JUST because Dayan said, on occasion, that it was unessary to conquer it. I sleep a lot better at night knowing the Syrians aren’t up there.

I tried to explain to you Victor’s statement, because apparantly you take things very literally and completely missed the point of the thought he was conveying.
Regardless, you might not want to use that quote to demonstrate Israel’s provocations…because Dayan is referring to the decision to conquer the Golan at the end of the 1967 War, not the airfights in May ’67–which obviously were part of the Israeli plan to have Nasser block the Straits of Tiran and for King Huessien to enter the ’67 war (after receiving repeated Israeli warnings that we were not interested in fighting them,) which were also part of the Israeli plan for the Syrians to try to cut off the supply to the Jordan River and the shelling from the Golan, etc., over 19 years…it was all part of the Israeli master-plan.

Ok. Obviously there are different viewpoints here.

Good God man, are you some type of attorney?

Ok.
1. from the posts above, kyleb: “… here is something some may not know here:
Said Dayan: `I made a mistake in allowing the [Israeli] conquest of the Golan Heights. As defense minister I should have stopped it because the Syrians were not threatening us at the time.` The attack proceeded, he went on, not because Israel was threatened but because of pressure from land-hungry farmers and army commanders in northern Israel. `Of course [war with Syria] was not necessary. You can say the Syrians are bastards and attack when you want. But this is not policy. You don`t open aggression against an enemy because he`s a bastard but because he`s a threat.
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=18442”
2. from above, kyleb: ” Regardless, my point in quoting Dayan was more to demonstrate Israel’s provocations towards Syria, which lead to Egypt’s announcing it’s intent to blockade of the Straits of Tiran, and then to Israel’s attack on Egypt and the conquest of the Golan along with much more land”
3. from above, me: “Regardless, you might not want to use that quote to demonstrate Israel’s provocations…because Dayan is referring to the decision to conquer the Golan at the end of the 1967 War,”
4. from above, kyleb: “Dayan was referring to provocations over the preceding two decades, as the article explains.”
Now, I did read that article kyleb. And, again, the quote you put up is referring to the decision to conquer the Golan during the ’67 War; this should be self-evident. Mr. Dayan also refers to what you and he call provocations over the two decades before the war.
Personally, I think that Israel was completly justified in taking the Golan in the ’67 war, even though Mr. Dayan talks about the awful Israeli provocations of sending famers into the disbuted areas. I get the impression that you disagree, and I’m guessing others do as well.
5. Hence, I wrote, from above: “Ok. Obviously there are different viewpoints here.”
6. Then, from above, kyleb: “Do you realise that your previously expressed viewpoint of ” Dayan is referring to the decision to conquer the Golan at the end of the 1967 War” is contradicted by the article I presented?”
I don’t know how to break this to you, but: “I made a mistake in allowing the [Israeli] conquest of the Golan Heights. As defense minister I should have stopped it because the Syrians were not threatening us at the time.` The attack proceeded, he went on, not because Israel was threatened but because of pressure from land-hungry farmers and army commanders in northern Israel.” is referring to the cabinet’s decision, under enormous pressure from the northern communities, to take the Golan at the end of the ’67 War.”
Don’t worry, it doesn’t mean–in that article–that Moshe Dayan did not also talk about two decades of Israeli provocations. He did. Personally, I don’t think that’s what led to Egypt blocking the Straits of Tiran in ’67, as you write–but you think it was. Ok. There is a disagreement here.

Ok. Like I said, we have different interpretations of that period of history.

It’s always difficult to determine when events leading to another event begin.
So let’s just say, in my opinion, the war in June ’67 was a continuation of our neighbors’ war to destroy Israel, which began in May’48. That war ended in March ’79. Of course, we have been fighting a different war with the Palestinians (with ourselves?) since June ’67; it looks like we’ll lose this time.
Appararently, you think that the events leading to the June ’67 war began in May ’67. So, again, we have a different perspective on history.
I don’t know how to prove that Nasser was only bluffing when he expelled the UN observers from the Sinai and moved an entire army onto our border, and closed the Straits of Tiran, and gave multiple speeches about how his goal was to destroy Israel. I don’t know how to prove that he knew that the false information passed to him by the Soviets (through the Syrians) that we wanted war with Egypt was indeed false. Moshe Dayan gave that interview, in which he claimed that 80% of the shelling, over the years, of our northern communities was provoked. Even if that is true (which is debatable) it means that we were supposed to accept being shelled the other 20% of the time, and accept having the Syrians try to block our main water supply.
Also, you might want to explain who the interests working against peace were. Dayan was nowhere near the government until days before the war’s commencement. Rabin (the chief-of-staff) had a nervous breakdown in the days preceding the war. Eshkol (the PM) insisted on holding back his generals for weeks, and he died a broken man because of the war’s results. Is this the behavior of leaders who were so confident in victory that they would start an entire a war on all fronts?
But, again, we’re just making interpretations of historical facts. Apparently, you think we thrust the war upon our neighbors. There is no way to prove/disprove that view.

Actually he started out by completely misrepresenting my stated position and it only got worse from there. But whatever.

Yeah, I didn’t expect you’d have it any other way.

Kyleb, this is the second time in a day that I’ve seen you duck a discussion, accuse or attack others, and then disengage. If you think he misrepresented your words, then show some evidence. This is not the case from what I’m reading. Just saying it doesn’t make it so.

kyleb,
You’ve presented your views and I’ve presented mine. That’s it. I’m sure that most JS readers agree with you. It’s over.
….
There’s no reason to write like you’re the kid who takes the ball home when the game doesn’t go his way. Most people agree with you, I just don’t. If you feel the need to continually write things like –anybody who doesn’t agree with me refuses to see the truth — then that’s your right and God bless you.