To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (6791 ) 4/21/2004 2:41:51 PM From: Hawkmoon Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15987 I don't believe that's correct, Hawk. Jordan occupied the territory, but only England recognized the annexation. The rest of the world regarded the territory as stateless and occupied. Who cares if the rest of the world recognized it. It was a "reality on the ground" and no one lifted an international finger to prevent, or reverse, it. Just like no one lifted a finger to make Israel revert back to it's 1948 bordersWha?! Dayan was a dove. He did everything not to drive out the Arabs, A dove??!!! ROFLMAO!!! Granted he wasn't a Likudnick, but But he, and others, DID conspire to "thin out" the Arab population on the West Bank and East Jerusalem after 1967: mideastfacts.com 2.1 The Destruction of the al-Magharbeh Quarter: The June 1967 war began suddenly and ended quickly. At the end of the war, there were attempts to implement a forced population transfer. Residents of towns and villages in areas near the Green Line were expelled from their homes and their communities destroyed; the Israeli authorities offered financial ‘incentives’ and free transportation to Palestinians willing to leave. In the course of hostilities and in the immediate aftermath of the war, with its rapidly changing circumstances, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan and other army commanders (including 'Uzi Narkiss, Haim Hertzog, and Shlomo Lahat) found an ideal opportunity to drive out tens of thousands of Palestinians from their villages, towns and refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Israeli conception of exploiting opportunities to transfer Arab populations, which was first employed in 1948, resurfaced shortly after the 1967 War: commanders in various ranks of the army believed that the wind blowing from the political echelon was calling for the exploiting of opportunity to thin out the Palestinian population in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. And this little "gem" from 1955:Expansionism - continued In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, there is an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: "[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no-it must-invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge.. . And above all-let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." Quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism." alinaam.org.za Golda Meir's main problems as prime minister concerned the Arab territories occupied in the Six-Day War of 1967. The right wing of her party, led by Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, wanted Israel to colonize and then incorporate them. ou.org And this:Golda Meir became prime minister in 1969. In this post she clashed with Dayan who wanted to colonize the Arab territories occupied during the Six-Day War. For a while Meir wanted to negotiate a peace settlement that would allow the return of Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria. However, she eventually sided with Dayan. spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk For most of his career, Dayan could do little wrong. However, by the 1970’s, there were those who saw Dayan as being too hawkish in his approach. historylearningsite.co.uk I think I have seriously refuted your ridiculous contention that Dayan was a "dove" Now maybe he had a change of heart after the '73 war,when he faced the "reality on the ground" after that near disaster (which forced him to resign as defense minister). But I don't think you can exactly refer to him as a dove in 1967-70. He is noted in Israeli history as having wanted to colonize the West Bank. And that set the stage for the policies that every Israeli government has followed since.Look, whenever two sides build up to conflict in the history of the world, there are going to be people saying, 'but gosh, if you fight, you'll just make them mad'. That's not what we're talking about here Nadine. I have no problem with eliminating Hamas and the other Islamic militants in Palestine. THEY are the real problem this world is facing. But Sharon's policies to "balkanize" the West Bank, effectively denying them any solid and credible borders, is JUST RIDICULOUS. Israelis wouldn't accept such an outcome so how the hell do you think Palestinians will be willing to do so? Sharon has left Palestinian moderates with no ability to confront the militants and say, "this is not a terrible deal.. It's not what we want, but it creates a viable geographical border for our nation state which separates us from those hated Jews".. But now, Sharon has simply stated that Israeli settlements IN THE MIDST of Palestinian territory is something they will have no choice but to accept. No negotiation.. nothing.. And that GUARANTEES that this conflict will not end. Which is the best reason I can think of for internationalizing the issue and knocking both of their heads together...Arab societies have never really fought modern wars and don't know what they entail. We do. What incredible arrogance on your part, Nadine. If you haven't noticed, "modern war" is being dictated by the militants willing to sacrifice their very lives to kill anyone they perceive as worthy of death. And there's a hell of a lot more of them than there are Israelis. And you haven't seen anything yet.. 5-10 years from now, you're going to be staring at tens of millions of young Arabs with nothing better to do than seek some delusional "past glory".. And tanks, helicopters, missiles, or even nukes isn't going to be able to stop them. Hawk