http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 362706.ece"Suspension — there is no chance for that," he said in the courtyard of Geneva's City Hall and venue for the convention.
"As our supreme leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) clearly said, our path is very clear: We are not going to abandon our rights.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp ... e_id=94315AMMAN: King Abdullah II was urged on Sunday to pardon a Jordanian soldier who is serving a life sentence for killing seven Israeli schoolgirls in 1997..."Following the recent release of Arab prisoners, we hope to see Dakamseh free again," they said, referring to Israel's prisoner swap with Lebanon's Hizbullah last week
From the Department of History at the U.S. Military Academy:Jnyusa wrote: There is simply no conceivable way that a full-fledged army attempting to overrun that kibbutz and others like it, and continue on to Tel Aviv, running downhill all the way, would not have succeeded.
It does refer to the river.River wrote:So, just a question for my own edification...
Cis- and trans- perhaps have a different meaning to me as a biochemist than it does to geopolitical wonks like Jny and soli, but when you two are talking about Cis- and Transjordan, these area are cis- and trans- relative to what? It can't be just the river - given that Jordan is all on one side of the river, that would make is cis- to the Jordan river, but I'm inferring from the flow of this otherwise fascinating conversation that the Transjordan more or less equates with the current nation of Jordan. So...
Jny, for goodness' sake. Transjordan did *not* include any territory west of the river (the name's a clue) until Abdullah annexed most of what the UN partion had allocated to the Arabs of Palestine.You can repeat it as many times as you want, sol, if that makes you feel as if your version is correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JordanIn 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank, which had been under its control since the armistice that followed the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
If by that you mean organized masscres and pogroms......Their armed opposition to Jewish settlements in Palestine began at the very onset of Jewish immigration
Based on Kfar Etzion (which involved Jordanian troops) I’d say that they were similarly motivated.Jnyusa wrote: If the armies of surrounding countries had been similarly motivated, I do not believe for one minute that there would be a Jewish state today.
It’s a fairly basic tenet of military strategy, though, that you don’t leave isolated enemy strongholds behind you where their garrisons can cut you off. Besides, if the Arab League was trying to destroy Israel, it wouldn’t have been enough to simply take Tel Aviv – they would have needed to deal with all of the other settlements as well, or at least the major ones.Jnyusa wrote: If the objective of the war is to take Tel Aviv, you don't start out by attacking Ein Gev or Ashkalon. There is no sense in wasting time on these settlements.
As always, exactamundo.Jnyusa wrote:. . . . you have a very colorful (and militaristic) view of the glories of empire, Sol, but to actually be a long-term occupying force in another country carries with it a load of grief. Everyone but the Americans seems to have learned that by now, and we will learn too, the hard way just like everyone else.
'Regular' as opposed to the ad-hoc groups of settlers which defended the Kibbutz. Certainly the map shows the IDF being divided into Division, Brigade and Regiment-level units.Jnyusa wrote:So what? The fact that they named it Israeli Defense after naming themselves Israel is a complete non-issue. These were the Haganah. They did not suddenly acquire guns and replacement troops and an air force on the day they started calling themselves the IDF. My father-in-law was still referring to himself as Haganah in 1980.sol wrote:ncidentally, the IDF was founded on May 26, 1948, in the midst of the war.
Lord M referred to the 'regulars' of the Israeli army fighting the 'regulars' of the Arab army, and there was no such configuration in 1948.
