Citing sources: obscurity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
David's calling Richard Jackson an 'academic' was a mis-characterisation. To understand where Richard Jackson is coming from one needs to note that he describes himself as a pacifist and a Christian. Given the former he is sure to list as many conditions as he can to render a 'just war' impossible and given the latter he presents his case in a sanctimonious and holier-than-thou manner.
So David should have introduced this person's article as follows: "here is the opinion of an obscure Christian pacifist living in New Zealand, for what that's worth".
JMA,
I offered Professor Richard Jackson's viewpoint for SWC to read and maybe discuss. I have met him once, so I know he has a sharp writing style. On the linked wbsite his bio starts with:
Quote:
In February 2012, I took up the post of Deputy Director of the
National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Prior to this, I was Professor of International Politics at Aberystwyth University in Wales, UK. I study and teach on issues of terrorism, political violence, war, security, peace and conflict resolution. I have published several academic books on these topics...
I have not looked further into his viewpoint, whether he is a Christian or a pacifist to me is a moot point. One thing I will not do is introduce any source with the remarks you use; I will and have noted before on a few sources their origins to enable "reader beware".
Staying in Palestine was a thankless task
I cite The Curmudgeon in part (Post 59):
Quote:
As I look at this problem it seems to me that the UK and the US created this mess. What we are seeing is the inevitable result of one of the last of the colonial mistakes of trying to
create a state where one formerly did not exist and without the consent of the local population.
I will only briefly comment on the role of the UK. The violent campaign by Jewish extremists / terrorists started in February 1944, with a more widely supported Jewish revolt on the 31st October 1945. The murder of unarmed soldiers in April 1946 hardened opinions, but the British government declined to use 'traditional' responses, such as blowing up houses, collective fines and curfews. The British HQ, in the King David's Hotel, was blown up in July; by January 1947 over three divisions were deployed - amidst an economic crisis at home.
It appears that remaining was unpopular with all in the UK, even Churchill and so instead of being the referee in a thankless task, the problem was handed back to the UN - the mandate was over. In July 1948 two kidnapped soldiers were hung, in reprisal for three Jewish terrorists and their bodies were bobby-trapped. On the 1st August 1948 the mandate ended and the UK had largely gone by the 30th June.
Summary based on a chapter in 'Withdrawal From Empire: A Military View' by General William Jackson (Pub. 1986).
Blame the UK, yes. Was it a mistake to leave? Maybe, but on a quick review we had no wish to remain as the "jam in the middle" as Arab and Jew readied themselves for what was to come. That hardly helps today.
Captured Hamas Combat Manual Explains Benefits of Human Shields
From the IDF:
Quote:
IDF forces in the Gaza Strip found a Hamas manual on “Urban Warfare,” which belonged to the Shuja’iya Brigade of Hamas’ military wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades. The manual explains how the civilian population can be used against IDF forces and reveals that Hamas knows the IDF is committed to minimizing harm to civilians.
This Hamas urban warfare manual exposes two truths: (1) The terror group knows full well that the IDF will do what it can to
limit civilian casualties. (2) The terror group exploits these efforts by using civilians as human shields against advancing IDF forces.
Link:http://www.idfblog.com/blog/2014/08/...human-shields/
http://www.idfblog.com/wp-content/up...8/shajaiya.jpg