dub

yeah, you've been saying "amateurish", but it doesn't mean you make sense. HRW has come to a conclusion based on the evidence they have that: Israeli forces used white phosphorus munitions in an indiscriminate or disproportionate manner in violations of the laws of war. "if" israel didn't use the WP as a weapon, what was it used for? for obscuring effects or maybe for a cool smoke and fire show? why couldn't they use another smoke artillery that didn't burn people's skins? there are plenty of them out there. you are either having a hard time understanding the simple language used by HRW or you choose to avoid this conclusion and the evidence given in the report: And if the purpose was to obscure military maneuvers, the IDF could have achieved similar obscuring effects through use of smoke artillery without causing the same degree of civilian harm. Israel has not asserted that it used white phosphorus as a weapon, but the apparent absence of nearby Hamas fighters in cases investigated by Human Rights Watch, as well as the legal limitations placed on the use of white phosphorus weapons in populated areas, would not justify its use in this manner. That would remain true even if Hamas forces were deployed among civilians or using civilians as “shields,” as Israel has asserted, because Israel would still have a duty to attack Hamas in a more discriminate way so as to minimize civilian casualties.

my mistake. that should have said a report from HRW. so have you read it yet? if you want, we can talk about the evidence and you can tell me what it is about the evidence you don't agree with. the report is well-detailed and documented. here it is again: In incidents investigated by Human Rights Watch, Israeli forces used white phosphorus munitions in an indiscriminate or disproportionate manner in violations of the laws of war. In these incidents, even if the intended use of the white phosphorus was as an obscurant, it had the effect on the ground as a weapon. The rationale for an obscurant seems doubtful because there were either no Israeli forces in the vicinity to screen or such forces were for a considerable period in a stationary deployment. And if the purpose was to obscure military maneuvers, the IDF could have achieved similar obscuring effects through use of smoke artillery without causing the same degree of civilian harm. Israel has not asserted that it used white phosphorus as a weapon, but the apparent absence of nearby Hamas fighters in cases investigated by Human Rights Watch, as well as the legal limitations placed on the use of white phosphorus weapons in populated areas, would not justify its use in this manner. That would remain true even if Hamas forces were deployed among civilians or using civilians as “shields,” as Israel has asserted, because Israel would still have a duty to attack Hamas in a more discriminate way so as to minimize civilian casualties.

looks like you're going to avoid responding again. as stated before, the article is from a scottish paper and you're still not telling me what it is that the senate committee was wrong about.

okay. lets start with the US aid to israel. scroll down to "meeting israel's special needs" where it talks about the aid received since the 70's. as far as aid that goes to palestinians, what you quoted was $7.4billion pledged. i'm still waiting for you to give me actual numbers that the palestinians have received. the PA has never received a steady guaranteed stream of aid like israel has. the data that is available shows that they received $353 million in 2004 and $363 million in 2005 from various countries including the U.S. if we compare that to what israel receives in average per year from U.S., which is over $3billion, ($3,000,000,000) and what the PA received in 2005 ($363,000,000), again, there is no doubt that the PA has received a fraction of what israel receives in aid. i'm glad that you were able to learn something today. i just hope you don't post misinformation like you did previously.

even though i don't agree with everything the above people have said, the few times i've read articles from the site, i haven't found any holes in the information that they've posted. the article is hardly an opinion piece. if you have found any of the information that the senate committee has given in regards to the US government allowing the selling of these chemicals, by all means, share away. otherwise, the tactic of dismissing this information, simply because the article was "re-posted" on the web site common dreams is ridiculous.

how much of this $7.4 that was pledged did the PA actually received in the 3 years? even if they received all that was pledged to them, how does that compare to the over $100 billion that israel has received from the U.S.? also, contrary to what you posted, do you now accept that israel uses most of the money they receive on "weapons"?

getting back to the topic, from the UN report: In incidents investigated by Human Rights Watch, Israeli forces used white phosphorus munitions in an indiscriminate or disproportionate manner in violations of the laws of war. In these incidents, even if the intended use of the white phosphorus was as an obscurant, it had the effect on the ground as a weapon. The rationale for an obscurant seems doubtful because there were either no Israeli forces in the vicinity to screen or such forces were for a considerable period in a stationary deployment. And if the purpose was to obscure military maneuvers, the IDF could have achieved similar obscuring effects through use of smoke artillery without causing the same degree of civilian harm. Israel has not asserted that it used white phosphorus as a weapon, but the apparent absence of nearby Hamas fighters in cases investigated by Human Rights Watch, as well as the legal limitations placed on the use of white phosphorus weapons in populated areas, would not justify its use in this manner. That would remain true even if Hamas forces were deployed among civilians or using civilians as “shields,” as Israel has asserted, because Israel would still have a duty to attack Hamas in a more discriminate way so as to minimize civilian casualties.

we're talking about at least $3billion every single year for decades from the U.S. taxpayers to israel vs a "pledge" to give aid to the palestinian authority in the span of a few years. whatever aid that is given to the palestinians is to fix the mess the israeli government has created by shutting down the economy or by military attacks. for example, the latest israel attack on gaza has left most of gaza in ruins. whereas, israel, receives guaranteed financial aid and it uses most of that on military weapons. israel has received over $100 billion from the U.S. taxpayers. what the palestinian authorities have received has been a fraction of that.

what's wrong with that site? i don't understand your reaction. it was an article that was published in scotland and the quotes are genuine. tell me what your problem with the information provided.

i suppose you read it after making the comment about hamas not being condemned in this report when the report was on the use of WP. right? no. you're wrong again. they have evidence of illegal use. they are experts in these matters. i'm sorry to say, but your amateur opinion does not count on this issue. especially when you refuse to acknowledge the rules of engagement and the mounting evidence of illegal use of WP. if it's illegal, it's illegal. as said before, international law does not care whether a nazi commander gassed 1 jew or 1000 jews. this is why hamas' rocket attacks were illegal even though only 3 israeli civilians were killed. israel is signatory to the international law. this is not about you and how you don't care for international law.

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.' what's next? are you going to say that the US senate committee and the UN inspectors are part of hamas or this is all pallywood?

instead of distancing yourself from foolish arguments, you jump right in there and join the other clown. "VX nerve gas" is not used in agriculture. neither are some other chemicals which were sold to iraq by the U.S.

actually it is not like that dancer. the bombings are different than the WP use. the UN compound which was bombed had people taking refuge in it from israel's bombings. israel had been told several times and they knew exactly where the UN compound was and knew that civilians were taking refuge. yet, they still shot the WP. that's not the only incident of illegal use of WP. israel "denied" using them at first. then after too much evidence, they changed their stance and said, "oh yeah, it was used, but it was used legally". The army’s use of white phosphorus – which makes a distinctive shellburst of dozens of smoke trails – was reported first by The Times on January 5, when it was strenuously denied by the army. Now, in the face of mounting evidence and international outcry, Israel has been forced to backtrack on that initial denial. “Yes, phosphorus was used but not in any illegal manner,” now, the human rights organization, after a full investigation has said that WP was used illegally. try reading the report by the experts documenting that israel used WP illegally. that's if you're interested in facts instead of being a war crime apologist.

you didn't even bother to read. you could have at least the description of the report. this report is about the use of WP. hamas did not use WP. war crimes does not acknowledge limits in numbers killed. whether you indiscriminately kill one person or 20 people, you're still guilty. it's a simple logic. maybe if i use zionist analogy, you might understand: whether you are responsible for gassing 1 jew or 20 jews, you're still guilty.

not sure how you equate israeli soldiers testimony to war crimes as "pallywood". it's true that "some" israeli soldiers did not witness these war crimes first hand, but some did and they talked about it. you're a dishonest person DoP.

it's there but you choose not to acknowledge it. This 71-page report provides witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza. Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school. The report also presents ballistics evidence, photographs, and satellite imagery, as well as documents from the Israeli military and government.

i don't trust you. this is why i'm here. you can keep coming back with your usual replies, but in the real world: - human rights organizations have investigated some of the allegations and they have come to the conclusion that israel has committed war crimes - israeli soldiers have admitted in being involved in and have witnessed some of the allegations, personally you're a dishonest person DoP.

during the latest attack: 3 israeli civilians were killed. over 600 palestinian women and children were killed. there is nothing "similar" about this scenario so it doesn't really warrant the same concerns. don't you think? to be fair, eh? you are talking out of your ass again.

you managed to share a lot of misinformation in such a small paragraph. just so you know: #1 - israel receives over $3billion a year from the US tax payers. they spend majority of that on weapons #2 - palestinians receive a fraction of that from the international community and a lot of that goes towards an infrastructure that israel has crippled

you are a clown. how is VX nerve gas used in agriculture? how do you expect people to take you seriously with foolish posts like that?

"At first the specified action was to go into a house. We were supposed to go in with an armored personnel carrier called an Achzarit [literally, Cruel] to burst through the lower door, to start shooting inside and then ... I call this murder ... in effect, we were supposed to go up floor by floor, and any person we identified - we were supposed to shoot. I initially asked myself: Where is the logic in this? "From above they said it was permissible, because anyone who remained in the sector and inside Gaza City was in effect condemned, a terrorist, because they hadn't fled. I didn't really understand: On the one hand they don't really have anywhere to flee to, but on the other hand they're telling us they hadn't fled so it's their fault sounds like this guy was there. are you going say that he wasn't there?

are you talking about israel's war crimes?

thanx for the definition. unfortunately for you and your personal definition, it's already been determined that they used the WP illegally.

"only" 12 people were killed. so what? what's your point? what part of using WP on civilians is a war crime don't you get?

lol @ NYT being sympathetic to hamas. are you the third stooge?