UN - Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza

[dub]

That is not from the UN.

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.

[M.Dancer]

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.

As I said, amatuerish opinion. It doesn't take a military intelligence expert to deduce what is wrong with that statement, but I will let you stew in your own juices awhile and see if you can figure it out.

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.

Not according to the GC. First off, they didn't use WP as a weapon..so ergo there duty to minimize civilian casualties is met. Secondly the GC allows an attack on combattants even if there is a possibility of civilian casualities.

[Rue]

As usual someone takes a topic and tries to exploit it for a particular parisan purpose in this case an opportunity to single out Israel again.

If the topic is genuinely about whether white phosphorous should be used as a weapon then I would argue of course not it should be outlawed.

I hate it as a weapon. It exposes civilians to excruciating pain. It is inhumane. I wish there was a way we could stop the whole world from using it for any reason.

To the person trying to exploit the horror of this weapon for partisan purposes, i.e., another round of wack the poo poo known as Israel may I suggest you would have more credibility if you referenced your criticism of the weapon in a world context and not present it in a way that suggests it is a problem specific to Israel.

All nations in the world must stop using it. I think getting the UN nations to sign a treaty banning it is possible. Trying to get Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and terrorists not to use it will be impossible.

It is a horrible weapon. It truly is a weapon of terror because it slowly burns through skin to the bone.

I personally wish the IDF would not use it under any circumstance. I hate it. I hate what it does to Palestinians and to people in general in all conflicts where it is used.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Rue

[dub]

As I said, amatuerish opinion. It doesn't take a military intelligence expert to deduce what is wrong with that statement, but I will let you stew in your own juices awhile and see if you can figure it out.

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.

Not according to the GC. First off, they didn't use WP as a weapon..so ergo there duty to minimize civilian casualties is met. Secondly the GC allows an attack on combattants even if there is a possibility of civilian casualities.

"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.

[dub]

As usual someone takes a topic and tries to exploit it for a particular parisan purpose in this case an opportunity to single out Israel again.

If the topic is genuinely about whether white phosphorous should be used as a weapon then I would argue of course not it should be outlawed.

I hate it as a weapon. It exposes civilians to excruciating pain. It is inhumane. I wish there was a way we could stop the whole world from using it for any reason.

To the person trying to exploit the horror of this weapon for partisan purposes, i.e., another round of wack the poo poo known as Israel may I suggest you would have more credibility if you referenced your criticism of the weapon in a world context and not present it in a way that suggests it is a problem specific to Israel.

All nations in the world must stop using it. I think getting the UN nations to sign a treaty banning it is possible. Trying to get Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and terrorists not to use it will be impossible.

It is a horrible weapon. It truly is a weapon of terror because it slowly burns through skin to the bone.

I personally wish the IDF would not use it under any circumstance. I hate it. I hate what it does to Palestinians and to people in general in all conflicts where it is used.

you missed the whole point again Rue. perhaps you should pay attention a little more to the exact topic of discussion without drowning it out in your long winded commentaries that you love to hear yourself talk about.

the question is whether israel used WP legally and illegally. according to HRW and all the evidence provided, they used it illegally.

[M.Dancer]

"if" israel didn't use the WP as a weapon, what was it used for?

Good question

for obscuring effects or maybe for a cool smoke and fire show?

Correct....

why couldn't they use another smoke artillery that didn't burn people's skins? there are plenty of them out there.

But none are as effective as WP. WP makes an almost instaneous smoke screen and continues to do so longer than any other alternative.

What country in their right mind would use second class equipment when the lives of their troops are on the line.

[DogOnPorch]

Good question

Correct....

But none are as effective as WP. WP makes an almost instaneous smoke screen and continues to do so longer than any other alternative.

What country in their right mind would use second class equipment when the lives of their troops are on the line.

Imagine Iwo Jima without Willy Pete and flamethrowers.

Grim for the Marines.

[M.Dancer]

Imagine Iwo Jima without Willy Pete and flamethrowers.

Grim for the Marines.

Who in their right mind would put a tank of naplam on their backs...?

[dub]

looks like both of you are going to continue avoiding making any comments in regards to the evidence provided and this conclusion and instead you're going to go into your diversion tactics. again:

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.

[M.Dancer]

looks like both of you are going to continue avoiding making any comments in regards to the evidence provided and this conclusion and instead you're going to go into your diversion tactics. again:

Unless you suffer from severe ADD, you will notice I have addressed their opinions directly. I think they are worthless.

Funny you aren't outraged over the use of cyclotol in their weapons...

[DogOnPorch]

Who in their right mind would put a tank of naplam on their backs...?

The casualty rates were very high amongsts US assault engineers.

The flamethrower was introduced at the Battle of Hooge Crater on the Western Front, spring 1915. The French had actually thought of the general idea a month earlier when they sprayed German trenches with petrol and then ignited it with rifle grenades.

Verdun saw the first mass use of the weapon by German assault troops during the initial attack in February 1916. It was used all along the line to reduce French strongpoints.

[DogOnPorch]

Upon furthur review I note that the French reported that Germans had 'sprayed liquid fire' on their positions during the engagement at Malancourt Wood (in the Argonne), October 1914...just after the "Race to the Sea".

A photo online shows French troops spraying flaming petrol at the German trenches. Judging by their helmets, it is probably from 1916 or later.

Edited March 31, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[dub]

Unless you suffer from severe ADD, you will notice I have addressed their opinions directly. I think they are worthless.

Funny you aren't outraged over the use of cyclotol in their weapons...

"your honour. i would like to deem all the evidence worthless, including the medical reports, photos, videos, and the investigations into the proximity of the incidents ........ because i say so. i am the winner."

[moderateamericain]

The whole Gaza strip is a combat zone. And since it is one of the most densly populated areas on the planet. There is really no where to run when the WP gets thrown down. The dense population is one reason you see more collateral damage in Gaza than you would see in Israel. Every time Israel strikes, there will be collateral damage. It's not like the IDF will scream .. "HAY WE ARE GONNA USE WP .. innocents please get out of the way!!!".

You might have a point about wandering into 'war zones'. If they were clearly marked so innocents would not get caught up in the fight. But since the militaries don't tell you where the zone is (for obvious intelligence reasons) then you can't know you are in one or not.

The only thing here is that Israel is not a signatory to any treaty that considers WP to be an illegal weapon. Eventhough the general agreement on WP by the UN and the treaty signatories considers it a banned weapon Isreal never signed on to it. Technically, it can be used.

In the end almost anything can and will be used as a weapon or WMD. War is hell, expect rules to be broken. I think that is why war exists, because people always break the rules. Even if they never signed on to them.

Come on man, Let me tell you something, when I was in Iraq, The Iraqis knew we were coming before we knew we were coming. They would have Vendors waiting along side the road trying to sell us all manner of things. If you think Gaza is any different your crazy. They absolutely knew when Israeli troops were making manuevers.

[M.Dancer]

The only thing here is that Israel is not a signatory to any treaty that considers WP to be an illegal weapon. Eventhough the general agreement on WP by the UN and the treaty signatories considers it a banned weapon Isreal never signed on to it. Technically, it can be used.

Incorrect. There are no treaties that consider WP an illegal weapon...no nation considers it such and it is used by the CF.

[dub]

Incorrect. There are no treaties that consider WP an illegal weapon...no nation considers it such and it is used by the CF.

yes. WP is not illegal, but how, where and when it is used can be illegal. in the case of hitting the UN building and in a few other cases, israel used WP illegally. this has been determined after an independent investigation by HRW.

[Rue]

you missed the whole point again Rue. perhaps you should pay attention a little more to the exact topic of discussion without drowning it out in your long winded commentaries that you love to hear yourself talk about.

the question is whether israel used WP legally and illegally. according to HRW and all the evidence provided, they used it illegally.

No you missed the point yet again because your brain is incapable of flexing and considering anything but its own postulations as being capable of being considered.

The question is not whether Israel uses WPs but why countries use wp's.

You have turned that question into a partisan exercise for your own agenda. The very fact you only speak about it in reference to Israel and not the other countries that also use is the point I made that evidences your examination of the topic has nothing to do with the use of wp's and everything to do with trying to use the use of wp's as a way to single out Israel for criticism.

Using WP's is a problem whether Israel uses them or anyone else.

I know its hard for you Dub to try read anything but your own opinion but until you do, you will continue to come on this forum and simply engage in piss on Israel partisan comments that dettract from the actual issue.

No Dub you do not get to determine what the issue is. We all do. That is why its a discussion board.

[Rue]

Unless you suffer from severe ADD, you will notice I have addressed their opinions directly. I think they are worthless.

Funny you aren't outraged over the use of cyclotol in their weapons...

His selective outrage is transparent. If Hamas used white phosphorous he would of course remain silent as he does to their terrorism.

He is just another one trick pony who tries to use anything he can find to engage in partisan moral name calling.

As I said Danceboy I hate the weapon. I wish the IDF would not use it. I am a proponent of laser technology. Much more precise.

Of course Mr. Outrage would not even have a clue or appreciate the irony in his being silent on the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah use weapons with it.

[M.Dancer]

I am a proponent of laser technology. Much more precise.

Laser tech has of yet been unable to lay a smoke screen...which is what WP is used for.

[dub]

No you missed the point yet again because your brain is incapable of flexing and considering anything but its own postulations as being capable of being considered.

The question is not whether Israel uses WPs but why countries use wp's.

You have turned that question into a partisan exercise for your own agenda. The very fact you only speak about it in reference to Israel and not the other countries that also use is the point I made that evidences your examination of the topic has nothing to do with the use of wp's and everything to do with trying to use the use of wp's as a way to single out Israel for criticism.

Using WP's is a problem whether Israel uses them or anyone else.

I know its hard for you Dub to try read anything but your own opinion but until you do, you will continue to come on this forum and simply engage in piss on Israel partisan comments that dettract from the actual issue.

No Dub you do not get to determine what the issue is. We all do. That is why its a discussion board.

i would like to apologize for my harsh tone. i do agree with you in regards to outlawing WP and many other weapons, however, the title of this thread is: "israel's unlawful use of WP in gaza"

israel first claimed that it didn't use WP, but then it changed its stance and said it was used, but it was used legally. HRW did an independent investigation and reported that israel used it illegally.

we need to follow the guidelines and punish those who do not in order to reduce civilian casualties. we have guidelines like the geneva convention which, most countries including israel are signatory to.

it's not like both hamas and israel used WP and i'm sitting here scorning only israel. if that was the case, then i would be showing partisanship. the issue here is that israel used WP illegally and they should be condemned for it. if you want to create a "shooting rockets into civilian areas", i will gladly support you in condemning hamas for doing it.

Edited April 1, 2009 by dub

[Rue]

On January 14, the newspaper Haaretz reported that Hamas had fired a White Phosphorus mortar shell which exploded in an open area in the Eshkol area in the western Negev of southern Israel. No injuries or damage were reported-reference:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055472.html

[Rue]

i would like to apologize for my harsh tone. i do agree with you in regards to outlawing WP and many other weapons, however, the title of this thread is: "israel's unlawful use of WP in gaza"

israel first claimed that it didn't use WP, but then it changed its stance and said it was used, but it was used legally. HRW did an independent investigation and reported that israel used it illegally.

we need to follow the guidelines and punish those who do not in order to reduce civilian casualties. we have guidelines like the geneva convention which, most countries including israel are signatory to.

it's not like both hamas and israel used WP and i'm sitting here scorning only israel. if that was the case, then i would be showing partisanship. the issue here is that israel used WP illegally and they should be condemned for it. if you want to create a "shooting rockets into civilian areas", i will gladly support you in condemning hamas for doing it.

No apology needed. We are just both debating intensely. No swet. I am just zapping your zip. Nothing personal intended to you either.

Neither of us likes wp weapons.

We agree on that and that they should not be used.

Our debate as to Israel is honest and candid. No swet.

Once we are on the topic I hate missiles of any kind. There is no such thing as an accurate missile. I admit that. Even laser technology is suspect.

We need to find a way to disarm the whole friggin Middle East.

Just don't see that happening.

Yes Israel is armed to the teeth but so is Egypt, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.

By the way as much as people point the finger at the US for the origins of these weapons they should also be looking at China, North Korea and Russia and then to a less intense but still certain extent, Britaim, France, Belgium, Canada, yes Canada, the Czech Republic, Turkey to name but a few countries.

The fact is the world is full of arms dealers.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Rue

[GostHacked]

Incorrect. There are no treaties that consider WP an illegal weapon...no nation considers it such and it is used by the CF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_(weapon)

Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas. This protocol is only binding upon those who have signed it; the United States, along with the other major military powers, has not signed or agreed to Protocol III and is not bound by it.

But wait .. there is more ...

However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty. There is a debate on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April 1997. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.).

And more...

The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, not the Chemical Weapons Convention, goes on, in its Protocol III, to prohibit the use of all air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations, or for indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians.[50] However, that protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effects are secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has often been read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. Several countries, including the United States and Israel, are not signatories to Protocol III.[51]

Like everything else, it is how you interperet the so called 'laws' and treaties.

[M.Dancer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_(weapon)

But wait .. there is more ...

Actually there is less. WP is not an incindiary weapon.

Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons

WP is designed to make smoke.

However, that protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effects are secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has often been read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. Several countries, including the United States and Israel, are not signatories to Protocol

Ta da! The US or Israel have not signed a protocol to exclude WP....but more to the point, there are no treaties or covenants prohibiting WP.

[dub]

since dancer is avoiding the following, i will paste it again:

Israel accused of indiscriminate phosphorus use in Gaza

In a 71-page report, the rights group said the repeated use of air-burst white phosphorus artillery shells in populated areas of Gaza was not incidental or accidental, but revealed "a pattern or policy of conduct".

It said the Israeli military used white phosphorus in a "deliberate or reckless" way. The report says:

• Israel was aware of the dangers of white phosphorus.

• It chose not to use alternative and less dangerous smoke shells.

• In one case, Israel even ignored repeated warnings from UN staff before hitting the main UN compound in Gaza with white phosphorus shells on 15 January.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/2...phosphorus-gaza