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

[M.Dancer]

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

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

Worst case of ADD I have ever came across....yes yes I have read their ill informed and amatuerish opinions. Get back to me when and if it gets to, and is laughed out of court.

[dub]

Worst case of ADD I have ever came across....yes yes I have read their ill informed and amatuerish opinions. Get back to me when and if it gets to, and is laughed out of court.

the conclusion is based on evidence. evidence that shows that they used WP illegally. you want to keep calling it amateurish opinions, go for it. it doesn't change all the evidence showing israel used WP illegally.

[M.Dancer]

the conclusion is based on evidence. evidence that shows that they used WP illegally. you want to keep calling it amateurish opinions, go for it. it doesn't change all the evidence showing israel used WP illegally.

fill yer boots....doesn't cjange that their inerpretation of the evidence is flawed....

[GostHacked]

Alright M.Dancer. You win this time.

The US and Israel are signed up for the CWC convention it seems. But not for the other one. And for all intents and purposes, WP seems to fall on the grey area almost between the two conventions. Which kind of leaves it open for interpretation. I guess that is why the focus is on how and when it was used to determine the legality of it all regardless of if a treaty exists of being signed. If it was meant for A, then no problem, but if it was used for B.. problem. So eventhough less deadly items could have been used to produce the same results for covering your movements, WP was chosen.

[wulf42]

here is the 71 page report from the UN including israel's Shifting Statements on White Phosphorus

yes but who cares? Israel smoked a city full of Muslim terrorists boohoo!

[M.Dancer]

Alright M.Dancer. You win this time.

. So eventhough less deadly items could have been used to produce the same results for covering your movements, WP was chosen.

The problem is the less deadly are also less effective. It would be a political decision to use less effective smoke paid for by soldier lives. But I agree there should be guidlines when using WP near civilians. Issuing warnings where feqasable as the IDf does is a god start. I believe that seeing only 12 eople were killed the IDF used appropriate prudence and they should be commended.

[dub]

yes but who cares? Israel smoked a city full of Muslim terrorists boohoo!

all of the people who were "smoked" were muslim terrorists?

[dub]

fill yer boots....doesn't cjange that their inerpretation of the evidence is flawed....

interpretation of which one of the evidence is wrong?

[M.Dancer]

interpretation of which one of the evidence is wrong?

Well since you asked....supposed eye witness testimony saying that the IDF used WP in areas that the IDF weren't active.

a few problems with that....

1) It assumes because they could see the IDF, the IDF weren't there.

2) It assumes they were priviledged with the information of IDF troop movements....which is ludicrous

3) It doesn't take into account the fog of war...the IDF purposely laying smoke to deceive the terrorists into thinking that a certain area would be occupied by IDF forces.

[dub]

Well since you asked....supposed eye witness testimony saying that the IDF used WP in areas that the IDF weren't active.

a few problems with that....

1) It assumes because they could see the IDF, the IDF weren't there.

2) It assumes they were priviledged with the information of IDF troop movements....which is ludicrous

3) It doesn't take into account the fog of war...the IDF purposely laying smoke to deceive the terrorists into thinking that a certain area would be occupied by IDF forces.

it doesn't matter if the IDF was there or not. where the WP shells were fired is what is important. they used the WP in areas where there were civilians present including a UN school and a hospital. the IDF knew that there were civilians hiding at the UN compound and they knew the hospital was treating patients, yet they still hit them with WP, more than once and despite calls to the IDF officers by the UNRWA asking the IDF to stop.

UNRWA’s Gaza director John Ging adamantly denied that any Palestinian fighters had

entered the compound, let alone fired from it at IDF soldiers. 26 UN officials said they made

dozens of increasingly frantic phone calls with IDF officers as the shells got closer, asking

them to stop, and the IDF did not warn UNRWA about Hamas activity in or near the

compound. “They should tell us if there are militants operating in our compound or in our

area,” Ging said. “The fact that they don’t, we take that as indicative of the fact that there

wasn’t.”

there is more, a lot more:

“Scott [Anderson] (retired US Army Officer) started calling at around 8 a.m. to Major Aviad Silberman at Erez

[crossing],” she said. “Aidan O’Leary making calls regularly from shortly before 9 a.m. to Uri

Singer and [retired Brigadier-] General [baruch] Spiegel [head of the IDF’s Humanitarian

Coordination Cell] in Tel Aviv.”32

Anderson confirmed the multiple phone calls to the IDF. “I was calling the IDF guys at Erez

all the time,” he said. “They said they were trying to stop the shelling. It looks like there was

nothing they could do.” He added, “I know that in the US Army it would not take that long to

get the artillery fire to stop.”

UNRWA Gaza director John Ging said that he too had spoken with the IDF at the time of the

attack.33 He and other UNRWA staff said they had given the IDF the GPS coordinates of all UN

installations in Gaza before Operation Cast Lead began. Speaking at a press conference on

January 15, Ging said that after the first shells hit the compound, UNRWA alerted the IDF of

the exact location of its fuel trucks. He insisted that “there were no militants in the

compound; there was no firing from the compound.”34

these are just a few people who were interviewed by HRW. there were no conflicting stories from the eyewitnesses.

besides the eyewitnesses, there are shells, burnt buildings, dead victims and many burnt victims that prove the indiscriminate and illegal use of WP by the IDF.

[M.Dancer]

it doesn't matter if the IDF was there or not. where the WP shells were fired is what is important.

It matters because it is a claim in the report. If this one slaient point made doesn't matter, then none of the points raised in the report matter.

they used the WP in areas where there were civilians present including a UN school and a hospital. the IDF knew that there were civilians hiding at the UN compound and they knew the hospital was treating patients, yet they still hit them with WP, more than once and despite calls to the IDF officers by the UNRWA asking the IDF to stop.

and all that may be true and also irrelevant if there were Hamas fighters present. Civilians do not give beligerents immunity. It's part of the GC.

these are just a few people who were interviewed by HRW. there were no conflicting stories from the eyewitnesses.

besides the eyewitnesses, there are shells, burnt buildings, dead victims and many burnt victims that prove the indiscriminate and illegal use of WP by the IDF.

Eyewitnesses can be biased or lie....so far nothing has been tabled to show that there was anything illigal about the WP....including the miniscule amount of dead attributed to the WP.

[dub]

It matters because it is a claim in the report. If this one slaient point made doesn't matter, then none of the points raised in the report matter.

and all that may be true and also irrelevant if there were Hamas fighters present. Civilians do not give beligerents immunity. It's part of the GC.

Eyewitnesses can be biased or lie....so far nothing has been tabled to show that there was anything illigal about the WP....including the miniscule amount of dead attributed to the WP.

i will let the conclusion of the report reply to that:

White Phosphorus Use in Populated Areas and Individual Criminal

Responsibility

Serious violations of international humanitarian law committed willfully, that is deliberately

or recklessly, are war crimes, and give rise to individual criminal responsibility.104 War

crimes include intentional or indiscriminate attacks on civilians, as well as attacks in which

the expected civilian loss is disproportionate compared to the anticipated military gain.

Individuals may also be held criminally liable for attempting to commit a war crime, as well

as assisting in, facilitating, and aiding or abetting a war crime. Responsibility may also fall

on persons planning or instigating the commission of a war crime. Commanders and civilian

leaders may be prosecuted for war crimes as a matter of command responsibility when they

knew or should have known about the commission of war crimes and took insufficient

measures to prevent them or punish those responsible.

Even if intended as an obscurant rather than as a weapon, the IDF’s firing of air-burst white

phosphorus shells from 155mm artillery into densely populated areas was indiscriminate or

disproportionate, and indicates the commission of war crimes.

The IDF’s deliberate or reckless use of white phosphorus munitions is evidenced in five ways.

First, to Human Rights Watch’s knowledge, the IDF never used its white phosphorus

munitions in Gaza before, despite numerous incursions with personnel and armor. Second,

the repeated use of air-burst white phosphorus in populated areas until the last days of the

operation reveals a pattern or policy of conduct rather than incidental or accidental usage.

Third, the IDF was well aware of the effects white phosphorus has and the dangers it can

pose to civilians. Fourth, if the IDF used white phosphorus as an obscurant, it failed to use

available alternatives, namely smoke munitions, which would have held similar tactical

advantages without endangering the civilian population. Fifth, in at least one of the cases

documented in this report – the January 15 strike on the UNRWA compound in Gaza City –

the IDF kept firing white phosphorus despite repeated warnings from UN personnel about

the danger to civilians. Under international humanitarian law, these circumstances demand

the independent investigation of the use of white phosphorus and, if warranted, the

prosecution of all those responsible for war crimes.

[GostHacked]

The problem is the less deadly are also less effective. It would be a political decision to use less effective smoke paid for by soldier lives. But I agree there should be guidlines when using WP near civilians. Issuing warnings where feqasable as the IDf does is a god start. I believe that seeing only 12 eople were killed the IDF used appropriate prudence and they should be commended.

And here in lies the crux of this debate. Rules of engagement are broken more often than we think. Technicalities (and interpretations) are also paid by soldiers lives and civilians lives.

Is WP used to cover YOUR movements? Or the enemies? If they are made to cover your movements this makes the claim that shows a legit use of WP. I would assume something less deadly would have been used thought if you were smoking your boys to provide cover (when no other option). So it may not matter where it was used, as long as the claim is made that it was fired to cover your movements. Big huge flash bang.

But here we have a school. A UN run school it seems. And they were begging for the IDF not to use the WP. This would indicate M.Dancer is right about the IDF giving warnings. How else would the UN complain about the upcoming use of WP in that specific area if they had not been warned. Personaly, if I got a hint WP is going to be used in the area .. later I am GTFO.

dub

QUOTE (dub @ Apr 2 2009, 02:15 PM) *it doesn't matter if the IDF was there or not. where the WP shells were fired is what is important.

It seems like it does, and that would help your argument overall.

[M.Dancer]

Is WP used to cover YOUR movements? Or the enemies?

Always your movements.....you wants the enemies movements to be a under spot light with nothing unlnown....and you want nothing about your movements known to the enemy.

[DogOnPorch]

Other types of smoke screens exist but they are usually unreliable under battlefield conditions. The old way (other than lighting a big fire) was to mix two chemicals which would react and produce smoke. This could be spun in a artillery shell or released from storage tanks of some kind. The trouble with this was that if it was wet or windy or what-have-you the chemical reaction might not occur.

'Willy Pete' changed all this as it ignites upon coming into contact with oxygen producing great volumns of thick white smoke even in a rainstorm. As well, since the source is hot, the smoke rises allowing much more control of what areas are screened and what areas are not. It is an irritant...but not particularly toxic out in the open to humans (you can walk through it) making it ideal for use by the military. In a closed environment, it can be deadly like any thick smoke which make it an ideal choice for dealing with fortified positions like bunkers and tunnels. Coloured versions of the WP grenade are often used to mark positions to avoid friendly airstrikes and what-not.

The big star bursts we've all seen over Gaza are airburst WP cannisters from artillery that shoot out large amounts of burning phosphorus over a wide area. Under battlefield conditions, friendly troops would have these things going off over their heads just as much as the enemy depending on the state of the battle. The actual particles of WP have very little energy compared to a chunk of metal from an equal sized HE shell. Helmet + uniform are generally enough protection to prevent injury. Trouble does come if a large chunk of WP comes into prolonged contact with exposed skin as it will produce severe burns. This is the reason for airburst WP rather than ground burst, these days. Much safer for your troops. It's going off way up there rather than next to you.

The first fellows to use it as a weapon were...terrorists...go figure. The Fenian Brotherhood liked the stuff to commit arson.

Edited April 3, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[dub]

UN picks South African Jew to head Gaza war crimes inquiry

Richard Goldstone, a South African Jewish judge, will head an international fact-finding mission into allegations of war crimes by Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants in Gaza, the United Nations said on Friday.

The former war crimes prosecutor will head a four-member team whose mandate stems from a resolution adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council at a special session on January 12.

"It is in the interest of all Palestinians and Israelis that the allegations of war crimes and serious human rights violations related to the recent conflict on all sides be investigated," Goldstone said in a statement.

Goldstone served as chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Goldstone will investigate conduct by both sides in Israel's 22-day offensive in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. According to a Palestinian rights group, 1,417 people including 926 civilians were killed in the fighting.

[M.Dancer]

So.....being south afrrican is relevant?

[dub]

So.....being south afrrican is relevant?

i guess it is for reuters and haaretz to mention where this guy is from and i'm sure you would be howling with discontent if this guy was from a muslim country.

[M.Dancer]

i guess it is for reuters and haaretz to mention where this guy is from and i'm sure you would be howling with discontent if this guy was from a muslim country.

They also thought it was relevant to mention that Israel doesn't agree with the HAmas numbers....something you thought to omit....

wonder why? I'm sure the south african won't...

[DogOnPorch]

As we discussed in another thread, it is highly likely that Hamas is swelling the 'civilian' body count. When Egypt opened its borders for casualties...none arrived (except a Hamas official looking for plunder). This says to me that Hamas didn't want anyone confirming or denying their 'official count'. I include the UNRWA in Gaza as an element of Hamas in terms of towing the line re: casualty figures.

[dub]

They also thought it was relevant to mention that Israel doesn't agree with the HAmas numbers....something you thought to omit....

wonder why? I'm sure the south african won't...

why are you a whiner?

i didn't think it was important to paste the whole article. this is why i provided the link for you to check the whole article for yourself.

[M.Dancer]

why are you a whiner?

i didn't think it was important to paste the whole article. this is why i provided the link for you to check the whole article for yourself.

....but tellingly you C/Ped four fifths of it...

[dub]

As we discussed in another thread, it is highly likely that Hamas is swelling the 'civilian' body count. When Egypt opened its borders for casualties...none arrived (except a Hamas official looking for plunder). This says to me that Hamas didn't want anyone confirming or denying their 'official count'. I include the UNRWA in Gaza as an element of Hamas in terms of towing the line re: casualty figures.

the body count was not much different than what the IDF gave out. the dispute was more over who was a combatant and who was a civilian. IDF took it upon itself to include all those who work for hamas as being combatant or militants. however, that's another issue.

back to the topic: after looking at the background of the people who were selected to investigate the war crimes, i feel that they will do their best to do their job and a fair conclusion will be made. that's unless, of course, if hamas or the IDF do not cooperate fully with the investigation. in which, i'm sure, they will make a note of it.

how do you two feel about the people selected?

[dub]

odd.

neither of you seem to be welcoming this investigation.

don't you guys want a fair and independent investigation?

[dub]

i mean, a fair and independent investigation other than the one done by HRW.

what says you two?