Gaza: Israel under fire for alleged white phosphorus use

[Scurrilous]

On Tuesday, the Israeli army denied using white phosphorus munitions. A Norwegian doctor claims Israel is using Gaza as a 'test laboratory for new weapons,' including Dense Inert Metal Explosives, or DIME.

<snip>

"Marc Garlasco has been on the northern border of Gaza for the past five days watching what he says are white phosphorus munitions exploding over a crowded refugee camp.

Mr. Garlasco, a senior military analyst for New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW), says that the way Israel is using the incendiary device is illegal. White phosphorus shells contain more than 100 felt filaments that ignite upon contact with the atmosphere, drift to earth, and burn intensely for at least 10 to 12 minutes.

The usage of white phosphorus is not illegal under international law if it's used in military operations as a smoke screen to cover troop movements or against bunkers, armored vehicles, and ammunition dumps. But its use is forbidden against people – civilians and soldiers alike – under nearly all military codes and laws.

"The use of white phosphorus is banned as a weapon that causes 'unnecessary suffering,' " says Mark Ellis, director of the International Bar Association in London. "It isn't to be used in civilian areas, or indeed against people since it creates horrible damage to the human body, and unnecessarily so."

Israel, which has been charged with using white phosphorus in Lebanon, says it is not using white phosphorus in its war against Hamas in Gaza, now in its 18th day.

"The IDF acts only in accordance with what is permitted by international law and does not use white phosphorus," IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi told Israel's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Tuesday in response to a query.

But Garlasco says that phosphorus is clearly being used in the Jabaliya refugee camp, one of the most crowded areas in Gaza."

more

[Fozzledick]

1. Red Cross: Israel's use of white phosphorus not illegal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x246176

[EFerrari]

3. Bullshit. That's pure spin. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Did you bother to read the link?

[EFerrari]

5. The link from the jpost?

lol

Yes, I did. Sorry that the claim turns out to be true and that the Red Cross is not signing off on it.

God help me. What a disgusting assertion.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. Try again.

"Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk. "

Also, LOL at yourself, the article is from the Associated Press, it was just published in JPost.

[EFerrari]

12. LOL! You hold out the AP as some kind of standard for journalism?

These are the same people that fronted WMD and Bruce Ivins.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. LOL! I guess unless it is some no-name Israel hater it is not REAL proof for you.

:eyes:

[Scurrilous]

8. The Red Cross guy is basing his assertion on admittedly limited evidence:

"Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk."

"However, Herby said evidence is still limited because of the difficulties of gaining access to Gaza..."

[EFerrari]

9. The RC is saying what is obvious: it is legal to use WP for illumination.

What he's not saying is that the number of burn cases show that WP has been used on civilians and is a war crime unless the IDF was unconscious while firing their shells.

More simply, if civilians show up burned at hospitals by WP, WP has been used on civilians.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Actually intent matters in this case

[Howardx]

6. the article he refers to does not say what he wants you to think

it says the red cross has "no evidence" WP is being used illegally, not that the red cross had absolved israel.

[EFerrari]

10. Couple that with the IDF's refusal to say whether or not they're using WP

even though their use of WP is on video all over the internets and all over the cable channels.

Pathetic.

[GoesTo11]

15. There are plenty of things he hasn't absolved Israel of in this article

Nuking Gaza, infecting Palestinian babies with AIDS, soiling Korans. I don't read the statement that "there is no evidence" to mean that he thinks it's likely that something is happening. It just means there is no evidence.

[Howardx]

16. uh huh

"However, Herby said evidence is still limited because of the difficulties of gaining access to Gaza,"

i expect this story will change once international observers get to the crime scene.

[GoesTo11]

18. We'll see.

You can expect what you want.

[Howardx]

19. this will follow the natural israeli lie line

1. blanket denial

2. blame hamas

3. idf will investigate itself and find itself innocent

4. israeli govt will grudgingly admit guilt but claim accident

[GoesTo11]

20. We'll see

You can expect what you want to.

In an unrelated domain, if I was able to see the future, there would be a lot more of my 401k left.

[EFerrari]

2. This was reported matter of factly on AC360 last night

and was accompanied by video of burn patients in hospital.

[madrchsod]

11. the idf was using phosphorus to give the people of gaza some light!

since the hamas government can not provide electricity for it`s citizens the idf is at least lighting up the night sky .
it`s really hard to find what is left of their homes in the dark.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. You think this is a joke?

[madrchsod]

28. god no!

maybe a poor example of sarcasm. i`ve been a supporter of the Palestinian people for over 40 yrs now.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

30. So sorry....

[madrchsod]

32. that`s ok...i`ve developed a thick skin since jan of 2002-->

i was banned in 2002 for three days for comments in i/p....now i try to use lame sarcasm instead of being really pissed off...


:rofl:

[panader0]

17. From what I understand, there are high altitude WP bombs

meant as smoke or light providing bombs and are the "legal" ones. The low altitude bombs are meant to be used against people and are illegal.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. There are artillery shells

And they are all low altitude burst. Obscuration effects matter at ground level, not at 25,000 ft.

At a practical level there is no difference between WP rounds. Its how they are used and what the intended purpose was.

[Chulanowa]

21. Huh. Usually when it's white phosphorus, it's Gazans under the fire

I wonder. How would Israel respond if Hamas managed to use some of these "smokescreens" over Ashkelon? It's just for illumination, right?

[Scurrilous]

22. (B'Tselem) 12 Jan. '09: Israel is using phosphorous illegally in Gaza Strip bombings

"Information received by B'Tselem and several media reports indicate that the army is using phosphorous in the Gaza Strip. This weapon serves primarily to create screening, enabling forces to advance on the ground without being exposed. In addition, however, the phosphorous burns everything in comes in contact with, causing severe burns to humans. It is also capable of setting buildings and fields on fire.

International humanitarian law does not prohibit use of this weapon as such. However, the Third Protocol to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, which relates to incendiary weapons, states that such weapons may only be used against military objects. When the military object is located within a civilian area, the use of phosphorous is absolutely prohibited.

Israel has not signed the Protocol, but the rule it states is based on two customary principles of international law, which are binding on Israel. The first is the prohibition on using weapons that cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians, and the second is the prohibition on using weapons which by their nature cause unnecessary suffering.

The use of such a weapon in a densely populated civilian area like the Gaza Strip breaches these two principles, and violates Israel’s obligation to take every possible precaution to limit harm to civilians.

B'Tselem demands that the army immediately cease using phosphorous in the Gaza Strip."

http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20090112_Use_of_White_Phosphorus.asp

[Fozzledick]

24. The Red Cross statement is a direct rebuttal to this false claim

[Howardx]

25. you keep saying that

its still not true.

[Scurrilous]

23. Special: White Phosphorus and its use in Gaza

http://www.imemc.org/article/58449

[delad]

29. holocaust survivors use poison gas on civilian population

I know, they aren't holocaust survivors and it isn't poison gas, but the analogy is striking considering the shocking similarities (hearded into a ghetto and then poisoned to death)

[Scurrilous]

31. Soldiers and army at odds on phosphorus

<snip>

"Israeli officials continued to deny that the army was using illegal weapons in its Gaza offensive despite accounts by soldiers that tanks with white phosphorus shells were deployed.

One soldier sent to Gaza recently said that he had handled phosphorus grenades and that tanks equipped with white phosphorus shells were in operation. “We’ve been using it responsibly . . . it’s been around the whole time,” he said.

The Times revealed last week that white phosphorus shells were among a stock of artillery rounds being held by the Israelis on the border with Gaza. Although the shells are the most effective way of creating a smokescreen to hide troops, human rights organisations have warned of risks to civilians and have called for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate.

The ICC said last night that the use of white phosphorus could be covered under its statute, which bans the deployment of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, or the firing of weapons which could cause “superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate”, but that it lacked jurisdiction because Israel was not a signatory."

more



Weapons expert talks on Israel 'phosphorus use' - 13 Jan 09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPw-mqGkL9M