Using chemical weapons and violating international agreements might be enough to get some nations invaded.
I don't see how white phosphorus is any worse than say, a cluster bomb or a 2000 lbs bomb full of RDX. Also, did Israel sign this agreement? I know the U.S. has not, and reserves the right to use WP and Napalm. What happens when high energy laser weapons enter the battlefield and we start melting/vaporising people? It's comming... sooner than many think.
I don't either... yet. But, when you are dropping bombs on an insurgency, it is hard to be discriminating. What do you think the likelihood is that they didn't kill civilians with these? Anyway, it is a legal detail. I don't see how using banned weapons is any worse than what we already know they did to Lebanon.
According to the Geneva conventions it doesn't have to be used against civilian populations if it is dropped from the air against military targets in a civilian area. As for treaties banning its use, the use isn't totally banned in any treaty that the U.S. has signed, but its use is restricted under certain conditions by the Geneva Convention.
So Isreal is as bad as America (aka the greatest country in the world), yeop that should turn Americans against them in droves. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the same people that have always hated Israel will get fired up by this, and the same people that have always supported Isreal will respond to it with a big cup of meh. MEH!
What about those of us in the middle? Who support Israel except when they violate the Geneva convention, and then we are against Israel? I guess that is who I was hoping would engage in this thread. If you support Israel no matter what, or if someone hates ISrael no matter what, then you are right there won't be much to say. Those people aren't making rational decisions.
Israel claims to be using it to mark buildings and targets....is it possible to use it for that purpose without injuring anyone? If it's just a marker - then it must not be exploding. I just don't know the facts. I think Israel's whole war with Lebannon was a huge mistake that accomplished nothing....and white phosphorus is the least of it.
No - that was what they originally said. According to the article, they have now said they used it as weaponry as well.
Major already mentioned that it wasn't just to mark buildings and areas, but used as weaponry. Given that distinction and the fact that the Red Cross which is a neutral organization believes that it is a chemical weapon, then I felt it was newsworthy, and thought something worthwhile discussing.
Ok, so you're right - white phosphorus was used by Israel against "military forces in open ground" - which may or may not been in civilian areas. Thus we do not know if the Geneva Convention was violated. So the debate really is should Israel be using a weapon that the Red Cross recommends against. I guess the key thing is what is the difference between white phosphorus and other munitions (say cluster bombs) and the difference with chemical weapons. Is white phosphorus an inhumane way of fighting war? is anything humane? maybe this more about warfare then israel vs. lebannon.
WP is an incindiary. Most of the time when you are talking about chemical weapons, you are talking about things like mustard gas. If you are against WP, you should also be against any other incindiaries. The US reserves the right to use incindiaries as they are an effective weapon that does not have the harmful unintended consequences of nerve agents, biological weapons, and radiological weapons. Some other countries feel that incindiaries are somehow worse than explosives and KE weapons, but that is up to them. Israel and the US disagree. Also, my point was not that there are those who support Israel no matter what (though re-reading what I wrote, I can defitely see where it was coming from), it was that this issue is not likely to sway many people one way or another. If one was against Israels actions in Lebenon, one was probably also against their actions against the terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank, and one would not see the use of incindiaries by the IDF and decide to support them. Likewise, if one were in favor of Israel's actions against Hizballah, one likely also supported Israel against Hamas, and their use on incindiaries would not cause that person to now be against them. Even a rare person that thought Israels actions in one conflict were justified but not in the other would not likely be swayed by this revelation. Basically, wrt the conflicts against Hamas and Hizballah, Israel has been pretty consistent, and this incident is an extension of that consistency. The use of human shields in going after suspected terrorist houses was far more contriversial.
I am not against WP in all cases. But I do agree with restricting the use of it as does the Geneva Conventions.
Just like any weapon. I am against dropping bombs on civilian housing when there are no enemies present (I wouldn't support a repeat of Dresden, for example) I think that the presence of the enemy makes something a combat area, and thus, conventional weapons should be fine (includig WP).
However, Israel and the U.S. are both signatories to the Geneva Conventions which has different restrictions than those you mentioned. Dropping WP weapons from the air even on military targets if they are in a civilian area goes against the agreements that both the U.S. and Israel are parties to. There isn't really good reason for breaking rules that you agreed to, that you signed on in an effort to be more civilized and humane.
It doesn't make much sense to me to use WP in wide open areas when the point of using WP is to burn your target. The two uses I can see are: 1. In an urban enviroment, burning buildings can allow you to dictate where your enemy is going to fight from, or not fight from. Buildings reduced to rubble make terrific cover, as Americans learned at Monte Casino circa WWII and plenty of other examples. 2. To terrorise your enemy, the fear of burning to death can take over a very brave man's ability to fight. I don't buy what Israel is selling... If you've got a target in a wide open space, the cluster bomb or high explosives would seem much better choice.
Right, my chief complaint with Israel is that they took on a military campaign which they knew would have severe civilian casualties for what was a minor provacation. Whether it's bullets or fire makes little difference to me. I'd like to know how many civilians were burned by WP. Is there any stats available? Any accounts documented by the U.N. or red cross?
Sadly, It looks like the US investigation of the cluster bombs indicates Israel has broken their arms agreement with the US.
