And yet.... source [rquoter] ICRC: Israel's use of white phosphorus not illegal GENEVA – The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest the incendiary agent is being used improperly or illegally. The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using white phosphorus, hich ignites when it strikes the skin and burns straight through or until it is cut off from oxygen. It can cause horrific injuries. The International Committee of the Red Cross urged Israel to exercise "extreme caution" in using the incendiary agent, which is used to illuminate targets at night or create a smoke screen for day attacks, said Peter Herby, the head of the organization's mines-arms unit. "In some of the strikes in Gaza it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used," Herby told The Associated Press. "But it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way." In response, the Israeli military said Tuesday that it "wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics." 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, where Palestinian health officials say more than 900 people have been killed and 4,250 wounded since Israel launched its offensive late last month. Israel says the operation aims to halt years of Palestinian rocket attacks over the border. Human Rights Watch has accused Israel of firing phosphorous shells and warned of the possibilities of extreme fire and civilian injuries. The chemical is suspected in the cases of 10 burn victims who had skin peeling off their faces and bodies. White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon. [/rquoter] I also love the way you selectively quote and distort a story to make it seem as if the Christian Science Monitor is saying that the use was illegal, when in fact it says no such thing. That does more to show proof of an underlying agenda and a disregard for truth here than anything I could possibly show. As you say, "pretty damning evidence".
Seriously, everybody should read the CSMonitor story insane man linked, and determine whether what insane man has quoted from it and the headline he has generated from it accurately reflects that story. It is very revealing and very indicative of a certain selective use of attention by some Hamas apologists.
please do. i appreciate the cs monitor and i hope they get a lot of hits and subsequently higher revenue. that's why i quoted only snippits.
lol these Zionist jews need to be taught a lesson. Theres a reason why Europe hates Israel. ****ing apiac
Yes, it does. The CS Monitor isn't going to outright say that Israel illegally used white phophorous -- they are very strict about maintaining a neutral tone, to their credit -- but that's the reasonable conclusion one would draw if they cared to read the entire thing. The evidence cited is indeed damning.
[rquoter] Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). (b) Incendiary weapons do not include: (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems; [/rquoter] The simple fact is that unless you are using them as flame weapons with the purpose of burning people, they are not even within the scope of the convention. The fact that people are burned in no way indicates violation of the treaty or law. Intent matters, despite sensational claims to the contrary.
So its alright to engage in actions that will, predictably, result in burning civilians, as long as the "intent" (and who's word do we take on that? ... oh yeah, the guys who did it) wasn't to do so. Alright, perhaps it wasn't illegal. It's exploiting a loop hole in which you can effectively use incendiary weaponry in civilian areas and get away with terrorizing the population, but without having to worry about prosecution for it. In effect it's chemical warfare, but they get away with it because the intent is supposedly benign. It doesn't take a sensationalist to see that's problematic to the extreme.
Marines during the Battle of Fallujah were accused of using WP to perpetrate massacres by the Italian Journalist who accused US forces of later trying to kill her when she was was released by insurgents. I don't know if its been said but, smoke artillery rounds are commonly used by military forces all over the world. M825 155mm Projectile The M825A1 White Phosphorus shell deploys 116 WP impregnated felt wedges that provide screening for about 5-10 minutes over a 125-250 meter area that obscures enemy vision or screens maneuvering elements. It deploys about 12.75 lbs of White Phosphorus impregnated felt wedges, and weighs about 102 lbs. Here are some pictures of the evil Israelis trying to horribly massacre the poor palestinians with some WP. Its pretty clear what type of munitions israel used. Israel even admitted they used WP smoke rounds.
^ It's ok. As Ottomaton shows, it would be quite alright to set civilians on fire as long as the "intent" is just to light up the surrounding area rather than to actually harm them. It's right there in the rule book.
You may not like the law. But the reason it is the law is because that is what was agreed on by all the contracting parties. If they had tried to create a treaty outlawing WP altogether, there would be no treaty at all and people could use white phosphorous for whatever reason. You are following the same fallacious line of thought that the USA is trying with Iran. "We don't like the NPT says you can enrich uranium, therefore we declare it is illegal." It doesn't work that way. You can't arbitrarily and unilaterally amend treaties because in retrospect you think you see a loophole. The law is the law. If you want to change it, then go to the UN and convince everybody to sign a new Geneva convention.
Its war and when its conducted in urban areas its always going to be nasty no matter what, **** happens. Seems like the larger debate should be if the use of WP should be banned altogether, considering its quite obvious the Israelis employed m285 shells. The Israeli Military probably had good military reasons to employ the m285 smoke shells. I highly doubt they were trying to kill Palestinians indiscriminately with WP, it would be quite inefficient. I wouldn't put it pass the Israelis to use the smoke shells as a psychological weapon though, but there has been no indication of that. The Israeli's made heavy use of artillery during this conflict, it was the primary source of fire support for ground forces. Let me ask you this, if the Israeli's were going to use artillery anyway, would you rather have them use high explosive shells or White Phosphorous smoke shells to support their ground forces?
To some ISREAL CAN DO NO WRONG nothing they do . . . cannot be justified when you reach that level . .you are a zealot Rocket River
Israel isn't using it illegally, but they sure seem to be coming close to using white phosphorous as a weapon of intimidation or first strike.
