IDF's violations of laws-of-war prohibitions

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Israelis take comfort in the belief that the IDF does all it can to spare civilians, but its shelling of Gaza calls that belief into question. Two kinds of artillery shells selected for use in Gaza - one as an "obscurant," the other as a weapon - were utterly inappropriate for the densely populated areas where the IDF deployed them. Their use violated the IDF's obligations under the laws of war.

The first was white phosphorous. A typical shell releases 116 phosphorus-soaked wedges which, upon contact with oxygen, burn intensely, releasing a distinctive plume of smoke. That smoke can be used legitimately to obscure troop movements, but white phosphorous can be devastating when used in urban areas, igniting civilian structures and causing people horrific burns. Its use violated the legal requirement to take all feasible precautions during military operations to avoid harming civilians. The IDF never should have used it in densely populated sections of Gaza.

The IDF has tried to defend itself with denial and obfuscation. It first denied using white phosphorous at all. Then, when that proved untenable, it claimed that use was limited to unpopulated areas. Neither claim is true. On January 9, 10 and 15, a Human Rights Watch military expert personally observed white phosphorous being fired from an artillery battery and airburst over Gaza City and the Jabalya refugee camp. Its telltale jellyfish-like plume was a dead giveaway, as can be seen from photographs.

The Times of London also photographed an IDF artillery battery firing white phosphorous shells. The shells are color coded and labeled with the IDF term for white phosphorous - "exploding smoke." They are also marked with the code used by the US manufacturer of white phosphorous - M825A1. Similarly marked and color-coded shells and other evidence of white-phosphorous use have been recovered within urban areas of Gaza where they fell.

As for obfuscation, the IDF claimed that all weapons it used were "legal," but that begs the critical question of how they were used. The use of white phosphorous is legal in certain circumstances but illegal when deployed in a way that causes unnecessary or indiscriminate harm to civilians, as the IDF's use in Gaza clearly did. The IDF even harped on press reports suggesting that the International Committee of the Red Cross supported its position, but in a rare public comment, the ICRC denied that claim.

The IDF's latest line is that the shells fired in Gaza "contained phosphorus material, but were not actual phosphorus shells." That is semantic game-playing. Nothing that indiscriminately burns the way the IDF's shells did, regardless of name, should be used in densely populated areas."

more

[Chulanowa]

1. I wonder if Israel's leadership stops to think about it

In 2002-3, a crazy motherfucker named George Bush spearheaded a propaganda charge agaisnt Iraq on the basis of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Anthrax, botulism, mustard gas, sarin, all sorts of pleasant toxic chemicals and biological stews. He had them, the saying went, so we have to invade to make sure he can't use them.

We sold them to him. We endorsed their use against the Iranians and the Kurds. We even made press releases saying that the iranians had gassed thousands of their own soldiers.

We sell Israel white phosphorus and nuclear technology. We endorce their actions against the Palestinians. We propagandize for the Israeli government.

Just saying. They should stop to ponder. Someday Israel will no longer be the "strategic ally" that it is now, after all...

[madrchsod]

2. the threat from soviet union is history

there is no need to give israel billions in military aide. yet we will...no one dares change the israeli`s free gifts from the american taxpayer

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. More WP hysteria

This is going to take years to sort out, and in the end nothing will happen. There may be some changes to the LOW about WP is the best we can hope for.