White phosphorus used on Gaza civillians by Israel provided by US

[bascule]

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/23/military-aid-israel-amnesty

 

The white phosphorus used on Gaza by Israel (seen above, accidentally hitting UN vehicles) was provided by the US as part of a military aid package.

 

Sorry, can't accuse me of "spreading rumors" at this point. It's confirmed.

 

This is potentially a war crime, and worse, the US had a part in it.

 

Why are we giving military aid to countries perpetrating war crimes?

[Pangloss]

I haven't seen any evidence that they used it for the chemical effect on humans, rather than as an incidental part of their normal weaponry, e.g. smoke grenades. Do they even make smoke grenades that don't use white phosphorus? (What would you make such a thing with, and wouldn't that thing be just as bad for humans to come in contact with?)

 

How is it "potentially a war crime" if it's a secondary effect as part of existing, established weaponry, and not banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention even though it's been in use since the 1920s?

[bascule]

I haven't seen any evidence that they used it for the chemical effect on humans, rather than as an incidental part of their normal weaponry, e.g. smoke grenades.

 

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/israeli-armys-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-clear-undeniable-20090119

 

Is Amnesty International wrong?

 

Do they even make smoke grenades that don't use white phosphorus? (What would you make such a thing with, and wouldn't that thing be just as bad for humans to come in contact with?)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_grenade

 

Smoke grenades are canister-type grenades used as ground-to-ground or ground-to-air signaling devices, target or landing zone marking devices, or a screening devices for unit movements. Smoke grenades are normally considered non lethal, although incorrect use may cause injury or fatality. The body consists of a sheet steel cylinder with a few emission holes on top and at the bottom to allow smoke release when the grenade is ignited. The filler consists of 250 to 350 grams of colored (red, green, orange, gray, yellow, blue, white, black, or violet) smoke composition (mostly potassium chlorate, lactose and a dye).[/b'] The reaction is exothermic and grenade casings will remain scalding hot for some time even after the grenade is no longer emitting smoke.

 

How is it "potentially a war crime" if it's a secondary effect as part of existing, established weaponry, and not banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention[/url'] even though it's been in use since the 1920s?

 

)#Arms_control_status_and_military_regulations

 

Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas. This protocol is only binding upon those who have signed it; the United States, along with the other major military powers, has not signed or agreed to Protocol III and is not bound by it.

 

However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty. There is a debate on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April 1997. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.).

 

Does that answer your questions?

[Pangloss]

I appreciate the reply.

 

Yes, I think Amnesty International is often wrong.

 

That's interesting about the alternatives to smoke grenades. I'd like to see more information about the realistic alternatives to various munitions in modern urban combat. Surely if reasonably effective, safer alternatives exist, then they should be used.

 

I don't think that the above makes the case about war crimes at all. But you did say "potentially" and I don't really have a problem with that.

[Sisyphus]

To be clear then, the claim isn't that it was "used on civilians" as some kind of weapon, but rather that it was used in another role (as a smoke screen) in populated areas, that it tends to cause great damage to human life and property, and that safer (to bystanders) alternatives could have been used instead. Correct?

 

(Further, I feel I should remind everyone to stay on topic. Yes, it's ironic that we're arguing about this when Hamas is firing rockets directly at civilians with unambiguously lethal intent, but we're not debating "who's worse." Hamas is not an ally of the United States, nor is it a buyer of American arms, and Bascule is raising the question of whether we should be holding Israel, which is both of those things, to a higher standard in order to continue that relationship.)

Edited February 23, 2009 by Sisyphus

[JohnB]

The M825 A1 is not a smoke grenade. It is a 155mm artillery shell and is not (generally) an incendiary device.

 

From Global Security;

Description

a. Types. The three types of smoke projectiles areas follows:

 

(1) Hexachloroethane. Hexachloroethane (HC) smoke (smk) projectiles are available for 105-mm and 155-mm howitzers. They are used for screening, obscuration, spotting, and signaling purposes. The projectile has no casualty-producing effects. This base-ejection projectile is ballistically simailar to the HE projectile. It is fitted with a mechanical time fuze M565 or M577. The round expels smoke canisters that emit smoke for a period of 40 to 90 seconds.

 

(2) Burster-type white phosphorus. White phosphorus projectiles are available for 105-mm and 155-mm howitzers. They are bursting-tube type projectiles that can be fired with point-detonating (PD) or MTSQ fuzes. The projectile has an incendiary-producing effect and is ballistically similar to the HE projectile. Normally, shell WP is employed for its incendiary effect. The projectile also can be used for screening, spotting, and signaling purposes.

 

(3) M825 white phosphorus. The M825 WP projectile is an FA-delivered 155-mm base-ejection projectile designed to produce a smoke screen on the ground for a duration of 5 to 15 minutes. It consists of two major components--the projectile carrier and the payload. The projectile carrier delivers the payload to the target. The payload consists of 116 WP-saturated felt wedges. The smoke screen is produced when a predetermined fuze action causes ejection of the payload from the projectile. After ejection, the WP-saturated felt wedges in the payload fall to the ground in an elliptical pattern. Each wedge then becomes a point or source of smoke. The M825 is ballistically similar to the M483A1 (DPICM) family of projectiles.

As can be seen there are three types of shell. The burster type is the incendiary version. The smoke from HC shells only lasts for 90 seconds which means without continuous bombardment, their use is short lived, whereas the M825 A1 smoke lasts for some minutes. Assuming that what we are seeing in the picture is in fact an M825 A1, then the ferocious looking lights are actually pieces of felt.

 

BTW, the description of the M825 A1 round clearly shows that Article I of Protocol III does not apply as the weapon is not;

primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof

AI in the first link complain about the damage caused by the spent casings, however, if the Israelis were to use HC smoke projectiles, they would have to fire at least three times as many shells causing three times as much damage from casings. So no matter what, AI will be upset with the Israelis, won't it?

 

From the Guardian story;

Amnesty researchers in Gaza found several weapon fragments after the fighting. One came from a 500lb (227kg) Mark-82 fin guided bomb,

Shock and horror. They found bomb fragments after airstrikes in a war zone. Sheesh.

From a 2000 MIAC Journal article;

Captain Vincent Muylkens of the BDU of the Belgium Armed Forces (SEDEE-DOVO) feels “about 450 million pieces of explosive ordnance remain. Having 3,500 requests each year, we will stay busy for many years to come.” Michel Lambrechts, captain-commandant of the unit commented, “Every year we handle approximately 250 tons of ammunition from these wars. Within these 250 tons, some 20 tons are doubtful ammunitions which could be chemical shells from WWI.”

Can we have some perspective here?

 

In short. The weapon is not banned and it's use contravenes no treaty. And something is not a war crime just because AI says it is.

 

AI can object to the use of the M825 shell in certain situations, that is fair enough, but doing something AI objects to is not a crime or a war crime.

[bascule]

In short. The weapon is not banned and it's use contravenes no treaty. And something is not a war crime just because AI says it is.

 

AI can object to the use of the M825 shell in certain situations, that is fair enough, but doing something AI objects to is not a crime or a war crime.

 

That doesn't address the question of whether, given the circumstances of how Israel used white phosphorus, it should be considered a war crime.

 

You're a resolute "no" I gather?

 

Amnesty International's argument would seem to be that the intent was, at least in certain cases, to burn the flesh of Palestinian civilians, as opposed to using it for a smokescreen. Israel's response has been "we didn't use white phosphorus" followed by "no comment" followed by "we used it for a smokescreen".

 

Who's right?

[Pangloss]

Do you want to put a stop to it, or do you want it declared a war crime? Those are two different things, each with its own accompanying political can of worms. Both are interesting questions to consider, IMO.

 

Amnesty International's argument would seem to be that the intent was, at least in certain cases, to burn the flesh of Palestinian civilians, as opposed to using it for a smokescreen.

 

Is there any evidence of this?

[iNow]

Do you want to put a stop to it, or do you want it declared a war crime? Those are two different things

 

They are different things, but they are hardly mutually exclusive. Many of your posts recently imply that you have some sort of problem with investigations into wrong-doing.

[Pangloss]

Do you want to investigate wrongdoing, or do you want to string up the bad guys from the nearest low-hanging branch? Those are two different things.

[iNow]

Do you want to investigate wrongdoing, or do you want to string up the bad guys from the nearest low-hanging branch? Those are two different things.

 

Yes, and it's also a false dichotomy.

[Pangloss]

Why is it a dichotomy at all? We can't do both?

 

Pointing out a distinction is different from forcing a choice.

[iNow]

Okay, oddly we seem to agree, despite appearances to the contrary. I was receiving quite a different message from your last posts in this thread, but it seems we're on the same page.

 

Then again, your use of the word "or" does appear to force a choice.

 

 

Do you want to put a stop to it, or do you want it declared a war crime?

 

Do you want to investigate wrongdoing, or do you want to string up the bad guys from the nearest low-hanging branch?

[bascule]

I really hate to do this because it's the same tactics 9/11 truthers use, but...

 

...look at the picture. Does it look like white phosphorus is being used as a smokescreen? Or does it look like they're just trying to use it to f**k people up?

 

Do you think Israel really indended to be bombarding a building with a couple UN vehicles parked in it with white phosphorus? Or, perhaps, were they just using it randomly to inflict pain....

 

I don't know the answers to these questions but clearly I have a guess. If you have evidence which contradicts my guess I'd like to hear it.

 

The fact the US provided the white phosphorus makes us part and parcel to these attacks, which really makes me wonder why we're giving Israel weapons again....

 

From the Guardian story;

 

Amnesty researchers in Gaza found several weapon fragments after the fighting. One came from a 500lb (227kg) Mark-82 fin guided bomb' date='[/quote']

 

Shock and horror. They found bomb fragments after airstrikes in a war zone. Sheesh.

 

Well, more importantly, they found a US-manufactured bomb... and as an American I can't say I support the use of US-provided armaments in this attack.

 

Yes, I think Amnesty International is often wrong.

 

Perhaps Amnesty International is wrong a lot. However, you conveniently dodged my question, so let me phrase it a bit more specifically. Do you think they're wrong in this particular case? Have arms been used in this conflict in ways that violate human rights?

 

Also note: Amnesty International's accusations don't apply specifically to the Israelis. They have accused both sides of human rights violations.

Edited February 24, 2009 by bascule

[DrP]

 

Perhaps Amnesty International is wrong a lot. However, you conveniently dodged my question, so let me phrase it a bit more specifically. Do you think they're wrong in this particular case? Have arms been used in this conflict in ways that violate human rights?

 

 

Any use of arms against anyone cold be considered a violation of human rights if you look at in that way no? If you shoot me, then that is a violation of my human rights - if a situation has developed into outright war then all sense has seeminly gone out of the window from both sides anyway. The question you origionally posted was:

 

 

Why are we giving military aid to countries perpetrating war crimes?

 

Which is dificault to answer directly because no one has proven that any war crimes have taken place yet. As has been ponted out above - the shells they were using are not banned under any law or treaty (according to JohnB's post above - I personally don't know enough about it - nor do AI or most people on the street apparently).

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

...look at the picture. Does it look like white phosphorus is being used as a smokescreen? Or does it look like they're just trying to use it to f**k people up?

 

Do you think Israel really indended to be bombarding a building with a couple UN vehicles parked in it with white phosphorus? Or, perhaps, were they just using it randomly to inflict pain....

.

 

Oh yea - How can you tell from a picture of a war scene what the hell is going on anyway. You picture shows some shells going off during a war. You can't tell what is going on and WHY in particular from that. Perhaps the troops were going to advance behind that smoke. Perhaps the smoke was a decoy and the troops were about to assault elsewhere. Perhaps that were about to assault but then got the intel that they were mistaken and there was no point in advancing on that area because it was acually a UN building and they had made a mistake about it being full of Hamas forces. What the hell do any of us know about it?

[The Bear's Key]

I appreciate the reply.

 

Yes, I think Amnesty International is often wrong.

From what I can see in your link and its references, these accusations mostly come from the Bush administration. Plus I've only heard right-wing media speak ill of Amnesty International. As Bush's gang supported Middle-East interference, naturally they'd gain from discrediting the Amnesty organization.

 

It seems, from your link, that Amenesty's focus is on singling out nations who *aught to know better* or proudly advertise themselves as a bastion of human rights. Amnesty is simply ensuring that a nation won't "forget" its human rights standards while operating beyond its borders. Another variable: reliable information's not as easily obtained from the "bad spots" of the world, either.

 

Now, I'm not going to defend Amnesty or whatever nations are involved. But I will say Amnesty is mistaken to blame the U.S. or Israel -- and not the policies of the leader in place.

 

For example, they should never have said, "the U.S. did this, or the U.S did that (abuse)". Why? The right-wingers use/need such fuel. The bait is left out for Amnesty/protestors.....who usually bite -- thus igniting the right-winger propoganda furnace.

 

To others here.

 

This is a lesson for any of us protestors too. Let's not blame our nation for what a tiny group of scoundrels perpetrate. They'll use it against us. "See, these wackos are unpatriotic. Liberals who blame the U.S. for everything and still want to live within her safe borders. They're lucky to even be in a nation where they're able to speak freely like that. blah blah *strategic outrage* blah blah *mock surprise* blah. Etc".

 

Don't let them frame the debate. It's their utmost goal for you to say "American Imperialism" rather than saying...."Neocon Imperialism". For a moment, let's really think about it -- which of those phrases is far more difficult to attack, or make seem unpatriotic? Which is more difficult for them to build resentment against you (or protesters)?

 

For if I were the neocons, I'd go around planting the seeds: disguised as protestor, and blaming the larger group -- so that real protestors who follow my lead will not only have a false view of the root cause, but they'll face obstacles much larger in size than I would've been. And soon, many other protestors will repeat this simple error, unwittingly helping me fuel up the propoganda machine.

[SH3RL0CK]

From what I can see in your link and its references, these accusations mostly come from the Bush administration. Plus I've only heard right-wing media speak ill of Amnesty International.

 

Does who the accusers are automatically make them wrong?

 

Now, I'm not going to defend Amnesty or whatever nations are involved. But I will say Amnesty is mistaken to blame the U.S. or Israel -- and not the policies of the leader in place.

 

For example, they should never have said, "the U.S. did this, or the U.S did that (abuse)". Why? The right-wingers use/need such fuel. The bait is left out for Amnesty/protestors.....who usually bite -- thus igniting the right-winger propoganda furnace.

 

 

I agree this is a very valid point. But why is AI officially placing blame squarely on nations (rather than just documenting and criticizing specific actions along with proper disclaimers due to incomplete information available, etc.) if not to obtain a headline and therefore publicity? After all "Israel commits war crimes!" is a headline while "Israel uses smokescreens." winds up on page 12. It doesn't seem to me that AI is being taken out of context by reporters looking for a headline story, although that may be what is actually happening.

[Pangloss]

I really hate to do this because it's the same tactics 9/11 truthers use, but...

 

...look at the picture. Does it look like white phosphorus is being used as a smokescreen? Or does it look like they're just trying to use it to f**k people up?

 

Do you think Israel really indended to be bombarding a building with a couple UN vehicles parked in it with white phosphorus? Or, perhaps, were they just using it randomly to inflict pain....

 

I don't know the answers to these questions but clearly I have a guess. If you have evidence which contradicts my guess I'd like to hear it.

 

Wow dude, are you serious? There's a reason the "9/11 truthers" are chastised for using those kinds of arguments. Can we stick with evidence and reason, please, instead of delving into speculation and conspiracy theory? Please?

 

It's not up to us to find "evidence that contradicts your guess". If you want something to be established as fact for the purposes of action to be taken, then the burden of proof is on you to support your guess.

 

And you know it. How can you even say something like that, here, of all places?

 

 

The fact the US provided the white phosphorus makes us part and parcel to these attacks, which really makes me wonder why we're giving Israel weapons again....

 

Nothing wrong with this opinion, and I agree that this relationships should always be subject to inspection and review. More power to you.

 

 

Perhaps Amnesty International is wrong a lot. However, you conveniently dodged my question, so let me phrase it a bit more specifically. Do you think they're wrong in this particular case? Have arms been used in this conflict in ways that violate human rights?

 

As I said, I don't think that case has been made. It is, as you put it above, a "guess". A guess is not enough for me to form an opinion on, especially in the light of Amnesty Internationals predisposition to rush to judgment on issues such as this.

 

 

 

Also note: Amnesty International's accusations don't apply specifically to the Israelis. They have accused both sides of human rights violations.

 

Of course. Their bias isn't pro-palestinian, it's peace-at-all-costs. It's the usual far-left catch-22 of "we love freedom except when we have to pay for it by giving up peace".

[Sisyphus]

 

...look at the picture. Does it look like white phosphorus is being used as a smokescreen? Or does it look like they're just trying to use it to f**k people up?

 

Do you think Israel really indended to be bombarding a building with a couple UN vehicles parked in it with white phosphorus? Or, perhaps, were they just using it randomly to inflict pain....

 

I don't see any credible evidence of that, no. Honestly, though, what mostly makes it so hard to believe is the lack of motive. What possible benefit, real or imagined, would Israel find in randomly attacking civilians? I could buy that perhaps they were doing it without any regard to civilians (although that's doubtful too, really, since they're under such constant and intense scrutiny), but intentionally attacking civilians? Um, what?

[iNow]

I don't see any credible evidence of that, no. Honestly, though, what mostly makes it so hard to believe is the lack of motive. What possible benefit, real or imagined, would Israel find in randomly attacking civilians?

 

None, but sometimes the soldiers placed in charge of said weapons are a bunch of bigoted religious nutbags more than willing to make "the others" with "different beliefs" suffer.

[Sisyphus]

None, but sometimes the soldiers placed in charge of said weapons are a bunch of bigoted religious nutbags more than willing to make "the others" with "different beliefs" suffer.

 

Ah, ok. So the alleged crime is failing to prosecute rogue nutbags?

[bascule]

I don't see any credible evidence of that, no. Honestly, though, what mostly makes it so hard to believe is the lack of motive. What possible benefit, real or imagined, would Israel find in randomly attacking civilians? I could buy that perhaps they were doing it without any regard to civilians (although that's doubtful too, really, since they're under such constant and intense scrutiny), but intentionally attacking civilians? Um, what?

 

I think it's unacceptable in either case. Putting the issue of motive aside this incident did represent unprecedented exposure of civilians to white phosphorus.

 

As I said, I don't think that case has been made. It is, as you put it above, a "guess". A guess is not enough for me to form an opinion on, especially in the light of Amnesty Internationals predisposition to rush to judgment on issues such as this.

 

Well, read their report and tell me if they're "rushing to judgment":

 

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/012/2009/en/5be86fc2-994e-4eeb-a6e8-3ddf68c28b31/mde150122009en.html#1.0.7.Misuse%20of%20conventional%20arms%20by%20Israeli%20forces|outline

 

Several white phosphorus artillery shells hit the UNRWA field operations headquarters in Gaza City on 15 January, causing a large fire which destroyed tens of tons of humanitarian aid, including, medicines, food and other non-food items.2 Amnesty International delegates who visited the site found the marking PB-91K018-035 on the fragments of one of the artillery shells which is the lot number and indicates that they were assembled by Pine Bluff Arsenal (PB) in 1991 (91) in October (K).

 

Chalk that up to collateral damage if you want, but it still doesn't answer the question of why they are using white phosphorus in densely populated urban areas in the first place.

[SH3RL0CK]

I think it's unacceptable in either case. Putting the issue of motive aside this incident did represent ...unprecedented exposure of civilians to white phosphorus...

Chalk that up to collateral damage if you want, but it still doesn't answer the question of why they are using white phosphorus in densely populated urban areas in the first place.

 

Gracious, it would seem that Israel will get no breaks. They are engaging in warfare (which b.t.w. they do NOT want) using permitted (by the letter of the law) weapons in permitted (by the letter of the law) fashions. SH-T happens in war.

 

Hamas isn't being criticized nearly this much, despite being orders of magnitude worse. With this kind of criticism, Israel simply cannot win in the court of public opinion.

 

I think the overkill on criticism is very counter-productive to the stated goals of AI (though maybe they have goals they don't publicitize?). As the criticisms are not equitable, the incentive lends itself to an attempt to be the worst rather than the best. Answer me this: why then, should Israel not simply resort to the tactics of Hamas and really try to inflict pain on the civilians of Gaza? Would AI then speak out as loudly as they do regarding Hamas (which, b.t.w. appears to me to be considerably less)? Would you then speak out with the same vigor as you are regarding Hamas?

[iNow]

Ah, ok. So the alleged crime is failing to prosecute rogue nutbags?

 

Well, if that is what happened, that the government failed to act on misconduct, then yes. However, if the government ordered misconduct, then that is something else entirely. Hence, we need to investigate to find out what's up, even if we have a hard time figuring out potential motivations for government level sanctioning of these activities (or if that type of sanctioning occurred at all).

[Sisyphus]

Well, if that is what happened, that the government failed to act on misconduct, then yes. However, if the government ordered misconduct, then that is something else entirely. Hence, we need to investigate to find out what's up, even if we have a hard time figuring out potential motivations for government level sanctioning of these activities (or if that type of sanctioning occurred at all).

 

The missing step there is establishing misconduct. Or even some evidence thereof, for that matter. Should it be looked into? Sure. But jumping to accusations of "war crimes" with a) no evidence it was deliberate, b) a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation, c) no motive for a deliberate act, and d) a strong motive against? Any public defender would rip you to shreds.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Sisyphus