White phosphorus used on Gaza civillians by Israel provided by US

[bascule]

Hamas isn't being criticized nearly this much, despite being orders of magnitude worse.

 

Orders of magnitude worse? I'd be interested to know by what figures you arrive at that conclusion...

[SH3RL0CK]

Orders of magnitude worse? I'd be interested to know by what figures you arrive at that conclusion...

 

Hmm. Hamas deliberately attacks civilian populations and freely admit to such. Israel takes great pains to avoid attacks in civilian populations, though that is often difficult as Hamas uses civilian locations,as human shields. I'd call that much different standards, wouldn't you?

 

A very small sampling of Hamas attrocities.

 

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

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3512014.ece

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0145a8233e14d2b585256cbf005af141/6086bf730ec168cd8525701b004e0318!OpenDocument

 

 

Note HRWs and Israels response when civilian casualties occur, in this case due to "loose instructions" given to their soldiers...

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5601177.ece

“Having interviewed dozens of victims and witnesses and, having examined the ballistic evidence from north to south, we are convinced that Israel did not do everything possible to minimise civilians’ harm and death,” said Fred Abrahams, of Human Rights Watch.

 

“The rules of engagement were exceedingly loose, and they dropped the bar on the laws of war. This allowed civilian casualties to rise.”

...An Israeli military spokesman said that the incident was being investigated, and that the accusations were being taken “very seriously”.

 

 

 

If you cannot see a distinction between one side deliberately, intentionally attacking civilians, and one side trying not to harm civilians in a conflict fought in a densely populated area, and then carefully reviewing the situation afterwards, even publicizing and lauching investigations when things go wrong, then I'm not sure what else can be said except...why not?

[bascule]

If you cannot see a distinction between one side deliberately, intentionally attacking civilians, and one side trying not to harm civilians in a conflict fought in a densely populated area

 

Given the scale of civilian deaths and serious injuries from the Gaza invasion, I am lead to seriously question the latter. That's quite the euphemism you're trying to place on 1000 dead Palestinian civilians and an unprecedented level of civilian injuries from white phosphorus.

 

Furthermore, you haven't made your case that Hamas is "orders of magnitude" worse (so minimum 100x?)

[The Bear's Key]

Does who the accusers are automatically make them wrong?

Of course not. But it can't be ignored. Just something to consider as a variable.

 

If Amnesty had said "Bush policy is tarnishing the image of a great land whose priority for human rights always seems to outrank its government's policies. Bush is OK with the sale of white phosphorous to Israel even after its current government's policies -- or lack thereof -- allowed their use on civilians. An investigation into possible war crimes is merited before the U.S. continues these sales, as the free/benevolent nations lead by example, and shouldn't resort to tactics of repressive nations" it'd have been really difficult to make Amnesty seem wrong-headed.

 

If the sale occured after January '09, they can even say, rightfully, "Obama (continuing of Bush) policy is..."

 

That would put the relevant leaders on the defensive rather than on the offensive.

 

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?

Wrong approach is the main possible reason. See above.

 

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?).

My quote (below) has answered this question.

From what I can see.....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.

Amnesty might need to really work on their PR in communications, but it doesn't mean they're entirely wrong.

[Pangloss]

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.

 

As opposed to what?

 

Bear in mind that "nothing" is not an appropriate answer here. War itself is not a war crime, much as Amnesty International would like for it to be so.

[bascule]

As opposed to what?

 

The ostensible answer would be: not using white phosphorus in densely populated urban areas.

 

Bear in mind that "nothing" is not an appropriate answer here. War itself is not a war crime, much as Amnesty International would like for it to be so.

 

But it's war! They should be given carte blanche to do whatever they want... with US provided munitions... and I as an American shouldn't be offended by it. Zuh?

[iNow]

As opposed to what?

 

Oh, I don't know... Maybe a flood light or some spot lights?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Given the scale of civilian deaths and serious injuries from the Gaza invasion, I am lead to seriously question the latter.

 

I'm listening to NPR right now. I just heard them state that in this conflict that 1300 Gazans were killed as opposed to 13 Israelis. This certainly seems to support your point.

 

 

Furthermore, you haven't made your case that Hamas is "orders of magnitude" worse (so minimum 100x?)

Given the numbers above, there does, indeed, appear to be an order of magnitude difference... It just goes in the other way.

 

 

 

With that said, this is specific to this conflict, and does not count the civilian deaths racked up during the supposed cease fire. Let's be very careful not view this in a vacuum.

Edited February 25, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Phi for All]

Oh, I don't know... Maybe a flood light or some spot lights?

Too easily targeted, and if the lights have personnel operating them, it's too tempting a target.

[iNow]

Okay, so maybe I'm not 100% up to speed on the latest and greatest military technology. However, the general point remains. There ARE other ways to provide light and/or smoke for cover that don't result in melted skin on the innocents caught in the center of the turmoil.

[The Bear's Key]

I'm not completely up to date on this entire Hamas/Israel conflict. But.....didn't it begin after Hamas legitimatety won the elections, and Bush/Israel refused to acknowledge Hamas in government -- and pledged to remove them from power?

 

I didn't understand how getting elected was against international law.

[Mr Skeptic]

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?

 

That seems like a fair argument.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

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?

 

And that is the crux of it. If we want to accuse someone of wrongdoing, then it is best to show that there was some wrongdoing. And yes, I know that some civilians seem to have gotten white phosphorous on themselves, but was that the intention or a side effect?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Do you think they're wrong in this particular case? Have arms been used in this conflict in ways that violate human rights?

 

I'll presume innocence until there is some evidence of guilt.

[Pangloss]

The ostensible answer would be: not using white phosphorus in densely populated urban areas.

 

Right, but I'm still not clear what alternatives exist for their weapons that don't use the stuff. Someone mentioned earlier an alternative to smoke grenades. Perhaps alternatives exist for all the items in their inventory. Perhaps not.

 

Do you know? And if you don't know, aren't you rushing to judgment?

 

 

But it's war! They should be given carte blanche to do whatever they want... with US provided munitions... and I as an American shouldn't be offended by it. Zuh?

 

Straw man. I gave them no such free reign.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'm listening to NPR right now. I just heard them state that in this conflict that 1300 Gazans were killed as opposed to 13 Israelis. This certainly seems to support your point.

 

The Union lost more men in the American Civil War than the Confederacy. Does that put the Union in the wrong in that conflict? The Allies lost far more armed men and civilians in the Second World War than the Axis. Does that make the Allies in the wrong in that conflict?

 

Proportionality goes to a measurement of magnitude, not a measurement of responsibility. Using it to assess blame is one of the most illogical (and, tragically, most common) arguments in modern international politics.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Okay, so maybe I'm not 100% up to speed on the latest and greatest military technology. However, the general point remains. There ARE other ways to provide light and/or smoke for cover that don't result in melted skin on the innocents caught in the center of the turmoil.

 

Smoke pots are great when you have access to the stage and the roadies haven't noticed yet that the clock has struck 4:20. Delivering tactically useful smoke into a crowd of militants half a mile away and of variable location sounds like another matter to me.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

White phosphorous is not the only way to deliver smoke. Smoke grenades typically use a different chemical mixture (Wikipedia it) and are far safer. Tanks often have smoke grenade launchers mounted on the turret.

[Pangloss]

Do we have any information (NOT from Amnesty International) about why they don't use that type of alternative?

[The Bear's Key]

The Union lost more men in the American Civil War than the Confederacy. Does that put the Union in the wrong in that conflict? The Allies lost far more armed men and civilians in the Second World War than the Axis. Does that make the Allies in the wrong in that conflict?

If your history is correct, then the Union were in the right and so were the Allies. Both the Confederacy and the Axis weren't. This seems to follow iNow's reasoning (1300 Gazans killed vs 13 Israelis).

 

I'm sure that's not what you meant.

[Pangloss]

Well it wouldn't be the first time I've gotten an analogy backwards, but it's really beside the point. The Union wasn't in the right just because it lost fewer people, was it? Didn't that have a little more to do with a little something called slavery? Were the British right to try and keep the American colonies just because they had fewer casualties (I don't recall if they did)? Is the only reason why Americans are often judged to be in the wrong regarding Vietnam the fact that more Vietnamese were killed than Americans? Really? Vietnamese sovereignty has nothing to do with it?

 

Does it make any sense at all to make an argument along those lines?

[DrP]

Do we have any information (NOT from Amnesty International) about why they don't use that type of alternative?

 

Post #6 at the begining of this thread talks about such issues - no-one seemed to notice it/ or they ignored it because it didn't say what they wanted to hear.

[SH3RL0CK]

Given the scale of civilian deaths and serious injuries from the Gaza invasion, I am lead to seriously question the latter. That's quite the euphemism you're trying to place on 1000 dead Palestinian civilians and an unprecedented level of civilian injuries from white phosphorus.

 

Furthermore, you haven't made your case that Hamas is "orders of magnitude" worse (so minimum 100x?)

 

I am basing the scale not on the capability of doing harm, nor even the acutal harm committed, but rather the willingness/eagerness to do so. There is ample evidence of no action being beneath Hamas...indeed, few things are worse than launching rockets at schools filled with children. I thought I had made that clear.

 

I didn't understand how getting elected was against international law.

Its not. But please stop overlooking the evil Hamas perpetrates just because they often fail to acheive the destruction they desire.

 

Originally Posted by The Bear's Key

From what I can see.....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.

 

So then Hamas gets a pass for any and all wrong behavior? Don't you think Hamas "aught to know better"? Doesn't a lack of standards indicate they should be criticized because otherwise they will never "know any better"?

 

I find it very fascinating that some criticize only those willing to hold any standards at all. Now would someone please answer my previous question posted earlier:

As the criticisms are not equitable, the incentive lends itself to an attempt to be the worst rather than the best...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?

[JohnB]

A few things.

 

Firstly those smoke grenade launchers on tanks are for defense. they are short range and are designed to create smoke to obscure the tank as it moves away. Similar in purpose to destoyer escorts "making smoke" during WWII to obscure convoys.

 

They can't be used to hide an advance. If you want to use smoke to hide an advance then the smoke has to be delivered near the enemy, that way your enemies view is obstructed while your troops can see.

 

Any attempt to use tank smoke grenades to hide an attack will merely result in your own forces (including the tanks) being blind while your enemy is free to shoot into the slowly advancing cloud. Only a general who has as his highest purpose the utter slaughter of his own forces would consider this tactic.

 

From bascules AI link in post 22;

artillery is an area weapon, not one that can be used with pinpoint accuracy, and so should never be used in densely-populated civilian areas.

Where did they get that idea? Modern artillery pieces are the direct descendants of the trebuchet, ballista and catapult known by the generic term "Seige Weapons". They have been used for more than 2,000 years to lay seige to things, normally cities. Their purpose is to blow things up and knock things down. Levelling defensive works and buildings are exactly the purposes they were designed for. That's the fact. Deal.

 

Concerning smoke shells;

White phosphorus is a weapon intended to provide a smokescreen for troop movements on the battlefield.

By complaining about their use in Gaza I can only assume that according to AI, a city cannot be a battlefield. I'm sure this is news to the people to Stalingrad. Cities have been battlefields since before the fall of Troy. While this might offend the sensibilities of some, it is still a fact. Deal.

Amnesty International considers that the repeated use of white phosphorus in this way in densely-populated civilian areas constitutes a form of indiscriminate attack, and amounts to a war crime.

Just because they consider it, doesn't make it so. They're entitled to their opinion, but opinion isn't law.

 

I note that each example of ordnance that AI list the IDF as using is accompanied by a tale of how harm has come to children. Pure "Appeal to Emotion" and does not advance their argument. If they could supply just one example where a battle has been fought inside a civillian area where women and children haven't been killed or injured, they would have a point. As is, it's just a sob story.

 

All the whining about using weapons in built up areas would be moot if Hamas would come out and take to the field outside the towns and cities. But they haven't and they won't, therefore the IDF has to go in after them. If the towns of the Gaza strip are being made into battlefields, it's not by the choice of the IDF. Any soldier can tell you that house to house is the worst type of fighting. It's worse than jungle.

 

I'm not sure as to the actual point of the AI document as they appear to be against the IDF using just about every weapon. They complain against the IDFs use of;

Artillery

High Explosive tank rounds

Flechette tank rounds

Air to Ground missiles

Iron bombs

Mortars

Illuminating Artillery shells (Star shells)

Artillery Smoke shells.

 

They also mention finding;

a range of live and spent bullets casings of various calibres - including 7.62 mm, 5.56 mm and the larger .50 calibre.

I wonder if they would be happier if the IDF only operated during the day while armed with bows and arrows?

 

The Haaretz link in the same post (#22) also contains an interesting comment that appears to have gone unnoticed. (Aside from quoting what the Israeli doctors have to say about white phosphorous)

During Operation Cast Lead, intelligence was received that Hamas was making use of an ordinance that contains phosphorus. Phosphorus is a poisonous substance, white-yellowish, similar to wax, that is used in mortar shells and hand grenades.

So if both sides used WP ammo, who do you prosecute?

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.

Gee, I dunno. Maybe for the same use anybody uses them for. To make smoke and obscure troop movements.

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.

They can have that argument, but proving it is another kettle of fish. Without proof (which they don't have) they have nothing but inuendo baseless and accusations.

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

 

You're a resolute "no" I gather?[/quote']

Correct. A legal weapon was used in a legal fashion. However, if you can prove intent to harm civillians, that would probably change.

...look at the picture. Does it look like white phosphorus is being used as a smokescreen?

The felts are in the process of landing, they're still bouncing around. A picture taken 30 seconds later would show a very different situation.

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.

Where did you think the IDF would use them? Argentina?

However, the general point remains. There ARE other ways to provide light and/or smoke for cover that don't result in melted skin on the innocents caught in the center of the turmoil.

The question's been asked before but I'll ask it again. Like what?

 

Let's be specific here.

1. How do you illuminate a night battlefield without using star shells?

2. How do you create a smoke screen to hide your troops without using smoke shells?

Edited February 25, 2009 by JohnB

[iNow]

Let's be specific here.

1. How do you illuminate a night battlefield without using star shells?

2. How do you create a smoke screen to hide your troops without using smoke shells?

 

There are ALWAYS other ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_screen#Technology

 

 

I could use a grenade to kill a wasp, too. Doesn't mean I should. The issue here is not a lack of alternate technology. It's the questionable use of technology they had in hand in areas densely populated by citizens.

 

There are always other ways. See the link above and below for a brief sampling.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_screen#Chemicals_used_for_smoke_generation

[Saryctos]

There are ALWAYS other ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_screen#Technology

 

 

I could use a grenade to kill a wasp, too. Doesn't mean I should. The issue here is not a lack of alternate technology. It's the questionable use of technology they had in hand in areas densely populated by citizens.

 

There are always other ways. See the link above and below for a brief sampling.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_screen#Chemicals_used_for_smoke_generation

 

Respirators are required for people coming into contact with the zinc chloride smoke.

Respirators are required for any concentrations sufficient to cause any coughing, irritation of the eyes or prickling of the skin.

Goggles or a respirator should be worn when in contact with the smoke, full protective clothing should be worn when handling liquid FM. In direct contact with skin or eyes, liquid FM causes acid burns.

Many of the alternatives would seem, at a glance, to be worse.

[SH3RL0CK]

There are ALWAYS other ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_screen#Technology

 

 

I could use a grenade to kill a wasp, too. Doesn't mean I should. The issue here is not a lack of alternate technology. It's the questionable use of technology they had in hand in areas densely populated by citizens.

 

There are always other ways. See the link above and below for a brief sampling.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_screen#Chemicals_used_for_smoke_generation

 

 

Yes, but the other ways are not as effective. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_(weapon)

 

From the article:

In contrast to other smoke-causing munitions, WP burns quickly causing an instant bank of smoke. As a result of this, WP munitions are very common

 

Weight-for-weight, phosphorus is the most effective smoke-screening agent known

 

Because of the great weight efficiency of WP smoke, it is particularly suited for applications where weight is highly restricted, such as hand grenades and mortar bombs. An additional advantage for hand smoke grenades—which are more likely to be used in an emergency—is that the WP smoke clouds form in a fraction of a second.

 

The IDF could just toss lit cigarettes over to make a smokescreen. Doesn't mean they should. The issue here is not a lack of alternate technology. It's what technology should be used in battle zone densely populated by citizens to minimize casualties.

 

IMO, WP may, depending on the circumstances, be the best choice to minimize casualties both for the IDF and for the civilians as it permits the IDF to operate quickly and then get out, rather than get entangled in a long, drawn-out firefight.

[bascule]

The issue here is not a lack of alternate technology. It's what technology should be used in battle zone densely populated by citizens to minimize casualties.

 

Well then, I suppose my argument would be white phosphorus is not applicable for use in one of the most densely populated areas in the world, due to the potential for massive collateral damage.

 

IMO, WP may, depending on the circumstances, be the best choice to minimize casualties both for the IDF and for the civilians as it permits the IDF to operate quickly and then get out, rather than get entangled in a long, drawn-out firefight.

 

Sounds like you want to minimize IDF military casualties at the cost of Palestinian civilian casualties.

[SH3RL0CK]

Well then, I suppose my argument would be white phosphorus is not applicable for use in one of the most densely populated areas in the world, due to the potential for massive collateral damage.

 

 

 

Sounds like you want to minimize IDF military casualties at the cost of Palestinian civilian casualties.

 

Well, you are very, very, very much mistaken (or borderline trolling). I'd rather minimize ALL casualties. I can see in certain circumstances where the IDF has a choice for a quick retreat, or get involved in a desperate firefight. The WP could enable the quick action (perhaps a retreat) which otherwise might result in the bullets flying everywhere. Phosphorus, which admittedly can cause civilian injuries, may cause less than Lead.

 

B.T.W. you still haven't answered my question regarding why Hamas (but not Israel) gets a pass on inhumane behavior and whether or not this encourages bad, rather than good behavior. After all, AI can only influence actions by the presence or absence of condemnation (or praise, but that won't happen) The choices are to be somewhat bad (which is inevitable in war) and receive much condemnation, or ALL BAD and receive no condemnation. Therefore, as I see it, obviously AI is encouraging despicable behavior.

 

Shouldn't AI therefore be criticizing Hamas at least as much as the IDF? And why are they not, if their goal is to reduce the violence?

 

Care to answer, or are you still thinking about it?

[Reaper]

There are ALWAYS other ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_screen#Technology

 

There are other ways, but they can't be used for all situations. Different smokescreens are used for different battlefield tactics. As well, they all can be quite toxic; there is no such thing as a safe smokescreen.

 

For example, the reason we even have white phosphorus is so that they can obscure infrared signatures and other thermal imaging readings, as well as hiding large numbers of troops in general...

 

The reason it burns, is because it is an incendiary weapon. At least white phosphorus does. Red phosphorus doesn't, but its not nearly as quick or effective...

 

 

 

==========================================

 

On the grand scheme of things I find it quite strange that people think that war can be fought "humanely", given that it is basically an oxymoron. In any event, it is impossible to wage war without involving the civilian population simply because they happen to be the most important target of any army (either advancing or defending), especially for guerillas (i.e. the Hamas).

 

Of course, we all could just do away with war all together, but there are groups of people out there who are either unable or unwilling to do that...