Is Israel using Phosphorous bombs?

silverharp

Is Israel using these weapons in the Lebanon and if so is this a defacto war crime?

Bam Bam

It wouldn't be a war crime if they were.

joebhoy1916

http://www.vtjp.org/report/overview17.htm

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4958.shtml

http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-239/0607202926164827.htm

Funny that didnt USA say Saddam commited war crimes by using chemical weapons!

Hagar

They don't strike me as the most balanced sites I've ever seen.
This is more thread of a political nature so I'll move it there where it will find it's correct audience.

< Moved to Politics - Hagar >

Hobbes

As I recall they were asked if they were using them on TV and the response was they were using weapons which where legal.

translation: yes.

Manic Moran

I believe that last time I saw it referenced on the news, Israel was in a sort of 'neither confirm or deny' mode, which probably means 'yes.' (Then again, Israel is so secretive about their military, that it might actually mean 'can neither confirm or deny')

If 'yes', then things get into a whole morass of problems relating to delivery systems, measures taken to reduce civilian casualties, and whatnot. We had a massive thread on this two or three months ago.

NTM

Dirk Gently

Manic Moran wrote:

If 'yes', then things get into a whole morass of problems relating to delivery systems, measures taken to reduce civilian casualties, and whatnot.
NTM

Greetings manic,
Just have a legal/military question that I feel you would probably be best suited to answer giving your strong knowledge of military law.

If it does becomes clear that illegal weapons are been used and war crimes have been committed where would that leave the U.S. legally considering the U.S. is the main supplier of Israeli weapons. Im not saying the U.S. is purposely giving Israel illegal weapons and telling them to us them but if it was proven that Israel was acting illegally and that the U.S. was aware of this and continued to supply either the weapons directly or the means for Israel to modify U.S. weaponry or delivery systems would the U.S. then share the blame for the war crimes.

It has already been suggested that the bombardment of Lebanon by conventional "legal" weapons is all ready a war crime and in breach of the rules of war. Would that mean that anyone who was aiding that effort, and actively supplying and continuing to re-supply after it became obvious that breaches of the rules of war where happening were themselves guilty of aiding and making those crimes possible. I’m talking about the continuous shipments of legal weaponry from the U.S. to Israel that is making it possible for Israel to use those legal weapons in an illegal way.

Bookee

I believe Phospherous doesn't contravine(?) UN Weapon regulations....!

Dirk Gently

Bookee wrote:

I believe Phospherous doesn't contravine(?) UN Weapon regulations....!

I don’t think it does but there are strict guidelines on its use as there are on conventional weapons use. The weapons themselves might be legal but the manor in which they are used is not always legal. A U.N. representative who viewed the aftermath of some of the attacks said he strongly believed enough care was not taken to limit civilian casualties and that it could very well amount to a war crime. As is often the case, it’s not the weapon involved but the manor in which the weapon was used. I'll await Manics response because I've come to respect his knowledge on subjects regarding the legality of weapon use. Often people will have an opinion on the use of weapons but at the end of the day opinion is not law.

Squaddy

I heard last night that they where using cluster bombs in civilain areas. Some civilians got killed by just walking over the clusters (whatever ye call them) that didnt detonate.

Manic Moran

clown bag wrote:

Greetings manic,
Just have a legal/military question that I feel you would probably be best suited to answer giving your strong knowledge of military law.

If it does becomes clear that illegal weapons are been used and war crimes have been committed where would that leave the U.S. legally considering the U.S. is the main supplier of Israeli weapons. Im not saying the U.S. is purposely giving Israel illegal weapons and telling them to us them but if it was proven that Israel was acting illegally and that the U.S. was aware of this and continued to supply either the weapons directly or the means for Israel to modify U.S. weaponry or delivery systems would the U.S. then share the blame for the war crimes.

That's far above my level. I concern myself more with the direct application of military law as it would apply to someone in my position: i.e. actually doing the shooting.

I don't believe there is a definitive answer for the question you pose. A civil comparison within the US is the various lawsuits against firearms manufacturers for the shooting deaths in US cities: Though the firearms manufacturers and shops did not pull the triggers, the various cities had brought them to civil suit as being held liable for irresponsibly providing those weapons.

All the cases that reached a verdict failed: The manufacturers were not held liable. Then any outstanding cases were shut down by new legislation.

I am not aware of any direct international analogies between sovereign governments.
There are some similar ones that countries object to: For example, North Korea exporting ballistic missile technology to other countries, but the difference there is that that sort of thing affects the balance of power and provides new technology. This can happen at the tactical level as well, for example, the refusal of the US to export AIM-120 air-to-air missiles to a number of Pacific countries (notably Malaysia) because that would change the balance of the region's capabilities. In the Israel/US weapons case, any new munitions provided to Israel would not susbstantially affect the overall military balance. Another related case might be the outcry of Indonesia's using British Hawks against civilians, but the UK was not held liable for it. Admittedly, the British government did ask for an assurance that further sales of Hawks (and scorpions) not be used against civilians, assurances which were received and then broken. There is dispute as to if the assurances were ever meant in good faith.

NTM

Bookee

Wow, you know your stuff...!
I believe (could be wrong - happens alot) that former Yugoslavia used Phospherous in '92. Evidence of this was gathered by experts, handed over to the Red Cross,then onto the UN.They used this evidence against Milosvic in the Hague, which was only one of the charges against him....! So, there COULD be a case.... ?!

Manic Moran

Bookee wrote:

So, there COULD be a case.... ?!

Absolutely. It is all determined by manner of use. I strongly doubt any investigations have been carried out to determine this yet, the Lebanese government is a bit occupied right now, the Israelis aren't talking, and the UN are understandably taking cover.

Of course, anything could be determined by mere manner of use, even a simple 7.62mm machinegun round.

NTM

Victor

Squaddy wrote:

I heard last night that they where using cluster bombs in civilain areas. Some civilians got killed by just walking over the clusters (whatever ye call them) that didnt detonate.

A "bomblet".

The general opinion is that European and Israeli cluster munitions are more humane than exisiting American designs insofar as the have much lower rate of false dud*. In Iraq in 2003 some cluster munitions had a 10-40% failure rate and became both a military and humanitarian problem.

This is achieved by fitting an additional fuse(s), so if the main fuse doesn't work the seconary fuse (e.g. short timer) disposes of the bomblet shortly afterwards.

* That is the bomblet falls and fails to detonate, only to explode when disturbed, often by children (more likely to stray into areas adults don't)

Dirk Gently

Manic Moran wrote:

A civil comparison within the US is the various lawsuits against firearms manufacturers for the shooting deaths in US cities: Though the firearms manufacturers and shops did not pull the triggers, the various cities had brought them to civil suit as being held liable for irresponsibly providing those weapons.

I think a better comparison would be of a person walking into a gun store and telling the seller that he wanted a gun in order to commit a crime and after being made aware of the reason for the person wanting the gun went ahead and sold it to him anyway. That is a bit different from selling the weapon in good faith. If in reasonable doubt of the character and intentions of the person seeking the gun would the Gun store still sell the weapon? As I understand it, a background check is carried out on any potential gun customer in the U.S., but a background check carried out on the state of Israel would reveal that there is a strong chance of the weapons being used illegally, thus giving reasonable doubt of the legality of selling them weapons and putting some responsibility on the seller for the resulting death caused by the use of the weapons.

Manic Moran wrote:

There are some similar ones that countries object to: For example, North Korea exporting ballistic missile technology to other countries, but the difference there is that that sort of thing affects the balance of power and provides new technology. This can happen at the tactical level as well, for example, the refusal of the US to export AIM-120 air-to-air missiles to a number of Pacific countries (notably Malaysia) because that would change the balance of the region's capabilities. In the Israel/US weapons case, any new munitions provided to Israel would not susbstantially affect the overall military balance. Another related case might be the outcry of Indonesia's using British Hawks against civilians, but the UK was not held liable for it. Admittedly, the British government did ask for an assurance that further sales of Hawks (and scorpions) not be used against civilians, assurances which were received and then broken. There is dispute as to if the assurances were ever meant in good faith.

It could be argued that the current balance of power is a direct result of U.S. support both militarily and politically to Israel.

The U.S. sees fit to sanction and cut off funds to anyone seen to aid or support its potential enemies, a lot of the time on flimsy evidence or even just opinion, yet it seems to apply the opposite extreme when dealing with a crime committed by a friendly ally.

It’s clear that it is not a position of principle but rather a strategy which is designed to be easily manipulated to apply in certain circumstances and not applied in other circumstances. Israel can protest that they are not committing war crimes because they are not technically at war with the people of Lebanon but it is clear that a technicality is been used by the U.S. to aid and support illegal war activities or at least strongly suspected war crimes while at the same time it comes down hard on anyone seen to aid or support regimes or groups they oppose.

There is no consistency in U.S. actions and as such it can’t be expected that other nations won’t apply double standards or unbalance regions for their own interests.

Bookee

"Tous Chez" also (VICTOR)
Think i'll retire now.
Is that REALLY 25,531 posts ? Watch out.....!!!

Sgt. Sensible

Victor wrote:

A "bomblet".

The general opinion is that European and Israeli cluster munitions are more humane than exisiting American designs insofar as the have much lower rate of false dud*. In Iraq in 2003 some cluster munitions had a 10-40% failure rate and became both a military and humanitarian problem.

This is achieved by fitting an additional fuse(s), so if the main fuse doesn't work the seconary fuse (e.g. short timer) disposes of the bomblet shortly afterwards.

* That is the bomblet falls and fails to detonate, only to explode when disturbed, often by children (more likely to stray into areas adults don't)

Nice try but HRW has photographs showing that Israel has opted to use US made cluster munitions.

The M483A1 artillery shells deliver 88 cluster submunitions per shell, and have an unacceptably high failure rate (dud rate) of 14 percent, leaving behind a serious unexploded ordnance problem that will further endanger civilians. The commander said that the IDF's operations manual warns soldiers that the use of such cluster munitions creates dangerous minefields due to the high dud rate.

Bookee

Sorry, I'm a Girl; a Blonde one.... !
You're saying that they're purposely using the American/more lethal cluster bombs...? Wow, every day I'm more shocked and outraged

Victor

clown bag wrote:

If in reasonable doubt of the character and intentions of the person seeking the gun would the Gun store still sell the weapon? As I understand it, a background check is carried out on any potential gun customer in the U.S.

You'd be surprised how easily this is bypassed by the likes of sales at gun shows and the like. Without wanting to go too off-topic, the real problem in the USA is the proliferation of unsecured guns falling into the wrong hands.

clown bag wrote:

Israel can protest that they are not committing war crimes because they are not technically at war

Bombardment, invasion and blockade are all acts of war. They are at war, even if it is, as Time Magazine put it "The Accidental War"

And in any case, war need not be declared for a war crime to occur, the existance of hostilities is sufficient.

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Nice try

It's OK, I'm not trying anything.

Bookee wrote:

Is that REALLY 25,531 posts ? Watch out.....!!!

:shrug:

Sgt. Sensible

Victor wrote:

.It's OK, I'm not trying anything.

Sorry, I thought you were someone else and forgot about it.

Victor

No problem.

Article http://home.eircom.net/content/reuters/uNews/8539972?view=Standard