Arrest warrant issues for Israeli dignitaries

The Saint

Manic Moran wrote: »

TNT is a chemical compound, and it's used as a weapon. So is Octol. So is anything else found on the average battlefield for the last few hundred years. The difference is that due to their effects on the human body relying on chemical effect, some have been declared to be chemical weapons. WP relies on the more traditional blunt concept of physically destroying the body instead of interfering with the body's functions.

You're right, having it burn into you probably isn't very pleasant. Neither is having your arm ripped off by a .50 cal heavy machinegun. Slinging weapons around results in many painful ways to get killed or injured.



The expert speaks? Airburst is the fastest way to create a smokescreen. This is why the latest vehicle and hand-held smoke grenades are on a sub-second fuse, so that they burst in mid-air, instead of fizzing around on the ground billowing from the bottom up. Artillery smoke is thicker, lasts longer, and obscures a whole hell of a lot more than smoke grenades. If you're in contact and need smoke, there's a three-stage process. First thing, is throw your own obscurants. That'll get you a minute or two. Then the artillery delivered WP arrives, which replaces the thinning handhelds. The next salvo of rounds to arrive is going to be a mix of WP and High Concentration 'seeding' rounds. And then finally, you'll just have HC Smoke for the rest of the fire mission if you need it to last that long.



It's being used as a smokescreen and not as a weapon.

How do I know? I don't. But I don't know it is not either, since there's no indication of the unit calling in the artillery, or what their thought process was. The only thing that video shows are the rounds landing. There is as much evidence to support the one contention as there is the other. Though if I were using WP as a weapon in a built-up area, I'd set it for ground burst, to make sure that the splash went up in through the windows and set the place alight instead of just falling on concrete and roofs with only occasional incendiary effects.

I will also observe some of the comments in the video. The evidence that the WP emissions are toxic are a local saying "It smells poisonous, so must be dangerous". In reality, there is no known incident of anyone being injured or killed by inhaling WP fumes, it's categorised as a mild irritant in the manuals somewhere below exhaust fumes from vehicles. You will also note that the objection from the Human Rights interviewee is that 'It's being used as a weapon against civilians'. If so, then that's not a factor of the weapon. It's considered unlawful to use any weapons against civilians, be it traditional bombs or rifles. And, we go back to the question of what the intent of the strikes were, with no indications one way or the other being provided in that video.

Incidently, there's no flat prohibition on the use of WP as a weapon either. It's quite effective in certain circumstances. 'Shake'N'Bake' being one of the more traditional methods of use.

NTM

The Goldstone report stated that WP was used illegally at times during the conflict. I'll go with their interpretation thanks.

Manic Moran

The Saint wrote: »

The Goldstone report stated that WP was used illegally at times during the conflict. I'll go with their interpretation thanks.

If you read it in detail, however, you will note that at no point did the Goldstone Report say that the use of WP was unlawful in itself, or even that civilians were targetted. Instead, it specifically states in a number of places that WP is not unlawful for use, and that the use of munitions was "reckless" and insufficiently determined whether or not the level of effect on civilians was merited by the military goals. This latter charge could apply regardless of the type of munition used.

From the Goldstone Report's own website on the testimony on WP:
http://www.goldstonereport.org/case-study/phosphorus/235-prof-michael-newton-on-white-phosphorous

Professor Newton said it is not true that the use of white phosphorus violates theChemical Weapons Convention. Some people would say it falls under the Convention’s ban on the use of air-dropped incendiary weapons in urban areas, but he does not see this as the case. He said that even in urban areas, there are pockets where white phosphorus and other controversial weapons use is acceptable following a detailed analysis of the feasibility of avoiding civilian damage. He said there also needs to be a detailed target analysis before the use of aerial weapons, involving a feedback flow of information to the commander.

Desmond Travers of the fact-finding mission commented that many weapons considered acceptable during World War II and the Cold War have been called into question today because of more sensitive laws about causing injury to targets. He said that in his opinion, some of these weapons should be removed from militaries’ arsenals. Regarding white phosphorus, he said he agrees it’s not a chemical weapon, but asked if its legality should be reviewed, noting that the Irish army stopped using it 39 years ago because of its danger to people and the environment.

None of which contradicts anything that I have said above. It's unpleasant, politically incorrect these days, but quite legal to use, even in cities.

NTM

Overheal

wes wrote: »

I am sorry, but why should I believe a IDF video? They can easily only show us what they want and make it seem like its something that its not. The simple fact is that the IDF will happily lie if and when it suits then, again the example of Mark Regev on Channel 4 news blatantly denying the use of White phophorous comes to mind. To put it simple, I don't trust the IDF, in much the same way I am sure if I presented anything from Hamas other here wouldn't (rightly) trust them either. Basically, what we have here is one sides propoganda directly presented by them, and we are suppose to take it at face value?

The problem being each side is gratuitously breaking "The Rules". This is a street fight and each side is playing filthy. That includes Propoganda and counter-propaganda.

You can believe whatever you want. If the IDF really was firing indiscriminantly and deliberately on civilians - well lets just say I havent heard the word Genocide tossed around yet.

Speaking of 'Chemical Weapons' whats the current status of Napalm anyway?

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

You can believe whatever you want. If the IDF really was firing indiscriminantly and deliberately on civilians

The same IDF who had members of it's force distribute these t-shirts?

Overheal

How do I know the IDF distributed that shirt :rolleyes: I think Hamas is lying.

See? We could do this all day.

wes

Overheal wrote: »

The problem being each side is gratuitously breaking "The Rules". This is a street fight and each side is playing filthy. That includes Propoganda and counter-propaganda.

Yeah, I have no doubt both sides have plenty of propoganda. The difference is that so far in this thread, is that no one has posted Hamas as a source, which would be dismissed as propoganda just like a IDF source would be.

Overheal wrote: »

You can believe whatever you want. If the IDF really was firing indiscriminantly and deliberately on civilians - well lets just say I havent heard the word Genocide tossed around yet.

Firing around indiscriminately and purposefully on Civlians and the planned extermination of a group of people are 2 very different things.

No one on the thread has claimed Israel is engaging in genoicde during there assault on Gaza, and to be frank you bringing up Genocide is nonsencial hyperbole.

Overheal wrote: »

Speaking of 'Chemical Weapons' whats the current status of Napalm anyway?

Damned if I know, but I doesn't really matter unless it was used during the Gaza conflict.

wes

Overheal wrote: »

How do I know the IDF distributed that shirt :rolleyes: I think Hamas is lying.

You would have a point if the information came directly from Hamas, but it didn't.

The video linked earlier was posted by the IDF on Youtube, and as such your comparison is inaccurate.

Overheal wrote: »

See? We could do this all day.

Well, yes you can misrepresent peoples sources as being from Hamas all day, but it won't make it true.

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

How do I know the IDF distributed that shirt :rolleyes:

I know it because the IDF recognised it and condemned it.

The Israel Defense Forces on Monday condemned T-shirts worn by soldiers that depict scenes of violence against Palestinians as the army faces increasing domestic criticism over its conduct during the recent offensive in the Gaza Strip.

Overheal wrote: »

I think Hamas is lying.

Hamas didn't report it. Israeli media did.

Overheal wrote: »

See? We could do this all day.

What, you post nonsense and me consistently correct you? I've better things to do with my time to be honest.

As for indiscriminate firing - Here's a report, directly from an IDF commander, published by Israeli news.

"And then I try to explain to the guy that not everyone who is in there is a terrorist, and that after he kills, say, three children and four mothers, we'll go upstairs and kill another 20 or so people. And in the end it turns out that [there are] eight floors times five apartments on a floor - something like a minimum of 40 or 50 families that you murder. I tried to explain why we had to let them leave, and only then go into the houses. It didn't really help. This is really frustrating, to see that they understand that inside Gaza you are allowed to do anything you want, to break down doors of houses for no reason other than it's cool.

"You do not get the impression from the officers that there is any logic to it, but they won't say anything. To write 'death to the Arabs' on the walls, to take family pictures and spit on them, just because you can. I think this is the main thing in understanding how much the IDF has fallen in the realm of ethics, really. It's what I'll remember the most."

Still refuse to accept the IDF's role in indiscriminate murder?

Manic Moran

Speaking of 'Chemical Weapons' whats the current status of Napalm anyway?

Legal, if inefficient. It's been rendered obsolescent by improvements in munitions technology. These days, it's FAE if you want to kill people in cover, or other concoctions such as benzine/phosphorous if you want to set things on fire.

NTM

The Saint

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you read it in detail, however, you will note that at no point did the Goldstone Report say that the use of WP was unlawful in itself, or even that civilians were targetted. Instead, it specifically states in a number of places that WP is not unlawful for use, and that the use of munitions was "reckless" and insufficiently determined whether or not the level of effect on civilians was merited by the military goals. This latter charge could apply regardless of the type of munition used.
NTM

I never said that it was illegal in and of itself. I stated that in some circumstances that it was used illegally in Gaza.

From Goldstone:

39. The Mission also finds that, on the same day, the Israeli forces directly and intentionally attacked the Al Quds Hospital in Gaza City and the adjacent ambulance depot with white phosphorous shells. The attack caused fires which took a whole day to extinguish and caused panic among the sick and wounded who had to be evacuated. The Mission finds that no warning
was given at any point of an imminent strike. On the basis of its investigation, the Mission rejects the allegation that fire was directed at Israeli forces from within the hospital.

40. The Mission also examined the intense artillery attacks, again including white phosphorous munitions, on Al Wafa hospital in eastern Gaza City, a facility for patients receiving long-term care and suffering from particularly serious injuries. On the basis of the information gathered, the Mission found a violation of the prohibition of attacks on civilian hospitals in the cases of both hospitals. The Mission also highlights that the warnings given by leaflets and pre-recorded phone messages in the case of Al Wafa hospital demonstrate the complete ineffectiveness of certain kinds of routine and generic warnings.

48. Based on its investigation of incidents involving the use of certain weapons such as white phosphorous and flechette missiles, the Mission, while accepting that white phosphorous is not at this stage proscribed under international law, finds that the Israeli armed forces were
systematically reckless in determining its use in built-up areas.

591. Even if the Israeli Government’s position regarding the position of Palestinian armed groups is taken at face value, the Mission concludes that, given the evident threat of substantial damage to several hundred civilian lives and to civilian property in using white phosphorous in that particular line of fire, the advantage gained from using white phosphorous to screen Israeli armed forces’ tanks from anti-tank fire from armed opposition groups could not be deemed proportionate.

627. Taking into account the weapons used, and in particular the use of white phosphorous in and around a hospital that the Israeli armed forces knew was not only dealing with scores of injured and wounded but also giving shelter to several hundred civilians, the Mission finds,
based on all the information available to it, that in directly striking the hospital and the ambulance depot the Israeli armed forces in these circumstances violated article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and violated customary international law in relation to proportionality.

646. The Mission finds that the choice of deploying white phosphorous shells in and around such a building, where patients receiving long-term care and suffering from particularly serious injuries were especially vulnerable, was not acceptable in the circumstances. The Mission is particularly concerned about the attack on the hospital on 16 January from such close proximity. Even if there was some degree of armed resistance in the area (which the Mission cannot confirm), commanders in deploying such weaponry must take into account all the facts and
circumstances.

647. The Mission considers the use of white phosphorous in such an area as reckless and not justifiable in relation to any military advantage sought in the particular circumstances.

890. The Israeli Government has frequently pointed out the difficulties posed by fighting in built-up areas. One of the difficulties is the proximity of civilian premises to possible military targets. Commanders have no choice but to factor in the risk to such premises and the people inside them in deciding which weapons to use. The Mission finds that the Israeli armed forces were systematically reckless in determining to use white phosphorous in built-up areas and in particular in and around areas of particular importance to civilian health and safety.

1716. The Mission finds that in a number of cases Israel failed to take feasible precautions required by customary law reflected in Article 57(2)(a)(ii) of the First Additional Protocol to avoid or minimizing incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. The firing of white phosphorus shells over the UNRWA compound in Gaza City is one of such cases in which precautions were not taken in the choice of weapons and methods in the attack and these facts were compounded by reckless disregard for the consequences. The intentional strike at the Al Quds hospital using high explosive artillery shells and using white phosphorous in and around the hospital also violated Articles 18 and 19 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. With regard to the attack against Al Wafa hospital, the Mission found a violation of the same provisions, as well as a violation of the customary law prohibition against attacks which may be expected to cause excessive damage to civilians and civilian objects.

Also, here's a Human Rights Watch report on the use of White Phosphorous in Gaza.

Overheal

dlofnep wrote: »

I know it because the IDF recognised it and condemned it.

You never linked your source. But alright.

Still refuse to accept the IDF's role in indiscriminate murder?

No and you saw the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan (and gitmo), soldiers and even ranking officers taking law and ethics into their own hands and throwing it out the window. That doesnt mean the directives or t-shirts come from the top brass. Meanwhile youre free to provide counter-translations to Hamas leaders admitting to Human Shield practices. We had several translated version of Farfour the Mouse, for instance. I assume if the admittance is falsely translated, that a more accurate translation exists?

I have no doubts that imblanaced people with killer instincts and few morals are drawn to war though. There are doubtless a fair share of degenerates in any military force. Factored into hundreds of them (if not thousands) when engaged in political religious and ideological war.

Manic Moran

I never said that it was illegal in and of itself. I stated that in some circumstances that it was used illegally in Gaza.

None of which addresses my initial point. Sleipnir's emphasis is on the use of WP as somehow being particularly evil or unlawful due to its being WP, as if the choice of munition was somehow reprehensible or a factor, particularly by mislabelling it as a chemical weapon.

The objections listed in the Goldstone Report have nothing do to with the choice of munition used, but instead they are over the perceived lack of proportionality of benefit/danger to civilians. (Which is pretty easy to pontificate after the fact. For example "the advantage gained from using white phosphorous to screen Israeli armed forces’ tanks from anti-tank fire from armed opposition groups could not be deemed proportionate." is pretty easy to say when you're not in the tank taking anti-tank fire at the time). To that extend, the whole White Phosphorous thing is simply a red herring and irrelevant as the arbitrary rules of proportionality in urban areas generally apply these days to all weapons, not just WP.

NTM

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

None of which addresses my initial point. Sleipnir's emphasis is on the use of WP as somehow being particularly evil or unlawful due to its being WP, as if the choice of munition was somehow reprehensible or a factor, particularly by mislabelling it as a chemical weapon.

The objections listed in the Goldstone Report have nothing do to with the choice of munition used, but instead they are over the perceived lack of proportionality of benefit/danger to civilians. (Which is pretty easy to pontificate after the fact. For example "the advantage gained from using white phosphorous to screen Israeli armed forces’ tanks from anti-tank fire from armed opposition groups could not be deemed proportionate." is pretty easy to say when you're not in the tank taking anti-tank fire at the time). To that extend, the whole White Phosphorous thing is simply a red herring and irrelevant as the arbitrary rules of proportionality in urban areas generally apply these days to all weapons, not just WP.

NTM

Im going to go out on a limb here and guess you've launched your fair share of WP cans

The Saint

Manic Moran wrote: »

None of which addresses my initial point. Sleipnir's emphasis is on the use of WP as somehow being particularly evil or unlawful due to its being WP, as if the choice of munition was somehow reprehensible or a factor, particularly by mislabelling it as a chemical weapon.

Well you can address that to him as it is not what I said.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The objections listed in the Goldstone Report have nothing do to with the choice of munition used, but instead they are over the perceived lack of proportionality of benefit/danger to civilians. (Which is pretty easy to pontificate after the fact. For example "the advantage gained from using white phosphorous to screen Israeli armed forces’ tanks from anti-tank fire from armed opposition groups could not be deemed proportionate." is pretty easy to say when you're not in the tank taking anti-tank fire at the time). To that extend, the whole White Phosphorous thing is simply a red herring and irrelevant as the arbitrary rules of proportionality in urban areas generally apply these days to all weapons, not just WP.

NTM

Proportionality is enshrined in international customary law regardless of what you think of it. You're caveat that "it's easy to say when..." is a moot point. Soldiers have to abide by international law regarding the protection of civilians regardless of circumstances. Invading armies have very few rights and must take all recessary precautionary measures fro avoiding hitting civilian targets. Civilians do. You might have a different opinion on this as a soldier but the law is pretty clear.

The use of white phosphorous is not a red herring. They are by their nature, when used in a certain way, indiscriminate and unable to be targetted effectively. This becomes problematic when utilised in an urban area. This is what the report states. Most other weapons can be targeted to hit a certain point. The air dispersal of WP does not allow this so it is not akin to the use of conventional munitions in a built up area. It's more akin to using cluster bombs in a built up area.

Anyway, I'm going to remain with the international lawyers and human rights groups on this one.

Overheal

Whats the alternative to White Phosphorous? Is there another substance which could be implemented as an effective smokescreen.

BlaasForRafa

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's being used as a smokescreen and not as a weapon.

How do I know? I don't. But I don't know it is not either, since there's no indication of the unit calling in the artillery, or what their thought process was. The only thing that video shows are the rounds landing. There is as much evidence to support the one contention as there is the other. Though if I were using WP as a weapon in a built-up area, I'd set it for ground burst, to make sure that the splash went up in through the windows and set the place alight instead of just falling on concrete and roofs with only occasional incendiary effects.

I will also observe some of the comments in the video. The evidence that the WP emissions are toxic are a local saying "It smells poisonous, so must be dangerous". In reality, there is no known incident of anyone being injured or killed by inhaling WP fumes, it's categorised as a mild irritant in the manuals somewhere below exhaust fumes from vehicles. You will also note that the objection from the Human Rights interviewee is that 'It's being used as a weapon against civilians'. If so, then that's not a factor of the weapon. It's considered unlawful to use any weapons against civilians, be it traditional bombs or rifles. And, we go back to the question of what the intent of the strikes were, with no indications one way or the other being provided in that video.
NTM

Indeed, if the Israelis WANTED to kill and injure then traditional high explosives would be more effective and cheaper too.

The Saint

Overheal wrote: »

Whats the alternative to White Phosphorous? Is there another substance which could be implemented as an effective smokescreen.

I don't know. I'm not a military person. Perhaps MM can help you on that one. As was already stated, it is not in and of itself illegal. It is the manner in which it is used determines it's legality.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Indeed, if the Israelis WANTED to kill and injure then traditional high explosives would be more effective and cheaper too.

I don't think anyone is saying that it's intention was to kill civilians. However, the manner in which it was used in some instances violated international law.

Manic Moran

I don't know. I'm not a military person. Perhaps MM can help you on that one. As was already stated, it is not in and of itself illegal. It is the manner in which it is used determines it's legality.

It seems to me that if there was a better obcurant out there, we'd already be using it.

Vehicle and hand-held grenades are frequently Red Phosphorous, as it doesn't ignite stuff quite as easily, but you wouldn't want that landing on your head either as the difference is fairly academic where the human body is concerned. Artillery shells will likely remain WP for their secondary purpose as an incendiary.

The other factor to consider is that the thermal properties are almost as important these days as visual properties: HC Smoke rounds are not particularly effective at blocking thermal imagers which detect heat from the targets, but you can imagine that the burning particles of WP will provide a better obscurant effect.

Most other weapons can be targeted to hit a certain point. The air dispersal of WP does not allow this so it is not akin to the use of conventional munitions in a built up area. It's more akin to using cluster bombs in a built up area.

Anyway, I'm going to remain with the international lawyers and human rights groups on this one.

Be cautious of interpreting what you want to read from these reports with what they actually say. I have no gripe with the factual statements of the Goldstone report.

There is no distinction made in the international conventions between unitary and air-burst munitions. The rule is simply to try to keep civilian casualties to a proportionate level. Shelling a town with HE-Quick isn't necessarily any more or less legal than using DPICM cluster munitions. After all, what if you fired only one cluster rounds, but fifteen HE rounds? Which of the two is more indiscriminate? The only 'specific' prohibition in towns is on air-delivered incendiaries.

NTM

The Saint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Be cautious of interpreting what you want to read from these reports with what they actually say. I have no gripe with the factual statements of the Goldstone report.

There is no distinction made in the international conventions between unitary and air-burst munitions. The rule is simply to try to keep civilian casualties to a proportionate level. Shelling a town with HE-Quick isn't necessarily any more or less legal than using DPICM cluster munitions. After all, what if you fired only one cluster rounds, but fifteen HE rounds? Which of the two is more indiscriminate? The only 'specific' prohibition in towns is on air-delivered incendiaries.

NTM

What I want it to say it irrelevant. I think it's pretty clear from the Goldstone report and the HRW report I cited that WP was used in contravention of international law.

Once again, I am not stating that WP is illegal itself. What the reports are saying and what I am saying it that in certain instances the use of WP was illegal. Why these actions were deemed illegal is in the sections of the Goldstone report I quoted and primarily have to do with distinction and proportionality.

Manic Moran

Perhaps we're simply arguing past each other.

Do we, or do we not agree that the fact that the rounds in question in those specific examples were WP is irrelevant to the charges of recklessness and disproportionality as claimed in the Goldstone Report?

NTM

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Indeed, if the Israelis WANTED to kill and injure then traditional high explosives would be more effective and cheaper too.

So the Israeli's didn't kill enough civilians then? One of the most ridiculous defense of Israels actions, I have personally seen used. I fail to see how the Israeli's not killing more civilians is any kind of defense really. What number do you think is enough then? 5,000? 10,000? Is there a number short of the complete extremination of the Palestinian people where you will accept that Israel could care less about the lives of Palestinians? Well, apparently for some here, anything short of Genocide is apparently alright.

Maybe Hamas should use the same defense as well.

The Saint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Perhaps we're simply arguing past each other.

Do we, or do we not agree that the fact that the rounds in question in those specific examples were WP is irrelevant to the charges of recklessness and disproportionality as claimed in the Goldstone Report?

NTM

I agree that the fact that it was white phosphorous that was used in the report is not the main issue. It is the manner in which it was used that was reckless and disproportionate. There are other weapons specified in the report, such as Flechettes, whose use was deemed illegal though not being illegal themselves. It is perhaps the controversial nature of WP that has brought so much attention to it. The same happened during the US assaults on Fallujah in 2004.

Do you agree with the Goldstone report, HRW and Amnesty that WP was used, in some instances, illegally during the Gaza conflict?

Manic Moran

Ok, so we do generally agree that the system used was irrelevant. That addresses the Sleipner comment.

Do you agree with the Goldstone report, HRW and Amnesty that WP was used, in some instances, illegally during the Gaza conflict?

I don't agree that the charges are definitive. They are, however, feasible. To the extent that PR has any effect, Israel gets to suffer the consequences for not co-operating with the inquiry, but as long as it is remembered that statements of proportionality are simply matters of judgement (To borrow from another thread, how much force is 'excessive' when dealing with a burglar from the point of view of the homeowner and of the jury afterwards?) I have little problem with taking the Goldstone report at face value.

NTM

The Saint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Ok, so we do generally agree that the system used was irrelevant. That addresses the Sleipner comment.



I don't agree that the charges are definitive. They are, however, feasible. To the extent that PR has any effect, Israel gets to suffer the consequences for not co-operating with the inquiry, but as long as it is remembered that statements of proportionality are simply matters of judgement (To borrow from another thread, how much force is 'excessive' when dealing with a burglar from the point of view of the homeowner and of the jury afterwards?) I have little problem with taking the Goldstone report at face value.

NTM

I think we're in general agreement anyway.

dlofnep

This says it all really.