I have stated continuously that HAMAS IS GUILTY!!!!!

Blame Israel? Yes. I look at the history and see what has been done to create the State of Israel, in the name of the State of Israel and by the State of Israel. Perhaps had Israel agreed to:

# July 26, 1973—Affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections;

# June 29, 1976—Affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people;


# April 30, 1980—Endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people;


As well as the aforementioned 'ethnic cleansing in preparation for State of Israel.

Israel has created its problems with its own actions, lack of actions.

The picture of the Mufti with Hitler is very interesting. Is there one of the Jews who tried to make a deal with Germany as well?

I suggest you cease listening to hasbara (a Hebrew word for "explanation" and referring to information, spin, propaganda or a strategic public relations policy) and take a look at what is known.

I had the greatest respect for Israel, and the IDF, prior to this. They have lost a great deal of that respect.


This thread has become a forum for the defense of Israel instead of addressing the original question.

That doesn't explain away the killing of civilians. The more I read the more I am appalled by the behavior of Israel.

The thread was originally started to ask the question would either side be brought before a tribunal for war crimes. Hamas or Israel. That Hamas deserved it was not a doubt.

Now though, after all I have read about Israel and its manner of behaving with its neighbors, screaming about terror attacks suffered by it population from an enemy it created, the total disregard they have for the world at large, it manner of treating the Palestinian people (recreating a phase of history that was never to be forgotten, or repeated. Just the finale missing now). I have been convinced that Israel is probably hiding a lot more than they say. I think that Israeli government members and members of the IDF shouldn't plan any vacations outside Israel as they will run the risk of arrest for war crimes.

Suspects that scream too loud about innocence and circumstance are usually guilty of more than you think.

.....................................

pre-state Zionist leaders who knew they would have to forcibly expel the Palestinians to create a Jewish state in Palestine -- given that well over 90 percent of the land was Palestinian in the early 20th Century, and by 1948, the Jewish minority in Palestine owned just 5.8 percent of the land. He describes in detail the planning before 1948 -- including files on every Arab village and its inhabitants -- which would allow the Jewish militias in 1947-48 to start attacking, terrorizing and driving out Palestinians as soon as the British mandate ended.

Pappe goes through the details of Plan Dalet, [color]“the blueprint for ethnic cleansing”, and shows how the Israeli forces worked systematically in every part of the land to attack, frighten, and expel the Palestinians, in order to secure the land for Jewish colonies and settlers. The historical details he provides are chilling, and worthy of serious discussion to understand exactly what happened in 1947-48 (because the Jewish Zionist attacks against Arabs started well before the May 1948 end of the British mandate; the first Jewish militia attacks to terrorize the Palestinians into fleeing were in December 1947, against the Palestinian villages of Deir Ayyub and Beit Affa in the central plain).

The main mission to drive out as many Palestinians as possible was formally approved by Jewish Zionist leaders on March 10, 1948. When it ended six months later, he says, some 800,000 Palestinians had been uprooted, 531 villages destroyed, and eleven urban neighborhoods in cities emptied of their inhabitants. Pappe concludes that the plan and its systematic implementation “was a clear-cut case of an ethnic cleansing operation, regarded under international law today as a crime against humanity.”


March 10, 1948 !!!! The State of Israel came into being in May 14, 1948.

Vetoed U.N. Resolutions Prior to Hamas and Hezbollah


# Sept. 10, 1972—Condemned Israel’s attacks against Southern Lebanon and Syria; vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention
# July 26, 1973—Affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections; vote: 13 to 1, with China absent.
# Dec. 8, 1975—Condemned Israel’s air strikes and attacks in Southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians; vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention.
# Jan. 26, 1976—Called for self-determination of Palestinian people; vote: 9 to 1, with 3 abstentions.
# March 25, 1976—Deplored Israel’s altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city, by most world nations and the United Nation’s; vote: 14 to 1.
# June 29, 1976—Affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people; vote: 10 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
# April 30, 1980—Endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people; vote: 10 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
# Jan. 20, 1982—Demanded Israel’s withdrawal from the Golan Heights; vote: 9 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
# April 2, 1982—Condemned Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva Convention protocols of civilized nations; vote: 14 to 1.
# April 20, 1982—Condemned an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Muslim worshippers on the Temple Mount of the Haram al-Sharaf near the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem; vote: 14 to 1.
# June 8, 1982—Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon; vote: 14 to 1.
# June 26, 1982—Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Beirut, Lebanon; vote: 14 to 1.
# Aug. 6, 1982—Urged cut-off of economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.
# Aug. 2, 1983—Condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine territories of West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace; vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention.
# Sept. 6, 1984—Deplored Israel’s brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urged its withdrawal; vote: 14 to 1.


http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May-June_2005/0505014.html


Hezbollah started in 1985

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/678/7706


Hamas started in 1987

http://www.adl.org/main_israel/hamas_facts.htm


These weren't ignoring Hezbollah or Hamas as neither existed as yet. Yet both came about because of the manner Israel treats its neighbors. It seems that Israel creates her own enemies.
Perhaps if Israel had followed these (and the previous) there would a: be peace in the region; b: fewer enemies for Israel


From what I can see here Israel should have been brought before a war crimes tribunal long ago and probably would have were it not for the U.S.

All efforts to do anything by the UN were effectively vetoed on Security Council!

The UN sent a someone to assist in finding a solution and he was assassinated by Israelis!




Miri Eisin / Is only the Israeli narrative 'the truth' and all the others wrong?
By Miri Eisin

Israel has a national obsession with everything concerning hasbara (a Hebrew word for "explanation" and referring to information, spin, propaganda or a strategic public relations policy). Every time a warlike event takes place, the Israeli broadcasting networks turn to hasbara experts with the recurring question - what must we do to improve Israel's international image? They really mean "how can we prove to everyone that we're right, they're wrong and everybody hates us and they're anti-Semites?"


The writer was formerly the prime minister's foreign media adviser.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059104.html


They turn to experts to tell them what to do??? To spin things so that it seems everyone who has a different view is anti-Semite? Real free press there.





UK must act to stop violations in Gaza
The UK has a duty to stop violations of international law in the conflict between Israel and Hamas



As international lawyers, we remind the UK government that it has a duty under international law to exert its influence to stop violations of international humanitarian law in the current conflict between Israel and Hamas. A fundamental principle of international humanitarian law is that the parties to a conflict must distinguish between civilians and those who participate directly in hostilities. Attacks deliberately aimed at the civilian population and civilian objects, by any means, are prohibited, as are attacks that do not discriminate between civilians and combatants, or which are likely to cause harm to civilians that is excessive when compared to the military advantage sought by the attack.

Similarly, the use of civilians as "human shields" is also forbidden. Further, the parties to the conflict must take all feasible precautions to minimise harm to the civilian population, and to allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of medical and humanitarian relief to civilians in need.

Under international law, the UK government is obliged to use its best efforts within the law to stop the ongoing violations of these fundamental rules of international humanitarian law. In particular, we call upon it to condemn publicly attacks by the parties to the conflict that target civilians directly, or fail to discriminate between civilians and combatants, or which are expected to cause disproportionate injury to the civilian population. The UK government should also strongly encourage the parties to ensure that civilians in Gaza receive the essential medical and humanitarian relief to which they are entitled under international law.

Dr Louise Arimatsu LSE, Dr Lorand Bartels University of Cambridge, Arnulf Becker Lorca KCL, Dr Jason Beckett University of Leicester, Prof Christine Bell University of Ulster, Dr Chaloka Beyani LSE, Dr Silvia Borelli UCL, Prof Bill Bowring Birkbeck, Iain Byrne human rights lawyer, Prof Matthew Craven Soas, Prof Robert Cryer University of Birmingham, Tim Daniel solicitor, Dr Catriona Drew Soas, Prof John Dugard Pretoria, Prof Max du Plessis University of KwaZulu-Natal, Carla Ferstman Redress Trust, Prof Malgosia Fitzmaurice Queen Mary, London, Guy Goodwin-Gill University of Oxford, Gina Heathcote Soas, Prof Susan Marks KCL, Stephanie Khoury international lawyer, Dr Nico Krisch LSE, Prof Robert McCorquodale University of Nottingham, Lorna McGregor Redress Trust, Sorcha MacLeod Sheffield University, Scott Newton Soas, Prof Mary Ellen O'Connell Notre Dame University, Dr Lutz Oette Soas, Dr Roger O'Keefe University of Cambridge, Simon Olleson 13 Old Square Chambers, Dr Federico Ortino KCL, Emma Playfair Human rights lawyer, Dr Marco Roscini University of Westminster, Prof Peter Rowe Lancaster University, Prof Malcolm Shaw QC University of Leicester, Prof Gerry Simpson LSE, Dr Guglielmo Verdirame University of Cambridge, Prof Nigel White University of Sheffield, Dr Ralph Wilde UCL, Elizabeth Wilmshurst Chatham House


All these legal experts are anti-Semitic as well.


UK, Germany, France, Belgium, Venezuela, Bolivia, Red Cross, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch all Anti-Semite?? Get a breath of reality!!!

The idea that the whole world is aligned against Israel is a freaking myth kept alive by the leaders of Israel to keep the backing of the people. The Us VS Them Syndrome. Nothing works better than to have people think that everyone is against them and they can only rely on themselves. It is unfortunately that attitude however which has brought them to where they are.




Self-defence is no defence
As more testimony emerges from the ruins of Gaza, evidence is stacking up that Israel has a war crimes case to answer

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/21/gaza-humanrights



Israel wanted a humanitarian crisis
Targeting civilians was a deliberate part of this bid to humiliate Hamas and the Palestinians, and pulverise Gaza into chaos

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/20/gaza-israelandthepalestinians

Chief IDF rabbi taught Torah to jailed Jewish extremists


The chief rabbi of the Israel Defense Forces has in the past year been visiting prisoners associated with extreme right-wing groups, some of whom are serving jail sentences for planning or helping to carry out terrorist attacks against Arabs, Haaretz has learned.

Brig. Gen. Rabbi Avichai Ronski, who assumed his position in 2006, has met with the prisoners to teach them about Judaism. The IDF Spokesman's Office responded to a query about the visits by saying that the encounters were a private initiative of Ronski.

"The initiative did not involve a formal IDF visit and was not instigated by the IDF," the spokesperson said.

The Israel Prisons Service, when queried, responded: "We have received requests by the chief IDF rabbi to meet with prisoners, which we vetted and approved, in part."

The source added: "The chief rabbi conducted several visits in which he met with Jewish prisoners serving sentences for security-related offenses."

Ronski's request to visit a member of the so-called "Bat Ayin underground" - referring to an extremist group originating in a settlement in Gush Etzion in the West Bank - was denied because the prisoner in question was in solitary confinement.

The prisons service allows Jewish extremist inmates - who, in Ayalon Prison, are incarcerated in a separate wing and not with the general population - to meet regularly with rabbis.

The service helps to facilitate and supervise these visits.

Ronski began visiting prisoners in the Ayalon security wing for such prisoners even before his appointment to the post, and continued to visit them thereafter.

The Bat Ayin group was exposed in April 2002, when police arrested two of its members, Shlomo Dvir and Yarden Morag, as they were laying a large explosive device near a Palestinian school for girls in A-Tur in East Jerusalem.

Morag, Dvir and a third accomplice by the name of Ofer Gamliel - also from Bat Ayin - were convicted of attempting to perpetrate a terrorist attack. Morag and Gamliel were sentenced to 15 years in prison each; Dvir received 12 years.

Rabbinate foots the bill

Last week, Haaretz revealed that the Chief Military Rabbinate has recently expanded its educational activities in army combat units, and in doing so has entered areas previously served only by the Education Corps.

Apparently, many commanders accept offers of such programs since the rabbinate pays for them, while the units must foot the bill for events run by the Education Corps.

The Chief Military Rabbinate's behavior "harms the delicate fabric of relations between the nonreligious and religious in the IDF," a senior officer told Haaretz. "In a number of cases it is religious brainwashing and, indirectly, also political [brainwashing]."

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi ordered an investigation of the matter this week and requested that the "borders" between the rabbinate and Education Corps. be redrawn.

The Military Rabbinate has been conducting such programs for years, but has greatly stepped up its activities during the past year. Most of the controversial programs are organized by the Jewish Awareness Department of the rabbinate.

The programs - run in close coordination with the Elad right-wing, nonprofit organization, dedicated to expanding Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem - have expanded greatly under Ronski's command.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031585.html


Looks like the Palestinians aren't alone in committing acts of terrorism.

Also seems that there is a desire to further expand the borders of Israel.

Yet the Palestinians are the ones to blame for everything.



Further in another article.


IDF rabbinate publication during Gaza war: We will show no mercy on the cruel

An overview of some of the army rabbinate's publications made available during the fighting reflects the tone of nationalist propaganda that steps blatantly into politics, sounds racist and can be interpreted as a call to challenge international law when it comes to dealing with enemy civilians.

"In addition to the official publications, extreme right-wing groups managed to bring pamphlets with racist messages into IDF bases. One such flyer is attributed to "the pupils of Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg" - the former rabbi at Joseph's Tomb and author of the article "Baruch the Man," which praises Baruch Goldstein, who massacred unarmed Palestinians in Hebron. It calls on "soldiers of Israel to spare your lives and the lives of your friends and not to show concern for a population that surrounds us and harms us. We call on you ... to function according to the law 'kill the one who comes to kill you.' As for the population, it is not innocent ... We call on you to ignore any strange doctrines and orders that confuse the logical way of fighting the enemy."


There is more to article. These two paragraphs extracted.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058758.html



Not bad. The representatives of God to the Israelis telling them that it's alright to kill civilians despite International Laws and Conventions which state otherwise. In effect telling IDF troops that it's alright to commit war crimes and that nothing can happen to them.

The UN has tried since 1948 to resolve the Palestinian / Israeli disputes. All resolutions to that end blocked (vetoed) or simply ignored by Israel, UN delegate assassinated etc.


The State of Israel has been compared to NAZI Germany even by Israelis!

Professor Ilian Pappe has stated that Israel has acted regarding Palestine as Germany did with the Jews of Germany in the PRE-EXECUTION time of the Holocaust. With the removal of land, property, rights, etc.

That the Holocaust happened is a terrible thing. That it should ever be repeated one can only pray to their respective gods...NEVER AGAIN.

But that the people who suffered from it should behave as in the stages leading up to it is equally terrible.


"The historical details he provides are chilling, and worthy of serious discussion to understand exactly what happened in 1947-48 (because the Jewish Zionist attacks against Arabs started well before the May 1948 end of the British mandate; the first Jewish militia attacks to terrorize the Palestinians into fleeing were in December 1947, against the Palestinian villages of Deir Ayyub and Beit Affa in the central plain).

The main mission to drive out as many Palestinians as possible was formally approved by Jewish Zionist leaders on March 10, 1948. When it ended six months later, he says, some 800,000 Palestinians had been uprooted, 531 villages destroyed, and eleven urban neighborhoods in cities emptied of their inhabitants. Pappe concludes that the plan and its systematic implementation “was a clear-cut case of an ethnic cleansing operation, regarded under international law today as a crime against humanity.”


http://www.agenceglobal.com/article.asp?id=1329


Seems similar to the lists drawn up by the authorities in Germany and the beginning stages of the Holocaust.





Take note that in following video Prof. Pappe refers to Palestinians as 'Indiginous People' of Palestine.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4706543509678082810


http://www.labournet.net/world/0209/pappe1.html



However what does this have to do with either side being charged with war crimes?

There is a problem with both statements.


Statement 1:
A: The article says BOTH PARTIES WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO GET INTO COURT.

B: There is some question about Israel actually taking the care it says was taken regarding civilians.


Statement 2:

Hamas is an elected government that is not recognized but by its own population. To recognize the government of Palestine as Hamas would then make Israel guilty under International Law of committing an act of war..the blockade.
Which means that Hamas is then protecting / defending it's people from an aggression with its rocket attacks.

Not recognizing Hamas but recognizing Fatah gives some, slim perhaps, legitimacy to the blockade as keeping supplies from a 'rebel government'. Again though the problem becomes that Gaza, seen by many in world as 'occupied territory' because of the controls of Israel, is then being collectively punished for the actions of Hamas.

If indeed Israel is found a: to have carried out an act of war; b: shown disregard towards the civilian population; c: used collective punishment then it is guilty of war crimes.

Being that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in world if it is shown that Hamas, as the recognized governing body, 'INTENTIONALLY used civilians as shields, INTENTIONALLY fired from positions near civilian and aid areas then they are also guilty of war crimes. Already the fact of having fired rockets into civilian areas makes them guilty of committing war crimes.

But the question remains. Who, if anyone, will be charged? If Israel is found to have committed war crimes then who will actually have the political cajones to go after them? The very failure to recognize Hamas as the elected government creates the problem of going after them. The International Laws are made to after the governments and government representatives (military or civilian) of those charged. But the government of Hamas isn't recognized. Will they then go after Fatah? Doubtful. Since Hamas is viewed as a terrorist organization and not the government then they are already guilty of acts of terrorism and you can't get them for war crimes since terrorism isn't a war crime but falls under a whole new set of laws specifically made to fight terrorism.

Strange. Three days after the interview you quote.

17-01-2009 Interview
Phosphorous weapons – the ICRC's view
Peter Herby, head of the ICRC's Arms Unit, outlines the rules applicable to phosphorous weapons to explain the organization's approach to the issue.


Does the ICRC consider white phosphorous weapons as they have been used in Gaza to be legal under international humanitarian law?

If ICRC delegates in the field gather credible and precise evidence of violations, or if ICRC medical personnel corroborate reports by others, the ICRC would begin by discussing this with the party concerned – rather than speaking publicly – in keeping with our standard practices. We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorous weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports.


http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/weapons-interview-170109

Check that again. The Red Cross has made NO PUBLIC STATEMENT regarding the WP usage in Gaza.




The fact that international humanitarian law does not specifically prohibit phosphorous weapons does not imply that any specific use of weapons containing this substance is legal. The legality of each incident of use has to be considered in light of all of the fundamental rules I have mentioned. It may be legal or not, depending on a variety of factors.

Does the ICRC consider white phosphorous weapons as they have been used in Gaza to be legal under international humanitarian law?
If ICRC delegates in the field gather credible and precise evidence of violations, or if ICRC medical personnel corroborate reports by others, the ICRC would begin by discussing this with the party concerned – rather than speaking publicly – in keeping with our standard practices. We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorous weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports.


http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/weapons-interview-170109

17-01-2009 Interview
Phosphorous weapons – the ICRC’s view
phyPeter Herby, head of the ICRC’s Arms Unit, outlines the rules applicable to phosphorous weapons to explain the organization’s approach to the issue.

Peter Herby, head of the ICRC’s Arms Unit Has the use of white phosphorous weapons by Israel in the current conflict in Gaza been confirmed?
Yes. According to widespread media reports, images and analysis from credible experts, phosphorous weapons have been used in the conflict.

What are the rules of international humanitarian law applicable to the use of phosphorous weapons and intended to spare civilians?
Let me begin by saying that there are fundamental rules stipulating that civilians must be protected from the effects of all military operations and that attacking civilians with any weapon is categorically prohibited.

The use of weapons containing white phosphorous is, like the use of any other weapon, regulated by the basic rules of international humanitarian law. These require parties to a conflict to discriminate between military objectives on the one hand and civilians and civilian objects on the other. The law also requires that they take all feasible precautions to prevent harm to civilians and civilian objects that can result from military operations. Attacks which cause “disproportionate” damage to civilians and to civilian objects are prohibited.

Using white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon, i.e. to set fire to military targets, is subject to further restrictions. The use of such white phosphorous weapons against any military objective within concentrations of civilians is prohibited unless the military objective is clearly separated from the civilians. The use of air-dropped incendiary weapons against military objectives within a concentration of civilians is simply prohibited. These prohibitions are contained in Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

In addition, customary international humanitarian law, which is applicable to all parties to any conflict, requires that particular care must be taken when attacking a military target with incendiary weapons containing white phosphorous, in order to avoid harm to civilians and damage to civilian objects. If this substance is used against fighters, the party using it is obliged to assess whether a less harmful weapon can be used to put the fighters out of action.

If munitions containing white phosphorous are used to mark military targets or to spread smoke then their use is regulated by the basic rules of international humanitarian law.

The fact that international humanitarian law does not specifically prohibit phosphorous weapons does not imply that any specific use of weapons containing this substance is legal. The legality of each incident of use has to be considered in light of all of the fundamental rules I have mentioned. It may be legal or not, depending on a variety of factors.

Does the ICRC consider white phosphorous weapons as they have been used in Gaza to be legal under international humanitarian law?
If ICRC delegates in the field gather credible and precise evidence of violations, or if ICRC medical personnel corroborate reports by others, the ICRC would begin by discussing this with the party concerned – rather than speaking publicly – in keeping with our standard practices. We have not commented publicly on the legality of the current use of phosphorous weapons by Israel, contrary to what has been attributed to us in recent media reports.

Does the use of weapons containing white phosphorous, in particular incendiary weapons, in a populated area give rise to any specific humanitarian concerns?
Yes. White phosphorous weapons spread burning phosphorous, which burns at over 800 degrees centigrade (about 1,500 degrees fahrenheit), over a wide area, up to several hundred square metres. The burning will continue until the phosphorous has been completely depleted or until it no longer is exposed to oxygen. The weapon has a potential to cause particularly horrific and painful injuries or slow painful death. Medical personnel must be specially trained to treat such injuries and may themselves be exposed to phosphorous burns. If used against military targets in or near populated areas, weapons containing this substance must be used with extreme caution to prevent civilian casualties


http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/weapons-interview-170109



I would re-check that item about the Red Cross stating that it was legal. Seems that they have made NO SUCH PUBLIC COMMENT.

Airbursts don't provide for a good smoke screen on the ground. Airburst WP is not used as screen.

Spread of hundreds of meters isn't exactly discriminate either.

READ AGAIN from previous post!

It also bans the use of white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon against civilians and in air attacks against military forces in civilian areas. It causes severe burns on the skin and in the lungs when inhaled.

Airbursts around civilian concentrations!!!!!

"The potential for harm to civilians is magnified by Gaza's high population density, among the highest in the world."



Area:
total: 360 sq km
land: 360 sq km
water: 0 sq km
Area - comparative:
slightly more than twice the size of Washington, DC


http://geography.about.com/library/cia/blcgaza.htm



In 2007 approximately 1.4 million Palestinians live in the Gaza Strip, of whom almost 1.0 million are UN-registered refugees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip#Demographics



Hmmm. That works out to about 3888 people per sq. Km. I'd say that's densely populated. Definitely a concentration of civilians in any military planning for use of incendiaries or secondary incendiaries.

From The Times
January 15, 2009

The Geneva Treaty of 1980 stipulates that white phosphorus should not be used as a weapon of war in civilian areas but there is no blanket ban under international law on its use as a smokescreen or for illumination.

Human Rights organisations have criticised the use of it in Gaza, saying that it was impossible to avoid exposing civilians to the chemical because Gaza is densely populated. From The Times

“But it should not be used in civilian areas because there's a parallel duty to take all conceivable precautions to protect the lives of non-combatants,”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5519433.ece


Donatella Rovera, Amnesty’s researcher on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, agreed. “Such extensive use of this weapon in Gaza's densely populated residential neighbourhoods is inherently indiscriminate.

"Its repeated use in this manner, despite evidence of its indiscriminate effects and its toll on civilians, is a war crime," she said.

The use of phosphorous or any other 'incendiary weapon', used as a weapon, is banned by the United Nations' Geneva Convention on Conventional Weapons.

It also bans the use of white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon against civilians and in air attacks against military forces in civilian areas. It causes severe burns on the skin and in the lungs when inhaled.

Among the places allegedly worst affected by the use of white phosphorus was the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) compound in Gaza City, where Israeli forces fired three shells on 15 January, Amnesty said.


http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.2923293380



Among the places worst affected by the use of white phosphorus was the UNRWA compound in Gaza City, at which Israeli forces fired three white phosphorus shells on 15 January. The white phosphorus landed next to some fuel trucks and caused a large fire which destroyed tons of humanitarian aid.

Prior to this strike, the compound had already been hit an hour earlier and the Israeli authorities had been informed by UNRWA officials and had given assurance that no further strikes would be launched on the compound

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



The problem is not that the white phosphorous is illegal or legal. The problem lies in the manner it is used.

Israel has admitted to using incendiary munitions aimed at civilian concentrations.



They fired said munitions into areas with high concentrations of civilians.



Israel only showed a lack of concern over hitting civilians in the areas. Hence a UN school, UN aid center getting hit.



So Israel leveled neighborhoods even with civilians there.



Israel only prevented humanitarian aid from reaching those injured and spoiled food etc going in carried by UN.

Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.

Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

In a previous posting about the IDF Legal Section. It showed how the legal section was pushed until it agreed with the planning staff's view of things. Even their own Legal Section wasn't happy with decisions taken.

Again, Gods but I get tired of repeating this, the question is NOT SPECIFIC ABOUT ISRAEL!!!!!!! It asks about taking BOTH SIDES to task for crimes BOTH COMMITTED! There is no doubt that Hamas is equally guilty in their use of rockets against civilians, their use of civilian locales and their use of human shields. This is not about 'sticking it to Israel'.

You can when the 'defending party' uses weapons and force not suited for the area they are using it in. When civilian populations are targeted by the use of that force. When a school becomes a target. When aid is refused to the injured. When Munitions not meant for use around concentrations of civilians are used. This equates murder as sure as a bus bomber.

To use your SWAT analogy. When SWAT shows up and kills my family and neighbors through their actions because they wanted to play with toys they don't get to play with much. I will get even.

No you are not using a chemical weapon. You are however in breach of accepted Conventions.

Take note however that many nations U.S. and Israel included did not sign Protocol III.

........

According to the Chemical Weapons Convention Schedule of Chemicals, the chemical P4 is neither a toxic chemical nor a precursor to a toxic chemical. Protocol III of The Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW) prohibits and restricts the use of incendiary weapons in civilian populations. It 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"; this definition excludes "munitions which may have incidental effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signaling systems." Under that qualification, WP is not necessarily considered an "incendiary weapon" if it incidentally sets buildings on fire. The United States has ratified other protocols and amendments of the CCW, but it has not ratified Protocol III.


http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/bio/factsheets/whitephosphorusfactsheet.html






Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.

Article 1
Definitions

For the purpose of this Protocol:
1. "Incendiary weapon" means 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. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
....(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
........(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
........(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
2. "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
3. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
4. "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.
5. "Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.


Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.


http://www.ccwtreaty.com/KeyDocs/protocol3.html

Why is it that some read what they want in a post and not what is there?

The post does not single out possible Israeli war crimes. It talks about the near impossibility of getting either side to a court for war crimes.

It was not 'Muslims' who attacked Israel it was groups of terrorists who happen to be Muslim..... Hamas among them.

Hamas did not attack from Lebanon but from Gaza. Hezbollah attacked from Lebanon.

Hamas, among others, came into being as a result of the creation of the State of Israel and in particular the way that Israel came into being.

Again, take the pro-Israel / pro-Palestinian out of it. The why of the events has nothing to do with the question. Both sides committed war crimes. But will either to taken to task for it?

It is not the 'intelligence' gathered that has 'kept us safe at home', it is the fact that troops are over there keeping the terrorists running, hiding and fighting in their own back yard.





It's there and it has been shown here (in forums) in past as well. However those who have taped and shown Americans and other nationals being tortured / beheaded etc are not trying to get information. Their use of it is to instill fear, to show that they do not fear the Forces aligned against them.

..................

Torture has never been a reliable form of intelligence gathering. It has already been proven and acknowledged that the 'intelligence' gained from torture is unreliable. Enough truth to sound right and lots of 'gibberish' so that it sounds like you are trying to tell the interrogators what they "want and / or need to hear".

Each nation tries to show that it is better than it's enemy. Torture used by either side of a conflict does not advance that image.