During the massacre, did anyone else see the commercials on TV where Israel was asking for money?

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?

Nobody will bring the Israelis into any court, they just won't acknowledge it, and their allies will do everything to prevent it.
And why then should others be tried?

I do NOT agree. Israel's actions in self defense were not indiscriminate and do not rise to the level of war crimes.

Hamas actions under any reasonable interpretation, bus bombings, indiscriminate rocket firings aimed at killing civilians and only civilians, using hospitals, schools, homes, apartment buildings, mosques for cover and weapons storage. Firing rockets aimed at civilians with white phosphorous payload as a weapon against civilians.

These, my friend are crimes against humanity. But the only ones perpetrating them were Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Fatah and the regimes supporting them - Iran and Syria. The same regimes I might add who so vociferously and hypocritically rail against Israel in the UN.



You cannot make a correspondence between murderers on the one hand (Hamas) and those who stop them (Israel).

Not a Terrorist Nation,,, a Puppet Nation.

Selfdefence?

It's like a big guy with a granade thrower defends himself against a boy with a pea pistol

It is like a neightbor with a machine gun is shooting indiscriminately into your house at your family and the SWAT team finally shows up to shut them down. Really.

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.

The defending party did not use unsuitable weapons and force. The Israelis fought until Hamas was willing to stop firing rockets and it was Hamas who could have ended it at any time by cessation of rocket fire.

Likewise, Hamas was responsible for using the Gazans as human shields. The Israelis did not choose this war, avoided it for months and months, did not choose to operate in populated urban areas and tried to avoid civilian casualties.

If you wish to "get even" then have at the Hamas leadership and the other terrorist organizations. Your quarrel is not with Israel.

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'.

From the Associate Press...



Red Cross: Israel's use of white phosphorus not illegal

The International Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest it is being used improperly or illegally.

The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using the incendiary agent, which ignites when it strikes targets and can cause serious injuries. (AP)

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.

read it again slowly...


The International Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest it is being used improperly or illegally.

The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using the incendiary agent, which ignites when it strikes targets and can cause serious injuries. (AP)

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.

Again,
The US Government does not have a constant blockade on Indian reservations.

The US Government does not bulldoze Indian homes to make way for Exclusive American home development.

The US Government does not refuse the Indian Nations from policing themselves. If the FBI does have to go into a reservation for criminal reasons they go about it by cooperating with the Indian Police force and with appropriate use of force. The US Government does not bomb and shell the Reservation because of the actions of a few.

Thank you.

You make my point. The Israelis never used WP as an incendiary weapon.

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.

Done. AP source found quote attributed to ICRC's
Peter Herby.

ICRC: Israel's use of white phosphorus not illegal

By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER – Jan 13, 2009

GENEVA (AP) — The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest it is being used improperly or illegally.

The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using the incendiary agent, which ignites when it strikes the skin and burns straight through or until it is cut off from oxygen. It can cause horrific injuries.

The International Committee of the Red Cross urged Israel to exercise "extreme caution" in using the incendiary agent, which is used to illuminate targets at night or create a smoke screen for day attacks, said Peter Herby, the head of the organization's mines-arms unit.

"In some of the strikes in Gaza it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used," Herby told The Associated Press. "But it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."

In response, the Israeli military said Tuesday that it "wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics."

Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk.

so seeing as how it was`150 years ago it is ok now

and the us govt is still stealing land from them in south dakota

keep up your double standard

actions of a few killed a lot of indians and hamas is not the actions of a few they are the elected power structure

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