Amnesty Int'l: Israeli army's use of white phosphorus in Gaza is 'clear and undeniable'

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"The Israeli army used white phosphorus, a weapon with a highly incendiary effect, in densely populated civilian residential areas of Gaza City, according to indisputable evidence found an Amnesty International fact-finding team which reached the area last Saturday.

When white phosphorus lands on skin it burns deeply through muscle and into the bone, continuing to burn until deprived of oxygen.

Amnesty International’s delegates found still-burning white phosphorus wedges all around residential buildings on Sunday. These wedges were further endangering the residents and their property; streets and alleys are full of children playing, drawn to the detritus of war and often unaware of the danger.

The carrier shells which delivered the wedges were also still lying in and around houses and buildings. Some of these heavy steel 155mm shells have caused extensive damage to residential properties.

"Yesterday, we saw streets and alleyways littered with evidence of the use of white phosphorus, including still burning wedges and the remnants of the shells and canisters fired by the Israeli army," said Christopher Cobb-Smith, a weapons expert who is in Gaza as part of the four-person Amnesty International team."

more

[cliffordu]

1. WAR CRIME.

[PDJane]

2. Crimes Against Humanity...........

and there are more.

[azurnoir]

3. Again its the legal fine print

I do not think Israel has denied using WP it's the manor in which it was used that will be the legal quibble for Israel who claims it was used for illumination ans as a smokescreen which is legal, not as a weapon which is illegal and that any civilian causalities that resulted were an "unfortunate accident" but not intentional.

[Idealism]

4. I don't know how their lawyers can wiggle away from the UN building

they lit on fire with WP. Maybe they have a better legal team that I thought lol

[azurnoir]

6. But but didn't Israel say oops our bad or something?

but who knows I wonder if Dershowitz is consulting for Israel, he's kind of good at that kind of stuff

[Idealism]

7. Yeah, OJ even escaped justice for a few years

Karma is a bitch, I hear...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Its mostly a matter of intent

Did you read the NYT article on some of the hits on UN structures. Better than most of their pablum

[Idealism]

9. I have been so disgusted with the NYTs over the years

I tend to only read their opinion page now, if I read them at all.

The articles I read showed white phosphorous causing a raging fire in a UN compound, it may have been a school or a shelter (I forget). I understand the Israeli government can claim it to be a mistake, and because it is the first documented case of WP being used on a building in an incendiary way, I could understand how there are grounds for a legal battle that will most likely end in no indication of intent to kill civilians etc.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Read that one anyway. Its one of the few good ones on the situation with the shelling

[PDJane]

14. yeah, but dropping it on the UN compound......

wasn't good for deniability.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. I believe they will get away with it

There will be arguments put forth that rationalize it under the current LOW and nothing will come of it.

[iconicgnom]

71. Of course they'll get away with it. The US will get away with the Iraq war.

They might get their fingers smacked for torture, but for nothing much more. In the real world, the realm of tolerance has expanded over the past 8 years. The notions "leader of the free world" and "world's last and only superpower" have been combined into a back assward conclusion that the US has a natural right to lead the world, regardless of consequence to various parties. This is all just a consequence of that.

[eyl]

32. Is there actually any evidence

bar the initial reports by three unnamed staffers at the time of the incidence that WP was even used there? I saw an interview with a senior UNRWA official (I forget what her exact position was) in Gaza who stated that the comounf was hit by an explosive and the fire was the result of the explosion setting alight machine oil in one of the workshops, which spread.

[iconicgnom]

36. I don't think wigglings about "fineprint" helps those burned by white phosphorous.

To my way of thinking the people of the world have to make a decision, whether we will tolerate the continuation of this tragedy, or not.

[cboy4]

5. Give it a rest .. they weren't using it against people.

:eyes:

[Arrowhead2k1]

10. Tell that to all the children that were maimed by it.

^^^"Human Rights Campaign" my ass!

[cboy4]

12. Riiiight, because human rights only applies to the

Palestinians and not the Israeli children.

Ha Arrowhead2k1? :eyes:

My fierce and renown concern about human rights would allow me to take you far more seriously if you didn't support such an awful group of people. (Hamas).

The good news is the IDF has reduced the numbers of that awful group of people.

[Arrowhead2k1]

13. Wow just wow. How the fuck does deploring the use of WP on people support Hamas?

And the IDF didn't effectively reduce shit concerning Hamas. Hamas has 20,000+ members, and my guess is that this war will cause it to grow! This is the thing. Hamas is still there and many of the people they 'reduced' were fucking women and children. Not to mention the innocent men caught in the middle as well.

It's just laughable that you have that human rights thing in your sig while at the same time offer 100% support to human rights violations paid for by your tax dollars. What a joke.

[cboy4]

15. And what's laughable is you seemingly can't get it through

your thick head that not all Gazans/Palestinians are part of Hamas.

I don't celebrate the death of innocent people who had nothing to do with Hamas.

At any rate, listen to you talk all excitedly about how your group, or the group you defend will be growing.

Disgusting.

Please denounce Hamas if you want nothing to do with them right now:

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


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

I'm already on record, and it's not difficult to find, that both sides need to change the status quo.

It continues to be ridiculously hilarious (in a sad way), how your side gives me a hard time about my human rights logo .. as if the Israelis don't deserve human rights.

[Arrowhead2k1]

20. I'm excited? No, only you have imagined that I'm somehow glad Hamas will grow.

I'll tell you, that is the furthest thing from the truth, so stop building your little strawman right now. I didn't mean to say you celebrated anyones death either, you just seem to turn a blind eye to them. And where did I say that all Gazans are Hamas as you say?! The fact of the matter is, I don't have anything to do with Hamas so I need not humor you by 'denouncing' them. I couldn't make a difference to them even if I tried but I also believe that it is the violence and oppression by Israeli policies which actually strengthens them. On the other hand, a significant portion of my tax dollars are funding the Israelis and their munitions which are used contrary to international law. That is the core of my frustrations. I want nothing to do with ISRAEL or HAMAS. Got it?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. You are accepting claims unproven

20K fighters in prepared defensive positions should have been able to stop the Israeli army in its tracks. Instead it went wherever it wanted to with most of its casualties caused by friendly fire.

Hamas lost most of its facilities, infrastructure, C&C, material, and weapons. Most of its ruling council are acknowledged as dead.

The war crimes issue is still on the table, though nothing will end up at the ICC for technical reasons (Israel is not a signatory). The human rights violations are still a grave concern on both sides.

[EFerrari]

18. Of course they were. You can't shoot into a crowd

and claim that the people you kill are just "collateral damage".

And that's exactly what they did.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Acutally you can under the current LOW though police can not.

Clearly after this and Lebanon, the LOW (Geneva Accords etc) need some updating for urban conflicts, irregular forces, and asymmetric warfare

[EFerrari]

21. Only if you use the law rather than your frontal lobes to guide your behavior.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. As I said in the post, the LOW need a serious revisit in a number of areas

[Crunchy Frog]

25. Yeah I know. Those Gazans are subhuman.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. The point is the intended use, not the status of Gazans

illumination and obscuration are allowed uses, anti personnel use is not

[ConsAreLiars]

27. Your reliance on the "good intentions" defense is as pathetic as it is callous.

The mass slaughter of civilians is a war crime, it is butchery on a massive scale, no matter how pure of heart the murderers might claim to have been, or whatever nonsense about how the bombs that destroyed thousand of homes in a densely populated area were only "intended" to harm resistance fighters.

Take a look at your values, if you possibly can. I'm pretty sure that you will discover that you regard Palestinian lives as worth less than nothing. If that math is too hard, in other words, you believe as many that every reduction in the Palestinian population within Greater Israel is a net gain. Be honest with yourself, and stop playing word games.

(edit tiny typo)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. The reference is to what the LOW currently allows, and intent is a key factor

I wasn't making the original point on it wither. You should also note that I stated that the LOW are in need of a serious update

Its clear who does not value the lives of the Palestinians. Its those who for years have used them as their disposable proxies and tools, the Arab and Muslim nation who send them arms versus food, medicine, or fuel.

[ConsAreLiars]

30. You are fooling no one with that sophistry.

Well, maybe yourself.

Intent is determined by the nature of the act, not by some unprovable imaginings. Insanity might be a defense, claiming that the murderer really thought the world would be a better place if he committed a massacre, but otherwise such speculation about motives is irrelevant. Mass murdering women and children and men then claiming good intentions is not a defense under any law. It is a war crime, and an act of unspeakable and indefensible brutality. It was no different than many similar cases in which a militarily superior power attempts to destroy an opposition by wiping out a town or hanging/shooting members of an ethnic group.

(edit to add first line)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. Try again

In post #5, (not mine) it was claimed that there was no evidence the WP was targeting personnel. A flame sub thread ensued. I pointed out that under current international law that governs the use of WP, intent mattered. In fact it matters more than the level of collateral damage. I have also pointed out that Lebanon and Gaza clearly show the need to change the rules of warfare in several areas.

You approach defined in the sentence of your post taken to its logical conclusion, would eliminate hate crimes.

[ConsAreLiars]

34. More word games, trying to justify the slaughter.

The "taken to its logical conclusion" BS is just utter nonsense. It is as persuasive as arguing that inhaling air is bad because "taken to its logical conclusion" it would over-inflate the lungs. And, not that you even care, since you endorse them, your assertion that hate crime charges, like all evidence establishing intent, are not based on evidence on the actions of the accused is just another standard right wing talking point, with no basis in fact. Evidence based on the actions of the accused determines intent.

[The Magistrate]

35. This Statement, Sir, Is Nonesense

That is not how law works in general, and it certainly is not how law works in regulating armed conflict.

In ordinary civil law, the fact that a person is dead on the ground from a gunshot does not even begin to establish that the crime of murder was committed. Anything from accidental discharge, to self defense, to involuntary or voluntary manslaughter, to murder, may have occurred, and a very large part of the investigation will be aimed at establishing the state of mind of the person whose hand was on the gun. Criminal intent, 'mens rea', is required for the commission of a crime under law.

In the law of war regulating engagement of military targets, or the use of particular munitions, where harm to non-combatants may occur, or has occurred, the same principle applies. Judges on tribunals are quite aware of this, whether you are or not, or whether you like this or not, and so are prosecutors and defense attorneys.

Two factors greatly complicate the sort of easy cries of 'war crime!' some are fond of.

Military officers act on intelligence and observation reports, and give orders in accordance with rules of engagement, and report what they do up the chain of command. There will be real evidence of the state of mind of the men who gave orders to fire, sufficient to establish what they believed as reasonable men about their actions, the reasons they took them, and what they anticipated would be their consequences.

Taking up combat positions in the vicinity of non-combatants is itself a crime of war, and while soldiers fired on by persons who have taken up such positions are required to make reasonable efforts to minimize harm to non-combatants in their response, they are not barred from responding, even if doing so harms non-combatants.

[ConsAreLiars]

38. More blather.

I did not say that proof in a war crimes tribunal was easy. I said that asserting that there was no intent to commit war crimes is not proof of anything. I said that the evidence of intent is in what actually took place. You, as always, present the arguments a defense lawyer would make for an accused client, and blame "the other" or "bad luck" for the deaths of many hundreds of non-fighters, not those who killed them.

Whether a war crimes prosecution will take place and be successful at some time in the future is unknown. That does not prevent me or any other honest person from regarding the slaughter of innocents in Gaza or Lebanon or Iraq or Afghanistan or Darfur as criminal acts, and condemning the leaders of the regimes that gave those orders as war criminals. I know you support the invaders in most of those wars. I do not. So you defend those I regard as murderers and argue that the killings of innocents are really justifiable homicides. Spouting legalese is just nonsense noise. Pointless blather. That can be done by lawyers on both sides of any issue.

It's a matter of moral honesty. You certainly would not make that kind of argument if the Gazans had been armed by some foreign power and been able to slaughter 1300 Israelis as a reaction to similar levels of harassment from Israel. I would denounce that butchery on the same grounds I denounce this one. Your position is simply another instance where group loyalties override any sense of morality or ethical consistency.

[The Magistrate]

40. Best Wishes, Sir, If You Ever Fetch Up in Court....

You can say something or other is wrong all you like; you are the only judge of what you think is wrong or right. But you have made it abundantly clear you have no conception of what constitutes, and proves, a crime under law. The difficulty comes when you attempt to claim your private, personal moral standard is identical with law, and that the fact that you disapprove of something means it is in fact a proven crime. That bit of semantic subterfuge is simply an elementary ploy to try and endow your view of things with greater authority than it otherwise might have to an audience you wish to share your outrage.

War is a fact of human existence, and the peoples of Arab Palestine and Israel are engaged in a war, and have been for many decades. There does not seem to be much inclination on either side, at least among the political leadership, for peace on any terms but victory of one side or the other. Therefore the thing seems likely to cripple on indefinitely, as it has already done for a great length of time. People are going to be killed, accordingly, and continue to be killed, because the political leadership on both sides considers their lives expendable in pursuit of the victory over the other each seeks. That neither side really has the capability to gain a victor's peace makes the situation an especially unfortunate one.

[ConsAreLiars]

41. More nonsense

Your maunderings about what proves or does not prove something to be "a crime under law" fiction is deluded. I've said nothing at all about how any court cases under any particular court or legal system would be decided. Murdering women for showing their face in public is legal in some jurisdictions. Murdering criminals is legal in some locations and not in others. All that appealing to and citing one phrase or another in some legal or religious document is used everywhere but zealots and advocates on both sides to "prove" the legitimacy of their claim.

You consistently justify the murder of civilians by Israel, and then pretend to be objective by saying "it's just war and it's unfortunate and it's legal so it's OK" or words to that effect.

You know you would never defend the massacre of 1300 (and counting) people if they were Israelis killed by Palestinians, no matter what kind of "justification" they had, even if the Israelis, say, had not only made loud noises but killed a half dozen or 500 and you know it. You would never, in this forum or in your personal life, go around saying "it's just war and it's unfortunate and it's legal so it's OK." Admit it, and begin being honest in these discussions. Your "legalistic" posturing is pure hypocrisy and it makes you look foolish when your partisanship is so obvious.

[The Magistrate]

42. Your Concession Of My Point is Appreciated, Sir

You have acknowledged the variance of moral standards, as embodied in different codes of law in different cultures. It is this awareness of the great variance in moral standards that leaves people always sensing the weakness of using their personal moral views as authoritative grounds when trying to sway an audience. That is why people reach for terms like crime to brandish instead, to try and seem like they are appealing to some neutral standard existing outside themselves, when what they are actually doing is giving their private senses of wrong and right a bit of air. There is only one body of law on the subject of the conduct of war, however, and one cannot make the claim that such and so is legal in one place and not in another, or vice versa, where that is concerned. It is possible some acts of the Israeli military recently in Gaza would be adjudged criminal by a competent tribunal after due trial; it is probable the great majority of what is cried up as Israeli 'war crimes' in Gaza would not, and a large proportion would not even be considered for presentation by a prosecutor, once he or she was aware of what the defense evidence would be. It is just as likely a good portion of Hamas fighters could face charges, with a decent probability of conviction, for crimes in the class of perfidy in war, and other categories you probably do not want to hear about either. But that is what happens when law is invoked: it applies to both sides, not just to one, and the measure of potential culpability is not simply a count of bodies, but the tale of actions by men under arms, and how these, and the state of mind in which they were carried out, matches up with the legal standard.

The question of whether a thing is legal or not is quite separate from questions of whether it is right or wrong, or good or bad, or even wise or foolish, by my personal lights. You may rake through this forum to your heart's content, and you will have a hard time finding any statement of mine indicating much in the way of approval of Israel's recent Gaza offensive. You will find statements to the effect that sooner or later, a democratic state under a degree of armed harassment can only be expected to to take military action aimed at ending that harassment, and you will find statements similar to those in this exchange, that particular actions were legitimate military acts. You will also find statements to the effect that actions of Hamas have been foolish provocations, which can only reasonably be expected to lead to great harm to the people of Arab Palestine, and statements to the effect that the actions of Israel in this matter are foolish and counter-productive as well, and cannot forward the long term interests of Israel. It does not trouble me to be disliked; practice enables me to bear up under such a burden pretty well.

[ConsAreLiars]

47. Your concession of my point is appreciated as well.

You agreed, as I argued, that "The question of whether a thing is legal or not is quite separate from questions of whether it is right or wrong, or good or bad, or even wise or foolish, by my personal lights."

Yet you posted that silly legalistic nonsense in defense of the Israeli government's murders of Palestinians, as if it made them justifiable, when you would never use that same text to defend a comparable mass killing by Palestinians. My point to you, and I thank you for acknowledging it, was your hypocrisy in your use of legalisms makes it clear that your advocacy is not based on morality or ethics or law, but simply which team you root for. Consider this statement "a democratic state under a degree of armed harassment can only be expected to to take military action aimed at ending that harassment...." You obviously mean Israel, yet Hamas was elected and Israel blockaded Gaza during the cease-fire and killed a half dozen - violations and crimes by even your standards, unless you have none. The double standard you use, if you think about it for a short while, is certainly obvious even to you, because you are not stupid.

You are a partisan. Admit it, and when you abandon that facade of neutrality you might be better able to look at things more objectively.

It's not a question of liking you or not. If I thought you were a hopelessly ignorant hate-mongering, kill-em-all, my tribe uber alles idiot, I would not bother replying. But maybe I am wrong. Tell me again why murdering 1300-1400 is morally OK because of 18 harmless rocket firings?

(edit to add a little)

[The Magistrate]

51. Are You Seriously Attempting To Maintain, Sir, Your View Is Not One Of Extreme Partisanship?

You will not be able to convince anyone reading this exchange that you do not 'root' strenuously for one side, and that your statements on this are not wholly conditioned by that adherence. The language you use makes this abundantly clear. Perhaps it is natural enough that, being so committed to one party as you are, you are unable to conceive of anyone actually holding a neutral view, or striving to employ a neutral standard of judgement.

You will never find any statement of mine that Hamas has no right to take military action action against Israel: you will find statements to the effect that such actions are not wise, and that a number of the actions Hamas does take are plainly criminal, because they are openly stated to be attempts to kill non-combatants, and do not even involve a pretense of attempting to engage legitimate military targets. Bear in mind that the deliberate targeting of non-combatants very clearly constitutes a crime under the laws of war, and there is no defense available against the charge except crying 'No i didn't!' and being able to make that stick to a tribunal. The fact that it is not done very efficiently does not remove the criminal culpability, nor does a plea that no better weaponry or target was available, or that the thing was done in a war of liberation, or what have you. On occasions when Hamas has engaged Israeli combatants, those actions are perfectly legal, and you will never see me call them crimes, and if in such an engagement, non-combatants were killed or injured incidentally to the engagement of a legitimate target, you would not see me denouncing that as a crime. What draws me to engagement on this ground is the mis-use of the claim of crime, in the interests of one side or other of a conflict. Most of the hue and cry of 'war crimes!' directed against Israel simply does not meet the actual tests of the law. False charges undercut the authority of the law, and bring the whole concept of laws of war into disrepute. They drive people to the conclusion that charges of war crimes are simply exercises in propaganda, and ought to be taken at a healthy discount from face value. This makes it very difficult to cultivate political support within a country for holding its own leadership and soldiery to the law, and makes states reluctant to accept real enforcement of international law against themselves.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iconicgnom]

56. You aren't neutral. Your pose doesn't become you.

[ConsAreLiars]

75. Just a brief reply to note that the deleted reply was not mine.

I think your partisanship is well documented by what you say and what you refuse to say. When all else fails, you hurl the usual "antisemitic" crap in cleverly veiled words, suggesting I take sides with the Palestinians and against the Israelis (subtext Jews). I do take sides, but not in the way you try to imply. I take sides against murderers and criminals who slaughter others in the attempt to bend them to their will and seize their assets. I also happen to believe that all religious zealots who claim some god or other gave them the right to do this are criminally insane, although those are only the most toxic segments of such sick and deformed societies.

My view that mass slaughters of innocents are wrong is not limited to this issue. I apply it consistently, unlike many. I use words that I find descriptive and accurate.

As for your "concern" that denouncing such butchery and calling those who order such acts criminals is inappropriate because you would not issue a judgment in favor of convictions, based on what you believe -- well, I would ask to have that trial moved to an impartial court.

[Behind the Aegis]

76. Yes, it was your reply.

Unless you are suggesting someone hijacked your account.

[ConsAreLiars]

77. Oh really ???????

Perhaps I had case of sleep-typing. Sort of hard to imagine all that activity, turning on the computer at 3AM local time, loading up DU and so on. Can you tell me any more? What did "I" say while sleep-typing? You've made me rather curious, although I have a simpler explanation of why you might say what you said.

[Behind the Aegis]

79. Yes, really.

[ConsAreLiars]

80. Ahh, thank you!

One too many beers and way too tired to remember that! I guess that extra beer got me up way too early this AM. I don't see the problem with the post, other than that TM might wanted not to hear it. But a sincere thank you for correcting me when I was wrong.

(edit typo)

[iconicgnom]

39. It was certainly anti-personnel use.

I recall rationalizations about WP use in the destruction of Fallujah. This was to teach those fuckers a lesson, and it did. It was used for cover and illumination, and by the way, there's no better "cover" than when WP is used to "smoke the fuckers out". hehehe.

[iconicgnom]

37. You don't think Palestinian residents of Gaza are "people"?

Just who the fuck are you, then?

[Marrah_G]

66. WOW............

Okay, this takes the cake, Cboy. I think I am going to avoid this dungeon from now on. Let me just say that your post made my opinion of you drop substantially and that saddens me deeply. Going to do my best to avoid this topic from now on before friendship get completely ruined (not just you). I am leaving shaking my head in real disbelief.

[cboy4]

69. Sorry Marrah but I'm not here to make friends. I'm here

to write about issues.

I understand you don't like what I have to say about this.

Your bombardment of personal comments about where I stand is an unfortunate reminder.

[Marrah_G]

70. Understood. My mistake.

I wish you well.

[iconicgnom]

72. I see. You aren't here to make friends. I think it's sad, but also,

I think Marrah will never be lacking for friends.

[cboy4]

78. My position is that if you're not comfortable with a wide

range of differing viewpoints about a hot button issue, maybe it's not in your best emotional interest to get involved.

I would rather hear someone chew me out with facts and reasons, rather than a constant barrage of "i'm so disappointed, I'm so shocked."

Yea, I don't care. You're an acquaintance on the internet.

[iconicgnom]

81. I'm not an acquaintance of yours. I don't want to be. n/t

[cboy4]

82. No, I was referring to the other poster. I have no idea

who you are.

[iconicgnom]

83. I'm someone who thinks that Marrah will never be someone lacking for friends.

Just my intuition working here, cboy4

[cboy4]

85. Whatever you say Dr. Phil

:eyes:

[democrank]

11. Abject cruelty

~PEACE~

[shira]

24. so far, the only proven illegal usage of WP was on an Hamas rocket

and who's to say they didn't just do it to their own Palestinian citizens, like Fatah rivals or the shields they hide away in boobytrapped buildings? EVeryone knows Hamas wants to maximize Palestinian civilian casualties for PR purposes (using public opinion as their main defense to slow down and stop Israel).

Let's see AI's evidence - and whether they call out Hamas on their illegal WP use. Israel will have some interesting video footage as well when they make their case.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. The evidence that supports that one rocket is weak

WP is a real pain to work with. Not sure it could have been put in a Qassam

[Tripmann]

31. Even the israeli government,...

...are not pushing that bullcrap WP hamas rocket story.

So please prove this proven use.

Like I mentioned in another thread, using WP in the most densely populated place on earth and claiming to be trying to avoid civilian casualties does not wash. If I empty a bag of pennies off the top of the empire state building and claim its a physics experiment, I do so with the knowledge that I'm likely to maim and kill people.

We're not talking about lighting up a battlefield here, we're talking about its use in a caged area full of refugees.

[The Magistrate]

43. Are You Seriously Suggesting, Ma'am, Hamas Dusted A Few Gazans With White Phosphorus For Pictures?

If you were, it would make it pretty hard to take seriously anything you say in future on this subject, in general as well as in particular....

[Behind the Aegis]

44. Why is the idea of "false flag" not a possibility?

Hamas has used human shields, it really isn't a huge jump to think they could do something such as shira stated.

[The Magistrate]

48. Hard To Keep A Thing Like That Quiet, Sir....

There are difficulties of method, of course, too. As Mr. H.C.P. points out nearby, the stuff is fiendishly difficult to handle: at every step in manufacturing it has to be in an oxygen-free environment. It is not the sort of thing you can whip together by improvised means. My respect for Israeli intelligence operatives is sufficient to leave me reasonably confident that if prepared white phosphorus munitions had been smuggled in to Gaza, Tel Aviv would know of it.

"False flag' stuff is a blind alley, best left to one side. Venture down it, and soon you have to deal with claims Israel fire rockets at itself to have pretext to invade Gaza, and worse nonsense.

That Israel has employed white phosphorus munitions in Gaza is evident from the public record of events. It is not a crime to use the stuff, providing it is not employed intentionally against people, whether combatant or otherwise.

[Behind the Aegis]

50. Oh, I certainly agree. I simply don't think it is outside the realm of possibility.

I generally like to hear all the facts, but know that is not always possible. Just as there was an Israeli attack which killed Palestinian children, blamed on Israel, but turned out to be some asshole building a bomb in his own house.

""False flag' stuff is a blind alley, best left to one side. Venture down it, and soon you have to deal with claims Israel fire rockets at itself to have pretext to invade Gaza, and worse nonsense."

Which has been suggested here by more than one poster.

I just found it an interesting suggestion, albeit without anything to substantiate it. Had the WP shell in Israel been shown to be real (I think it has been dismissed), then I might think there could be a chance something like this was more than possible.

[iconicgnom]

57. You have quite some unconstrained imagination, there.

[shira]

55. you're right, i have little to go by

I haven't read any follow-up to this yet so I don't know how strong the evidence is:

Hamas launches first phosphorus rocket at Negev
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055561.html

Right before the war started, Hamas tried firing a rocket into Israel and accidentally killed 2 Palestinian girls.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-12-26-israel-palestine_N.htm

That was an accident. But we all know Hamas has tried blaming "work accidents" before on Israel. Who's to say that out of the more than 800 rockets they fired into Israel during this war, some didn't fall within Gaza and kill Palestinians? Who knows, it's happened before. And with close quarter fighting against the IDF in Gaza, who's to say their "friendly fire" didn't kill some Palestinian in this conflict? They booby-trapped and mined half of Gaza. It's quite possible they're directly responsible for many Palestinian deaths. Maximizing civilian casualties only helps in their PR cause and hurts Israel.

Remember the doctor who was interviewed on TV while his house was hit and his daughters died? On Israel Channel 1 TV, medical imagery apparently found a ball-bearing in the skull of one of the girls. Ball bearings are used by Hamas to maximize lethal effects, not by Israel in their tank rounds or other munitions.

http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blogs/report-hamas-may-have-murdered

Will wait to see how that story comes out.

Hamas has been known to commit just about every possible war crime imaginable. I wouldn't put anything past them at this point.

[LeftishBrit]

64. Most things are possible, but many are not probable

This argument sounds a bit like the ones that 'Bush is so evil and dishonest, he could do anything including organize 9-11'.

I don't like terrorist RW governments, whether the Bushies or Hamas, but even with such a government, an enemy action is most usually just an enemy action, not a 'MIHOP' plot.

[Idealism]

73. Just FYI: Hamas isn't right-wing

In fact they're socialists, but continue your rant :)

If you want right-wing government, look no further than Likud under Bibi. Kadima under Livni will be a close second, as she has proven how hawkish she can be as well.

[LeftishBrit]

84. Hamas socialist?

Well, they do provide funding for social welfare and education - and that is one reason why people vote for them. But I would not normally describe a government that is warlike, uses the death penalty freely, and wishes to impose religious law (whatever the religion) on its people as left-wing.

I would certainly consider Bibi and the Likud as very right-wing. Never said otherwise.

[Idealism]

88. Compared to the region

They are the Marxists of the Middle-East. No Arab government provides for their people like Hamas does (outside of one or two of the oil states) with regards to welfare, education, and health care. They can't hold a rock to Social Democracies of Western Europe, but they are the crown jewel of socialism in the Middle-East.

[cali]

86. um, so what?

Say that they are socialist, they're profoundly fundamentalist. In fact, that's the root of what they are. Does being socialist somehow make that OK?

[Idealism]

87. Just correcting the poster, ma'am

[LeftishBrit]

45. Huh? Somehow that reminds me of all the false-flag conspiracy theories about terrorism....

Not saying that such things NEVER happen, but it seems highly improbable.

I agree that Hamas don't generally give a flying fuck about the safety of their own people; but I think this would be extreme even for them, and I haven't even heard it suggested by an Israeli source.

[Behind the Aegis]

49. "don't generally give a flying fuck about the safety of their own people"

I don't think they see Fatah and other Israeli "conspirators" as their "own people." How would we know? Where I do agree is without proof it is nothing more than conjecture, but it is interesting to apply a common tactic used on Israel and use it on Hamas.

[The Magistrate]

52. That, Sir

Comes under the heading of Rabbi Hillel's "What you don't like, don't do to others," would it not?

[Behind the Aegis]

53. Perhaps.

However, it isn't a matter of "liking it," but rather seeing it as "interesting" when the tables are turned. The difference is how the "information" is used.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iconicgnom]

58. You jump from this example to a suggestion that false-flag ops don't exist?

[LeftishBrit]

62. They exist, but far more rarely than conspiracy theorists (on any side) tend to allege.

[iconicgnom]

65. and a "conspiracy theorist" is someone who doesn't agree with you?

[LeftishBrit]

67. A conspiracy theorist, to me, is someone who believes in sinister plots without proof...

and often assumes that if someone has done some bad things, then they can be assumed to do *any* bad things.

Sometimes the conspiracy theorists turn out to be right. Often not.

I think we probably do agree on this particular one: that Israel actually did use white phosphorus, and it was not a 'false flag' by Hamas.

[iconicgnom]

68. Yes, we agree on that one. But for the other, in this case "conspiracy theorist" is just a slur.

Your said: "They exist, but far more rarely than conspiracy theorists (on any side) tend to allege.", and that can only be a made up for the moment claim. You can't KNOW it. For example, I think false flag ops are most probably a favorite technique of "spooks", of infiltrators bent on causing havoc, destabilization, and other conditions ripe for exploitation. So I think they probably happen much more often than people generally realize, or make allowances for, esp. in places like the middle east. I also take into account that it's exactly those false flag ops which would naturally be most heavily propogandized with misinformation.

Of course there are far too many people who fit the tinfoil-hat model "conspiracy theorist", but I wouldn't use the phrase "conspiracy theorist" in the way you do.

[EFerrari]

74. That's just delusional. There are miles of video of burn patients

that have been shown all over the planet.

[LeftishBrit]

46. Use of white phosphorus in war should be banned altogether

Allowing it for some purposes, but not as a direct weapon, ignores the fact that in the midst of a war, if it's around at all, sooner or later it will injure or kill people. And it's a particularly nasty way to get injured or killed.

[iconicgnom]

61. It is proven effective in a ground war, esp. one controlled from the sky

vs. an all but disarmed population. I hear it's all the rage nowadays.

[Tripmann]

60. Israel admits using WP

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5556027.ece

[Scurrilous]

63. Thanks.

:thumbsup: