Lebanon - IDF used over a million cluster bombs and phosphorous

By Meron Rappaport

"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs," the head of an IDF rocket unit in Lebanon said regarding the use of cluster bombs and phosphorous shells during the war.

Quoting his battalion commander, the rocket unit head stated that the IDF fired around 1,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets.

In addition, soldiers in IDF artillery units testified that the army used phosphorous shells during the war, widely forbidden by international law. According to their claims, the vast majority of said explosive ordinance was fired in the final 10 days of the war.

www.haaretz.com...

No need for my comments here, this is straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

Israel is party to the ban on chemical weapons no? Are not WP shells considered chemical weapons? I mean, napalm isn't, and using WP itself isn't, but using it as actual artillery shells is, no?

Use of WP is legal only in illumination shells, but it is regularly used as a chemical incendiary agent.

US used WP on Faludja for example, burned a lot of people, and its the terror of "white death" that drove people out of the city.

IDF tried doing the same to Lebanese, and used WP to terrorized the population into turning against Hezbollah.

I think this is so obvious especially with the failure rate and the over-use of them towards the cease-fire that these bombs were intended to strike innocent civilians.


There is also talk of DU having been used as well. Lets wait and see what they say about that.

Pie

If hezbollah/Lebanon used phosphorus the U.S. would make sure the whole world knew about it.. yes even though the US has used it too.. it would still make sure everyone knew.

This is talking about the recent Israel/Hezbolah war right?

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Techsnow]

Originally posted by iskander
Use of WP is legal only in illumination shells, but it is regularly used as a chemical incendiary agent.

US used WP on Faludja for example, burned a lot of people, and its the terror of "white death" that drove people out of the city.

WP is an incendiary weapon by current classification which can be used against enemy combatants and not purposefully/intentionally against civilians...even according to the CCW convention and subsequent protocols. The CWC also does not currently classify WP as a chemical weapon and is allowed in use against combatants.

Albeit WP is a nasty weapon with a horribly cruel effect…it is equally important to point-out that under Protocol III of the CCW, the use of incendiary weapons against civilians is prohibited (against combatants it is legal) and the US (since it was mentioned as well) is a not a signatory to the treaty…for that matter WP use against combatants is not banned by any treaty of which the US is a co-signor (along with many other nations). Also...referencing this document does not carry the weight of US law.

Israel is a signatory to the CCW…if it can be proved that she indeed intentionally used WP solely and intentionally against civilians, then there is a case…however proving Hezbollah was not present will be a greater effort as they puposefully hid un-uniformed among civilians…(a flagrant disregard for civilian life)...despite all the apologists' views.

On that note, what treaties does Hezbollah hold as a member signatory...none?

No accountability?....Go figure.


mg

I just posted this one in another thread. Here we go again.

A US Army handbook published in 1999 states clearly that the use of white phosphorus burster bombs against enemy personnel is "against the law of land warfare" and the US State Department clearly denied last year that any such weapons were being deployed in Iraq.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Originally posted by iskander
I just posted this one in another thread. Here we go again.

This is leaving the topic of the IDF and use of WP, but the following is somewhat applicable to the overall topic:

Originally posted by iskander

A US Army handbook published in 1999 states clearly that the use of white phosphorus burster bombs against enemy personnel is "against the law of land warfare" and the US State Department clearly denied last year that any such weapons were being deployed in Iraq.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

It should be noted, and made very clear, what is being referenced (without citation) by the "news" article is the www.fas.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> “Battle Book” STS-100-3” published by the USCGSC Center for Army Tactics Training Center (CAT’s) c1999, Chapter 5 (Fire Support), Section III: 5-11 (Filed Artillery Ammunition); b(4)…which incidentally has an accompanying study lab book.…so the article's touted 'handbook' is a misnomer as referenced and actually is a 'line' training text and not an operational manual by any definition…ergo no bearing on US military operational policy, treaties or laws.

From the training text sourced and mentioned above:

(4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.”

Now...citing the "Operational Field Manuals" instead of a spun news article which references only a student text c1999:

Law of Land Warefare

34. Employment of Arms Causing Unnecessary Injury

a. Treaty Provision.
It is especially forbidden * * * to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. (HR, art. 23, par. (e).)

b. Interpretation. What weapons cause "unnecessary injury" can only be determined in light of the practice of States in refraining from the use of a given weapon because it is believed to have that effect. The prohibition certainly does not extend to the use of explosives contained in artillery projectiles, mines, rockets, or hand grenades. Usage has, however, established the illegality of the use of lances with barbed heads, irregular-shaped bullets, and projectiles filled with glass, the use of any substance on bullets that would tend unnecessarily to inflame a wound inflicted by them, and the scoring of the surface or the filing off of the ends of the hard cases of bullets.

36. Weapons Employing Fire

The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law. They should not, however, be employed in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering to individuals.

38. Chemical and Bacteriological Warfare
...[snip]...

The use in war of smoke and incendiary materials is not prohibited or restricted by the Geneva Protocol of 1925.

Source: U.S.M.C. FM 27-10, MCRP 5-12.1A & Army FM 27-10 Chapter 2 Section III(includes 1976 changes and in constant operational use since 1956)

emphasis added

36 and 38 are fairly clear...yes?

From your article:

But America is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which it ratified in 1997, and that agreement forbids the use of any substance to kill or harm either soldiers or civilians if it is being used mostly for its toxicity

emphasis added

Too vague for the legal application of the CWC….especially given WP is not scheduled as a CW but rather incendiary weapon of which the US is not a party to any treaties limiting the use of incendiary weapons.

The real argumnet lies in exactly how to internationally classify WP as either chemical or incendiary.


mg

missed_gear, to begin with it's absolutely refreshing to see ATS member that thoroughly supports his statements with facts.

I applaud that, and that is what should be done in any situation.

Now to the issue at hand.

The issue here lies in legal interpretations of the law, and while we can split the fine hairs of wording and loop hole definitions, the main aspect to focus on here is this;

The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law. They should not, however, be employed in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering to individuals.

The last sentence is such a loop hole, because it forces and entirely separate line of reasoning and requires further legal definitions.

Note the following; "unnecessary suffering to individuals".

It does not stipulate combatants, illegal combatants, insurgents, farmers live stock, and other pseudo-legal definitions of the enemy at hand.

The fact of the matter here is the collateral and indiscriminate damage caused by incendiary munitions, and that is a clear violation of various domestic and international laws, both civil and military.

(4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.”

In order to interpret it properly, we have to establish the nature of the weapon described, and its intended use.

While the incendiary quality of the chemical reaction (rapid self sustaining oxidation - phosphorous) does not fall under legal scrutiny, this part in particular does;

and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets

Note that the dual use aspect. That white smoke is a burn-of residual, which creates a toxic cloud while it's still active and airborne. This is where the legal tango comes into play. The effects of such a smokescreen are intentionally misclassified, because the smoke cloud is not only toxic and indiscriminately chemically incendiary, but it also transforms from an active gaseous state into a fine, heavier then air white powder which settles while remaining chemically active.

So not only will the cloud react both with material and live targets, but it retains its lethality after it condenses into powder and covers the area.

In reality, the true use of such toxic cloud is not for purposes of a visual smokescreen, but as an offensive, chemical based attack and area denial weapon, aka a "chemical weapon".

I'm sure you are aware that after WWI very specific laws were implemented which specifically prohibit the use of toxic chemicals against personnel targets both in offensive, defensive AND in area denial form.

Element #1 - in truth such toxic cloud is a offensive chemical area affect and area denial weapon which can only be used in a offensive manner, and such use causes collateral damage with out distinction between material and personnel targets.

Element #2 - The cloud condenses into a fine white powder which saturates the entire area and indiscriminately reacts (chem burns) on contact with any source of moisture well after the actual time of weapon use. Personnel targets are such reactive sources of moisture, and as it was clearly documented in Faludja, that very fine powder burned civilians that were returning to the city well after the fact of weapon use.

Munitions which continue to retain their indiscriminate killing charge well after their deployment have a very specific legal classification. Some of such munitions are cluster bombs and various types of mines. They effect civilian and non-combatant personnel long after the actual engagement.

Such effect prevents medical, humanitarian and casualty evacuation and reconstruction efforts, all of which naturally result in economical collapse of the targeted area. Back in the days such permanent area denial tactics were called "salting the land".

This is exactly why the use of WP against populated areas is clearly illegal, immoral, unethical, down right barbaric, and no amount of legal hoopla will change such fundamental fact.

The very same principal is applied to legalities of torture. It is the way in which any given weapon is used that matters, not its officially designated purpose.

While a use of a bayonet is perfectly legal against an enemy combatant, it is illegal when it's used to cut a fetus out of a womb of a women right in front of her husband/father, who's being interrogated for Intel.

The use of WP on populated areas is just as cruel and illegal.

In closing, there is absolutely no difference between gassing a village with saran gas, or gas burning it with WP, and this is where the long history of blatant hypocrisy makes decent people want to vomit in disgust.

Originally posted by iskander
The issue here lies in legal interpretations of the law, and while we can split the fine hairs of wording and loop hole definitions, the main aspect to focus on here is this;

Thank you for the reply.

I left the previous post with somewhat of an ending which may equally serve as a caveat to this post…

“The real argument lies in exactly how to internationally classify WP as either chemical or incendiary.”

No “splitting hairs”… the US has operated within the bounds of current international law which was previously emphasized in the afore mentioned post…moral issues are another animal entirely…confusing morality and law cloud the issue.

Therefore arguments governing the overall rational (right or wrong) surrounding in the use of WP can be divided beyond simple composite legal use classifications to reflect ‘moral’ versus ‘legal’ obligations. These two simple classifications periodically cross shared boundaries; however one is binding, the other is not and seldom both are ever absolutely congruent.

Morally, I fully disagree with the direct use of WP against individuals…the legality of WP used as a weapon does not reflect my opinion and it remains ‘legal’.

It may be cruel, but it is not illegal.

Originally posted by iskander
I'm sure you are aware that after WWI very specific laws were implemented which specifically prohibit the use of toxic chemicals against personnel targets both in offensive, defensive AND in area denial form.

Yes, however WP was used extensively in WWII and by almost every nation during conflict since in some form or fashion…many nations have filed reservations against the 1925 protocols…and nothing in the historical use of weaponized WP shows it to ever be used in “area denial”…”seeding” prevention against enemy personnel etc.



mg

To be honest i couldnt care less if it's legal or not, the consequences of its use and that of the cluster bomb's on civilians is the real issue imo.
The cluster bomblets are more of a concern now i believe as they still have the ability to kill and maim innocent women and children. This will surely have secondary issues for Lebanons citizens as well by slowing down the rebuilding of their homes and infrastructure whilst these bombs are cleared.
Btw i'd be just as horrified if there were Israeli citizens having to deal with this.

missed_gear, good points indeed.

I left the previous post with somewhat of an ending which may equally serve as a caveat to this post…

“The real argument lies in exactly how to internationally classify WP as either chemical or incendiary.”

True, and that is the reasoning of my previous post.

It's the way such weapon is used that determines such classification. When it is used against civilian targets, it is a chemical weapon. When used against material targets, it is an extremely dangerous incendiary weapon which requires expensive clean up efforts.

No “splitting hairs”… the US has operated within the bounds of current international law which was previously emphasized in the afore mentioned post…moral issues are another animal entirely…confusing morality and law cloud the issue.

Sorry missed_gear, the facts are simply not so. Morality is not the question here, but the repeated use of WP against non combatant targets, aka civilians. All are clearly documented, and considering the level of our dialog, I will leave the fact finding to you.

Therefore arguments governing the overall rational (right or wrong) surrounding in the use of WP can be divided beyond simple composite legal use classifications to reflect ‘moral’ versus ‘legal’ obligations. These two simple classifications periodically cross shared boundaries; however one is binding, the other is not and seldom both are ever absolutely congruent.

The only aspect of morality in such incidents were brought up on the level of public awareness. I'm sure you'll agree that raising legal concerns in the public eye makes bad PR. Behind every such incident there is a legal action, and for obvious reasons their results are not publicized. Again, publicly available sources are readily available, and I'll leave them for you to investigate.

Morally, I fully disagree with the direct use of WP against individuals…the legality of WP used as a weapon does not reflect my opinion and it remains ‘legal’.

That I agree with entirely.

It may be cruel, but it is not illegal.

Yes, however WP was used extensively in WWII and by almost every nation during conflict since in some form or fashion…many nations have filed reservations against the 1925 protocols…and nothing in the historical use of weaponized WP shows it to ever be used in “area denial”…”seeding” prevention against enemy personnel etc.

I'll address both quotes.

The issue here is with the use of force scale. Given the scale of WWII the issues of collateral damage were almost non existent. I'm sure you're familiar with McNamara's' work on incendiary strategies, and use of shrapnel loads to nullify the effectiveness of fire brigades.

It was also cruel, it took more lives then both atom bombs combined, and even though it is discussed to this day, given the circumstances of the war it will never be condemned, much as the use of nukes.

The "modern" use of chemical weapons and kinetic wide area munitions by "civilized" nations is simply not justified given the usual conflict scale.

All such use is directed at the civilian population of the enemy, not the combatants.

Given your previous responses I'm sure you know what kind of conflicts I'm talking about. Statistically they all share identical patterns.

The targets of interest also share identical patterns. Such targets are elements of civilian infrastructure. Power, utilities, industrial complex, communications, roads/bridges, etc, and populated civilian centers.

This is a best case scenario which actually allows for a warning. The villagers are given a warning of a bombardment and are advised to evacuate. They do, and the village is bombed with delayed fuse cluster munitions. Upon returning, the villager find that a large portion of the munitions did not explode, and the entire are is saturated with explosives.

In order to attain support in clearing the area they are forced to accept terms, which ALWAYS specifically stipulate their agreement to stop any support to opposing forces, be it military or logistical.

That is the very definition of civilian "area denial". WP is used in a very similar way, but with the added element of a mass terror tactic. Such tactics are called "active" psyops, or "collective punishment". Both are classified as "unproportional retaliation" and are prohibited by international law.

missed_gear, I understand where you are coming from, at up to a certain point I reason along similar lines. Unfortunately history shows time and time again that when clear lines of distinction are not drawn, mass murders and genocides happen.

As it stands, the only difference between Halabja and Faludja, is the color of the flag under which both atrocities were carried out.

The same goes for Lebanon, and all other places on the globe where innocent people (children) are regularly killed and crippled by such weapon use.

On the personal note, missed_gear when God forbid your own loved one is killed or crippled by some mine, or burned alive by some white powder and just shrivels up right in from of you, you'll want to personally kill every single bastard that was remotely responsible for it happening.

When our troops are killed by IEDs we condemn the terrorists and call for their heads, when entire villages/cities are wiped out and made uninhabitable and kill for years to come, we discuss legalities, defend out right to do so and justify it as our way of sharing our way of freedom and democracy.

Eye for an eye? Do to others as you would do to your self? I'm not here to give you a lesson in "Western Hypocrisy", I'm just sharing my point of view, so it's up to you how you want to take this one.

Iskander, you know you are right, I know you are right,Lebanese people know you are right and some of your fellow members here know you are right. Now for those who believe all this Mish-Mosh about Israel being moral and Hizbollah hiding behind civilian coattails as an excuse for all this BULL**** here is some proof straight from the horses mouth.

When rockets and phosphorous cluster

By Meron Rapoport

"In Lebanon, we covered entire villages with cluster bombs, what we did there was crazy and monstrous," testifies a commander in the Israel Defense Forces' MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) unit. Quoting his battalion commander, he said the IDF fired some 1,800 cluster rockets on Lebanon during the war and they contained over 1.2 million cluster bombs. The IDF also used cluster shells fired by 155 mm artillery cannons, so the number of cluster bombs fired on Lebanon is even higher. At the same time, soldiers in the artillery corps testified that the IDF used phosphorous shells, which many experts say is prohibited by international law. According to the claims, the overwhelming majority of the weapons mentioned were fired during the last ten days of the war.

The commander asserted that there was massive use of MLRS rockets despite the fact that they are known to be very inaccurate - the rockets' deviation from the target reaches to around 1,200 meters - and that a substantial percentage do not explode and become mines. Due to these facts, most experts view cluster ammunitions as a "non-discerning" weapon that is prohibited for use in a civilian environment. The percentage of duds among the rockets fired by the U.S. army in Iraq reached 30 percent and the United Nations' land mine removal team in Lebanon claims that the percentage of duds among the rockets fired by the IDF reaches some 40 percent. In light of these figures, the number of duds left behind by the Israeli cluster rockets in Lebanon is likely to reach half a million.

According to the commander, in order to compensate for the rockets' imprecision, the order was to "flood" the area with them. "We have no option of striking an isolated target, and the commanders know this very well," he said. He also stated that the reserve soldiers were surprised by the use of MLRS rockets, because during their regular army service, they were told these are the IDF's "judgment day weapons" and intended for use in a full-scale war.


The commander also said that at least in one case, they were asked to fire cluster rockets toward "a village's outskirts" in the early morning: "They told us that this is a good time because people are coming out of the mosques and the rockets would deter them." In other cases, they fired the rockets at a range of less than 15 kilometers, even though the manufacturer's guidelines state that firing at this range considerably increases the number of duds. The commander further related that during IDF training exercises hardly any live rockets are fired, for fear that they would leave duds behind and fill the IDF's firing grounds with mines.

At the same time, soldiers are reporting that they fired phosphorous shells, which are supposed to be used by the IDF for marking or setting fire to areas, in order to start fires in Lebanon. The artillery commander says he saw trucks with phosphorous shells en route to artillery batteries in the North.

A direct hit from a phosphorous shell causes severe burns and a painful death. Around a year ago, there was an international scandal after a television crew presented harsh pictures of the charred bodies of Iraqis injured by phosphorous bombs during the course of the American attack on the city of Fallujah.

Source

Someone had started a thread a while back that was offering Kudo's to the IDF ...As I have always stated and will continue to state. These guys deserve nothing and they are far from anything democratic or humane.




[edit on 14-9-2006 by ThePieMaN]

I fully concur with Pie.

The lame Zionist propaganda of Hezbollah ''hiding behind civilians'' has been fathomed since their much more advanced IDF uses similar strategies. Palestinian are often being used as human shields.

In addition, Israel's supreme court banned the use of Palestinian human shields.
Guess what happened.

A hard-line member of the Israeli Knesset or parliament has criticised the ruling, saying it will hamper the military's anti-terrorism capabilities.

"Supreme court judges demonstrated today that their pity for the cruel will prove cruel to the merciful and will expose [Israeli] soldiers to more danger," said Effie Eitam of the National Religious Party.

Source

In December last year Israeli commanders went to court to challenge the court's decision, how would you describe such people? I, at least, woudln't call them humane.

Originally posted by Mdv2
I fully concur with Pie.

The lame Zionist propaganda of Hezbollah ''hiding behind civilians'' has been fathomed since their much more advanced IDF uses similar strategies. Palestinian are often being used as human shields.

In addition, Israel's supreme court banned the use of Palestinian human shields.
Guess what happened.

First of all most people do not know it but Hizbollah due to the past experience with Israeli spies in Lebanon, do not usually tend to carry out their operations in open view of civilians. They tend to stay away from them so that Israel does not recieve any information on positions,modes of transport and weaponry. If people relaized it during the war Israel had complained that their intelligence was not as good as it was in the past. This was due to the fact that they did not attack openly and within view of the public eye as many Pro-Israeli people had implied to help cover up the attrocities that Israel was committing against Lebanese civilians.


MDV I haven't heard anything about that ban, but that is absolutely disgusting , yet believable that human shields are used as a defensive weapon. Nothing more then cowards. Another claim that is/has always been denied by the IDF.


Pie

I guess Israel can't defend itself from a illegal militia that is UN mandated to disband and is supported and supplied by Iran at the expense of the Lebonese people.

If Hezbollah wants to hide in the cities like little babies and not fight, then Israel hd to hit them in Lebanon where the Hezbollah UN ruled illegal militia was shooting missles into Israel.

I guess Israel can't defend itself from a illegal militia that is UN mandated to disband and is supported and supplied by Iran at the expense of the Lebonese people.

Sure. I guess LAPD officers can not defend them selves after surrounding a SUV with a suspect behind the wheel, and when the SUV starts rolling 2 miles per hour they absolutely have to open fire from ALL directions, expend more then 140 rounds, hit each other in the process, hit second and third stories of neighborhood buildings, and not even hit the driver once.

A rather similar situation here. Excessive force, casualties, a total mess all around with zero success.

If Hezbollah wants to hide in the cities like little babies and not fight, then Israel hd to hit them in Lebanon where the Hezbollah UN ruled illegal militia was shooting missles into Israel.

Cute spin, but how was Israel "defending itself" from Hezbollah missiles by bombing Lebanese cities?
Especially considering Hezbollah didn't start firing the missiles until after the Israelis started bombing?

It's amazing how people kid themselves.

you know if you look at it, they say that Hezbollah shot like a 100 or 1000 rockets into Israel during the 6 years since israel left southern lebanon, and that israel was defending itself from those attacks, and then you look at ISraeli "retaliatory" attacks to these rockets, the israelis fired more than 11500 missles, more powerful, more potent, MISSLES at southern lebanon, that's more than 1150% more firepower or 11500% if hezbollah fired onlya hundred rockets, and if you count the power difference between missles of the IDF and the rockets of the Hezbollah, you'll make that percent go up to maybe 2000%-2300% or 20000%-23000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that's not defending yourself, that's destroying a country! if somebody gives youa soft slap on the cheek with the palm of the hand, you don't go and stab him/her 50 times!!!!!!!!

i wouldn't be surprise if Israel used forbidden weapons, the US has protected and knowingly did not inform the UN that a country, especially israel, has used forbidden weapons. if your on the good side of the US i guess you can use whatever weapons you want....