Israel 'admits' using white phosphorus munitions

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+9 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Israel 'admits' using white phosphorus munitions


www.timesonline.co.uk

The Israeli military came close to acknowledging for the first time yesterday its use of white phosphorus munitions during the war in Gaza, but continued to insist that it did not breach international law.

As fresh evidence emerged of Gazan civilians being burned by phosphorus, Avital Leibovich, the army spokeswoman, said its use was “legal according to international law...All the munitions we were using were legal, like the French, American and British armies. We used munitions according to international law.
(visit the link for the full news article)



+1 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Despite the geneva convention stating quite clearly that WP is NOT to be used in civilian area's Israel stands firm in its conviction that the use of WP was according to international law.

The denials from israel when it was first accused of using WP were vociferous to say the least - now it appears that they are back-tracking and have said that the use of this horrible weapon was in line with international law, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Now they are trying to say that it was being used as a smokescreen - when there were no Israeli troops on the ground in the first instances of its use, what were they screening exactly?

The Israeli response is absolute rubbish and the use of WP in civilian area's was a criminal act.

www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

This also ties in quite nicely with this:

IDF officers intending to travel to Europe, whether for business or pleasure, have been advised to contact the Judge Advocate General's Office prior to leaving Israel; and some may be instructed not to leave the country.

The advisory has been issued following Israel's concern that international arrest warrants may be issued against officers who were involved in the Israeli offensive in Gaza, on charges of war crimes.
Jerusalem has reportedly received several reports suggesting international human rights groups are in the process of gathering evidence in the form of photos and testimonials, with the intent of filing suits both with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague and in local European courts.

While the State is likely to be able to thwart such attempts in The Hague, having suits of this nature filed with local European courts quashed is more complex: Many of the European courts have taken it upon themselves to hear cases of alleged war crimes perpetrated in other countries, even if they themselves have no affinity to the case.

Once a European court decides to hear such a case, it is within its right to issue bench warrants for the alleged criminals – in this case top politicians and military personnel – and that is a move the State might find difficult to undo.

source

[edit on 21/1/2009 by budski]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


White Phosphorous is legal to use, Israel used it, and this is a ridiculous thread, for the sole purpose of working up the anti-Israel group.

This has been done time, and time again. WP is in just about all military inventories, and its use is multiple.

I call BS.

Launching rockets by non-uniformed combatants is a war crime too, but you don't seem to get very worked up over that.

You seem to be highly selective in who you criticize.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


WP is not legal to use in civilian area's - end of story.

Have a read of the geneva convention which israel signed on 08.12.1949 and ratified on 06.07.1951

And some more:

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. However, Charles Heyman, a military expert and former major in the British Army, said: “If white phosphorus was deliberately fired at a crowd of people someone would end up in The Hague. White phosphorus is also a terror weapon. The descending blobs of phosphorus will burn when in contact with skin.”

The Israeli military last night denied using phosphorus, but refused to say what had been deployed.

source



[edit on 21/1/2009 by budski]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
From what i read in Israeli press there is an incident under IDF investigation of certain unit firing WP mortar shells at resident area. All the other cases of WP use (do not know how many of those were) are considered by military as allowed by international law.
I can add a link, but it is in Hebrew.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


What the military considers acceptable is immaterial.

My previous post shows the relevant part of the GC/Treaty.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
The whole concept of the "legality" of war is an absolute farce to me...the only role for a military force since the dawn of time is to kill people and break things in the most efficient and cost effective way possible....not that I agree with the various and diabolical ways humans have invented to kill themselves, but dead is dead, ya know?



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Thank you. This use by Israel does not violate any law, because as long as they were firing at combatants, even in primarily civilian areas, it's not only legal, it's morally correct.

Any wrongs that were committed were by those non-uniformed combatants who hid out and fired rockets from residential areas.

I don't care if my enemy hides behind the Pope. I'll blow a hole right through the Pope to kill my enemy if that is the only way.

And these Europeans that claim to do war crimes investigations and hold their kangaroo court - a lot of war crimes were committed by their populace as the Germans were pushed back.

Not a lot of credibility there.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
HAHAHAHAH!!

Wow; I almost fell out of my chair reading this! Star and Flagged!

This is just delicious, could eat it up with a nice cup of warm tea and honey! Seriously, the idiots at the IDF and that stupid broad Tzipora Livni should have seen this coming and let's not bother with Ehud, he deserves all the circles of hell that he'll be enjoying.

To blatantly use WP and say it's being used according to 'international law' is rubbish and a nice try to scapegoat out of it. I may not like the International Criminal Court, but i do enjoy seeing these types of announcements that at least make some of the lesser peons blink.

Edit*

doopers such a tool lol.


[edit on 21-1-2009 by Riviera]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I was watching CNN coverage of Gaza a few days ago. I saw the White Phosphorus bombs going off in the sky, raining down on people. Its some nasty stuff and should not be used anywhere near civillians. Just more to piss me off, I hate war.

I would hope a cease fire will come soon.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
Thank you. This use by Israel does not violate any law, because as long as they were firing at combatants, even in primarily civilian areas, it's not only legal, it's morally correct.


Dooper - please..... I read your posts and while i dont agree with a lot of them i do like your delivery at times.

However, how can it ever be morally correct.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Once again, I refer you to the GC - your opinion is irrelevant.

The treaty of 1980 forbids the use of WP in civilian area's, as does the GC

Article 51.-Protection of the civilian population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) Those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) Those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) Those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) An attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.
CHAPTER III.-CIVILIAN OBJECTS
Article 52.-General protection of civilian objects
1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make 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 of advantage.

3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.

source

Is the picture becoming clear yet?

Israel is in breach of both the GC and the Geneva Treaty of 1980 by using WP and other weapons indiscriminately in civilian area's.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   





click for full size



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 

Yep. The picture is perfectly clear. If you would only read your own crap, you'd see clearly as well.

The legality issue is not a matter of whether civilians are present or not, but if you are going after legitimate military targets. This would include rocketeers, rocket launchers, ammo dumps and storage, and visual tracking of identified enemy.

Therefore under the Geneva rules that you just mentioned, the use of any weapon, including WP is perfectly legal under 4a, 4c, ChapIII, items 1,2, and 3.

Don't get hung up too much on the technicalities. When you have an indentified enemy, you are able to kill the hell out of them, and if some unfortuanate is standing nearby, it just too bad.

This happens enough, and no one wants to be in the vicinity of these Hamas buttholes. It just didn't happen enough in this case.

And as far as morality goes, a soldier has a moral and fiduciary responsibility to kill his enemy where he finds him, using any means possible.

To not kill his enemy, is to continue the suffering of innocents, and thus an immoral act of omission.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


So now you resort to insults - well I suppose it was inly a matter of time.

I found this piece particularly hilarious and ironic given your "moral" viewpoint:



To not kill his enemy, is to continue the suffering of innocents, and thus an immoral act of omission.


The killing of innocents by the illegal use of munitions such as WP in civilian area's is totally immoral - but apparently not if you are Israeli, or part of the Israeli puppet system of money worshippers otherwise known as the oil industry and the lobbyists in washington.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I'm sick of hearing people make excuses for criminal acts.
I understand that the Palestinian Combatants are using less than honorable tactics, but you have to realize just HOW HEAVILY outgunned and outmanned they are.

I would act no different if say, Mexico was coming north of the border, waging illegal warfare and then afterwards taking Texas bit by bit.

I would stoop to any means necessary not to be invaded.

On the other hand, the Israelis have one of the best militarys on the planet. I know, we propped them up.
There is no need for Israel to use phosphorous shells. Their 2,000lb bombs being dropped on Hospitals and Schools are quite enough.

I hope the bastards fry in hell.

Elaborating on the idea that Israel doesn't need to use phosphorous shells... I would say that those weapons are being used PRECISELY as a terroristic weapon. They focking know it, too. That's why they denied it initially. Hey, why don't they just use napalm? It's the same damned thing! Oh, that's right, Napalm was so 1960's. Time to up the stakes on your weapons of terror.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


"Visual tracking of identified enemy?"

Weren't you the one that said Israel doesn't know who their enemy is?

I kinda' thought that was what you were arguing, considering Israel is laying to waste everything alive in Gaza.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
It would be ironic if you where the one being burnt alive with WP, and your face falling off.
I think your views would be much different than now, trying to make yourself look different on the internet.


Originally posted by dooper
Thank you. This use by Israel does not violate any law, because as long as they were firing at combatants, even in primarily civilian areas, it's not only legal, it's morally correct.

Any wrongs that were committed were by those non-uniformed combatants who hid out and fired rockets from residential areas.

I don't care if my enemy hides behind the Pope. I'll blow a hole right through the Pope to kill my enemy if that is the only way.

And these Europeans that claim to do war crimes investigations and hold their kangaroo court - a lot of war crimes were committed by their populace as the Germans were pushed back.

Not a lot of credibility there.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


"And as far as morality goes, a soldier has a moral and fiduciary responsibility to kill his enemy where he finds him, using any means possible."

Tell that to the WW2 soldiers who finally got tired of killing one another and decided to lay down their arms to play soccer on Christmas.

My ass. The soldier has the moral authority to follow the letter of the law.
I know, I was a soldier at one time.
You SHALL NOT follow an unlawful order.
Any soldier that does deserves a slow death.
By his own weapon.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I do believe Israel never agreed or signed on to the treaty part called Protocol II. Please correct me if I am wrong.

www.icrc.org...





new topics
top topics
 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join