IDF has long ceased being 'most moral army in the world' (Gideon Levy)

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"What shock, what consternation. Haaretz revealed grave accounts by officers and soldiers describing the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians during the war in Gaza. The Israel Defense Forces Spokesman was quick to respond that the IDF had no prior or supporting information about the events in question, the defense minister was quick to respond that "the IDF is the most moral army in the world," and the military advocate general said the IDF would investigate.

All these propagandistic and ridiculous responses are meant not only to deceive the public, but also to offer shameless lies. The IDF knew very well what its soldiers did in Gaza. It has long ceased to be the most moral army in the world. Far from it - it will not seriously investigate anything.

The testimonies from the graduates of the Oranim pre-military course were a bolt from the blue - accounts of soldiers butchering a woman and two of her children, shooting and killing an elderly Palestinian woman, how they felt when they murdered in cold blood, how they destroyed property and how there was not even fighting in this war that was not a war.

But this is neither a bolt nor blue skies. Everything has long been known by those who wanted to know, those who, for example, read Amira Hass's dispatches from Gaza in this paper. Everything started long before the assault on Gaza.

The soldiers' transgressions are an inevitable result of the orders given during this brutal operation, and they are the natural continuation of the last nine years, when soldiers killed nearly 5,000 Palestinians, at least half of them innocent civilians, nearly 1,000 of them children and teenagers.

Everything the soldiers described from Gaza, everything, occurred during these blood-soaked years as if they were routine events. It was the context, not the principle, that was different. An army whose armored corps has yet to encounter an enemy tank and whose pilots have yet to face an enemy combat jet in 36 years has been trained to think that the only function of a tank is to crush civilian cars and that a pilot's job is to bomb residential neighborhoods.

To do this without any unnecessary moral qualms we have trained our soldiers to think that the lives and property of Palestinians have no value whatsoever. It is part of a process of dehumanization that has endured for dozens of years, the fruits of the occupation."

more

[donheld]

1. Was it ever a moral army?

:shrug:

[LeftishBrit]

8. More so than now.

One can argue about whether a fully moral army is possible - given that the very existence of an army implies a readiness under some circumstances to kill (and in modern warfare that almost always means risking killing civilians). But few countries manage without some sort of army.

The Israeli army in the past did hold some principles of self-restraint; of trying to avoid deaths of civilians where possible, even at some risk to their soldiers; of disciplined and careful action, rather than shooting on sight. They were not perfect in any of these respects, but they were better than many other armies (I am speaking only of the rules of military action, not of whether their goals were or were not justified).

It seems that recently the ethics of the army have gone down badly. At least, there are still some soldiers sufficiently ethical to be whistleblowers - one might not find that everywhere.

One clue to the level of self-restraint versus recklessness in an army is the level of 'friendly fire' deaths; impulsiveness in shooting often leads to shooting your own fellow-soldiers. For a while this seemed to be less prevalent in the IDF than in a number of other armies, but as I understand there were proportionally more such casualties in this war than in the past.

[Alamuti Lotus]

17. When was this?

Was it more moral when Sharon was driving bulldozers through Gaza City to make it easier for tanks to roll through? Or in 2006 when Olmert's air force was bombing anything that moved in South Lebanon? That goes back over 50 years to the present day, when was this golden era? Reputing these hyperbolic pieces about "has lost" or "is in danger of losing" etc etc, it could better be argued that past and present activities contain a clear pattern that has not changed much. A public relations campaign that is challenged more often and thus pushed more vigorously, but actual substance relatively similar.

[shira]

20. Jenin 2002

23 IDF ground troops killed in fierce close quarter fighting. Israel had other ways to carry out such military operations that would have limited IDF casualties, but they chose to try and minimize Palestinian casualties instead. They also tried in the Hezbollah 2006 war the same thing. Many IDF troops died.

Fast forward to 2008-09 with Gaza.

Too many IDF soldiers carried back in body bags or taken hostage and butchered by their kidnappers leads to a change in tactics by IDF ground troops. Instead of hesitating 1-2 seconds to distinguish civilian from combatant, which didn't work out so amazingly well for IDF troops in the past, the IDF decided self-preservation morally trumped preservation of possible hostile combatants.

Agree or disagree with the decision - war being a nasty business - the point is that haters demonized Israel in both Jenin and Lebanon, and they now seem even more pissed due to fewer IDF casualties in this latest war (not enough Jews died for their tastes). For certain is the fact that the haters will never admit the IDF has taken precautions in the past that put its own troops at far greater risk than probably any other military worldwide given the same threat to its mainland. Ergo, the world's most "moral" military.

Of course, we could deliberate IDF tactics all day, but here's a question for you - or anyone else reading this....

Can we admit that in no other conflict in history has one side tried so hard to maximize its own civilian casualties?

If the answer is YES, then this has to be taken into consideration wrt the manner in which the IDF engages the enemy. It cannot be trivialized or ignored.

[PDJane]

2. There is no such thing as a moral army.

And Levy himself admits that Israel does not want peace.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Two big lies: "most moral army in the world," and "leader of the free world."

People will say "Jesus saves" without even giving any rational thought as to its meaning or, more importantly, as to who the real historical Jesus was. If you must ask, Jesus was a Jewish nationalist, a patriot, a man executed by the Roman occupation authorities under the charge of sedition. The rest of the story about this man is nothing more than mythology, just as our belief that the American President is some sort of self-anointed "leader of the free world," whatever that means. As to Israel, 41 years of occupation has stripped that country of any claim to morality or decency of any kind.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. I think this bit of the article hits it on the head...

'Most of the soldiers who took part in the assault on Gaza are youths with morals. Some of them will volunteer for any mission. They will escort an old woman across the street or rescue earthquake victims. But in Gaza, when faced with the inhuman Palestinians, the package will always be suspicious, the brainwashing will be stupefying and the core principles will change. That is the only way they can kill and engage in wanton destruction without deliberating or wrestling with their consciences, not even telling their friends or girlfriends what they did.'

[shira]

5. Gideon Levy is so right....what a Saint! I want to have your baby, Gideon!

Gosh, so like the IDF is a uniquely evil military and there's just simply no way Israelis can pretend to act shocked at these second hand, unverified accounts and rumors.

Where would we be if we didn't have Gideon Levy here to tell us how stupid, ignorant, delusional, or deliberately blind most Israelis are about their own military? Gosh, I mean, why would Israelis not only lie to themselves but to the outside world too - about their so-called "morality"? Those evil Jews Zionists! They fool no one, especially not Gideon Levy, my hero! As if Israelis know how moral they are in comparison to other militaries - it's not like they all serve or anything!

And just like Gideon wrote, the IDF will definitely try to cover up these latest massacres, just as they tried to do WRT Muhammad al Dura, Jenin and the very recent UN school building....all outrageous claims just like this one, proven to be 100% true, proving all allegations against Israel are honest and accurate! Well, at least to those already indoctrinated.

It's a real shame most of the Israeli left ignored this saint of a man long ago.

I love you Gideon!

hugs!



ps
Gideon should learn Arabic. Pretty tough to appear credible as he does when he doesn't even know or understand any Arabic. He may also want to lay off giving justification for every Palestinian act of terror, or excuse future generations of Palestinian children who turn into terrorists. He doesn't justify or excuse Jewish acts of revenge and terror - against Germans - why? It's not as if Jews don't have MORE reason than Palestinians today to avenge the happenings of 70 years ago. Is it racism, not believing that more should be expected of Arabs but that morality is expected from Jews who should know better? What else is it? 95% of Jihadi victims are other Muslims, shall we justify and excuse that too - or only when the victims are Jews?

It would be nice for once to see Gideon Levy slam Hamas for who and what they represent - and it's not freedom from opression for Palestinians as much as it's Hamas' goal to bring Sharia worldwide, plunging the known world into another dark age. If Hamas fought for Palestinian freedom from oppression, they wouldn't be the primary cause of Palestinian suffering in Gaza right now. Maybe this is part of the 'context' we are missing in Levy's so-important "work". It would be great to see Gideon condemn Hamas more forcefully - being a coward and saying nothing against Hamas implies that he is with them and therefore against other moderate Palestinian voices that he should be backing instead.

This moral criminal has no business preaching to anyone what morality is.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[LeftishBrit]

10. Sigh (to all)

There is no one here who supports Duke or Kahane.

There is no regular poster on this forum who supports Likud or the settlement movement. (I do remember someone appearing briefly on the forum who appeared to have such views, but he was thoroughly trounced in debate by an Israeli member of the forum!)

There is probably no one here who supports Pat Buchanan unreservedly, though there are a very few, mostly not regular posters on the forum, who express some sympathy for Buchanan and 'paleoconservatives'. There are also a very few people who are influenced by antisemitic conspiracy-sites. It would be easier to stamp on such views where they occur, if they were not over-attributed to people who don't hold them.

'Guilt by association' is not the way to go IMO. We all know that there are some people who are either pro-Israel or anti-Israel for entirely the wrong reasons, and who hold far-right and racist views. That doesn't mean that all or most pro-Israel people love RW settlers and sympathize with Kahane, or that all or most pro-Palestinian people feed off conspiracy sites and support Pat Buchanan.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. I agree with the point yr trying to make...

I saw the now-deleted posts, and this thread isn't the only place it's happened. I've seen DUers who are critical of Israel being accused by one poster of being freepers, of being like David Duke or Buchanan in quite a few other threads, and it's incredibly lame. How on earth anyone can think that attributing that sort of stuff to other DUers in this forum contributes to constructive discussion is beyond me. Though I saw this sub-thread before it was deleted, and right now have no idea why the mods decide to delete some posts and not others. One from Indy in this sub-thread that's now deleted asked a question of someone who has no qualms in accusing other DUers of being freepers, antisemites, supporters of Hamas etc...

Where I disagree with you is when you say there's no regular poster on this forum who supports Likud or the settler movement. Maybe we differ on what a regular is, but I've been here a long time, and I've seen such regulars over the years. There are regulars who claim they're opposed to the settler movement, but who do things like claim that removing settlers is ethnic cleansing, and who have in one case claimed that they're opposed to any new settlements, but support the existing ones staying where they are, and also post rebuttals when articles about extremist settlers abusing Palestinian civilians are posted. Saying that doesn't mean I think most or all posters are like that. It's only one or two...

I know there's threads that come down here from LBN where I see people being sympathetic to those kinda creepy isolationist views and bigotry of the likes of Duke and Buchanan. But when it comes to regulars in this forum, I can't recall seeing any of them express any support for such views....

And i've got no time for any guilt by association stuff. It's lame and ignorant and a lazy form of 'argument'. If people using it stopped for one second and think of all the instances in the past where their logic leads to with guilt by association (eg Churchill was admired by Hitler), then they'd realise how stupid it was...

[shira]

31. it's difficult making political assumptions WRT this conflict, isn't it?

just as there are many RW'ers who are supportive of Israel, there exist as many liberals who also support Israel. It seems to be the loud minority fringe on both sides, RW and LW, who are generally more anti-Israel. The point being, support for Israel is hardly monopolized by the RW. In earlier times, it was difficult finding many RW supporters at all for Israel as most of Israel's earliest supporters were liberals who have always identified with Israelis.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I wonder why these posts were deleted, yet this other one wasn't?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x266164#266439

I've alerted on it twice now with no luck, so it looks like it's acceptable to call other posters freepers and that sort of thing. Yet in this thread, merely asking the poster who called someone else a freeper in another thread whether it supports Kahane and the settler movement gets a post deleted. I can't see the consistancy in any of this...

[shira]

13. against both

do you have anything substantive to state in defense of Gideon Levy in response to my post about him?

[Idealism]

11. Any army that uses white phosphorous in a city cannot be deemed moral.

The US army, Russian army, and the Israeli army et al who engage in gross violations of human rights are by definition immoral.

[Jefferson23]

12. The "most" part, poor choice of words to add. Almost impossible

for any army to claim, but most especially after OCL.

[shira]

14. why do you think Israel used WP, and not something else?

[Idealism]

15. Amnesty International in particular, although I am sure there are others

say WP was used in Gaza. The IDF first denied it, then switched their position and said it "was used legally," which is bewildering.

Why is it that you don't believe Israel used WP in Gaza?

[shira]

19. I'm not asking IF white phosphorus was used, sorry that was unclear

only asking why you believe Israel used it instead of other options.

[Idealism]

25. I don't understand why some armies use WP for smoke screens

There are dozens of varieties of smoke screens that don't incur war crime cries. I don't get their insistence upon using it, especially when they know they will get blowback for using it in a densely populated area. That truly does confound me...

[shira]

28. it's my understanding that WP is the most effective smokescreen

[Idealism]

32. Depends on what you mean by "effective."

Great for destroying machinery, vehicles, barriers, walls, warehouses, etc.- yes.

Amazing at putting fear into the population, because if it gets on your skin it burns through muscle tissue to the bone- yes.

It was more commonly used in World War II in grenades (for the pretty nasty explosion and subsequent burning) and as smoke screens for paratroopers. Since then it has been used in Chechnya against the separatists, in the Iraq and Iran War against Kurds and Iranians, Vietnam against Vietcong and civilians, Korea against the standing army and on villages, and probably a few others I missed. White Phosphorous use does not incriminate if used properly, it is how it is used. In Fallujah, when the US army turned the entire city into a "free fire zone," it constituted a war crime because it was used indiscriminately against insurgents and civilians alike. In Gaza, if reports are true about it being used in open markets, on mosques, and a UN warehouse, it appears to be a war crime.

White Phosphorous has another positive- it instantly causes smoke, so there isn't any waiting for your screen.

The drawbacks: Not as cheap as other smoke screen variants, controversial to use even in times of war because of its nasty effects, and there is no way to control the collateral damage it causes. Once it hits a building, it is almost impossible to get it to stop burning.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Here's what the Red Cross had to say about it...

And it's interesting to note that the very man who some portions of the media claimed had said that Israel's use of white phosphorous in Gaza was legal actually said nothing of the sort:

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/htmlall/weapons-interview-170109?opendocument

[Violet_Crumble]

36. *sigh* I just saw the false claim that the Red Cross didn't find evidence of illegal use...

So for the hard of reading here it is again in bold...

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.

Sheez, it's not that hard to understand, is it?

[Violet_Crumble]

41. And for those really slow on the uptake, the ICRC link was written by Peter Herby...

And being on the ICRC website, there's no risk of being misquoted by the media...

[Alamuti Lotus]

16. why are there millions of cluster bomblets still littering Lebanon?

And still killing people there, for that matter.

Same answer: because they think they can act in such a way with impunity, all the while loudly claiming victimhood.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Because the IDF has orgasm watching people turn into bacon?

I saw the pictures at the BBC website of white phosphorus being dropped on a town square while people were fleeing for their lives. It is a war crime!

[LeftishBrit]

24. It may be a war crime; but that doesn't mean that the IDF had 'orgasms' watching it

Did American and British troops have 'orgasms' bombing Iraq?

An evil action. But most evil actions are not done just *because* people like doing evil - if this were the case, there would be a lot fewer crimes committed.

[shira]

29. imagine someone writing about Hamas being all orgasmic over Palestinian civilian casualties

that turn out to be propaganda victories for them?

Demonization?

nah.

[Jefferson23]

26. To answer that one needs to only read the record.

Fundamental to their motives was for one, to restore Israel's deterrence capacity.

"New York Times Middle East correspondent Ethan Bronner reported, quoting Israeli sources, was to "re-establish Israeli deterrence," because "its enemies are less afraid of it than they once were, or should be." Preserving its deterrence capacity has always loomed large in Israeli strategic doctrine. Indeed, it was the main impetus behind Israel's first-strike against Egypt in June 1967 that resulted in Israel's occupation of Gaza (and the West Bank)."

Bronner's piece in full: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/world/middleeast/29assess.html?_r=1&hp

[shira]

30. anyone opining on morality who cannot even articulate what a proportional IDF response would look

like has no business preaching about morality.

There is also nothing immoral about choosing self-preservation over the life of a dangerous enemy combatant.

Also, what's moral about Hamas being held to no standards whatsoever?

[Idealism]

33. Where do you come up with this crap?

Do you disagree that any army using WP on civilians can't be moral?

Self-preservation does not mean indiscriminate killing of civilians. I never claimed Israel should not have acted, but certain things should not ever be done. Not by the US, not by Israel, not by anyone. To dismiss the use of WP on civilians as necessary is absurd even by your standards.

[shira]

35. you allege that the IDF used WP deliberately on civilians

the Red Cross didn't find any evidence of illegal or improper usage of WP.

And my points still stand from my last post regarding the morality of some who are unable to articulate what a proportional response is, or who refuse to hold Hamas to any standard whatsoever.

WP is used because it does the best job at creating a smokescreen for soldiers. The intent is not to use it on civilians and that has in no way been proven in Gaza. You'll have to excuse the IDF for putting its soldiers lives first and not making it easier for Hamas to kill them. Could the IDF have been a little more careful with the WP? Probably so....they didn't have to use it at all, I suppose, but that wasn't an option. The IDF cannot be held to A+ perfect standards.

[shira]

40. oh, btw - about that Red Cross claim WRT Israel's use of white phosphorus

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231866575577&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"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."

Peter Herby.

Head of ICRC mines-arms unit.

Says ICRC had no evidence suggesting WP used in an improper or illegal way.

[shira]

42. Peter Herby was quoted stating there was no evidence suggesting illegal or improper use

"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."

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

Translation:

Off the record, Peter Herby admits there's no evidence of foul-play by the IDF. On the record, publicly, he has said nothing.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. I don't do long distance arguments in threads...

So for this one, I'll deal with it directly...

If you read the link I posted, you'd have noticed that what he said was preceded by: '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 –' so off the record he hasn't admitted what you claim at all...

[shira]

44. you're assuming the ICRC found violations and that's why they haven't yet gone public

the fact is he was quoted stating there was no evidence of foul play. Whether it was private off-the-record is besides the point.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. No, I'm assuming correctly that AI found violations...

And because unlike you I think what Peter Herby says on the ICRC website is far more credible than a probable misquote (after all, he must be lying in either JPost or the ICRC site if he actually said it) in the media, I know he was quoted as saying that if the ICRC find evidence that there were violations, they'll do what they always do in these instances and take it up with the party concerned. Which means that if yr not the party concerned, you won't know if and what's been discussed, so it's pretty silly to pretend otherwise...

[shira]

46. are you aware of credible evidence showing the IDF deliberately targeted civilians with WP

It's clear that civilians were affected by WP, but that does not prove intent. Where's proof of warcrimes WRT white phosphorus? Dropping phosphorus shells in military ops is not illegal.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. I assume by *credible evidence*, it must have been verified by CAMERA?

Sorry, can't give you that, but Amnesty International have got credible evidence of the use of white phosphorus in densely populated residential areas...

'Amnesty International found that the Israeli army used white phosphorus, a weapon with a highly incendiary effect, in densely-populated civilian residential areas in and around Gaza City, and in the north and south of the Gaza Strip. The organization’s delegates found white phosphorus still burning in residential areas throughout Gaza days after the ceasefire came into effect on 18 January - that is, up to three weeks after the white phosphorus artillery shells had been fired by Israeli forces. Amnesty International considers that the repeated use of white phosphorus in this way in densely-populated civilian areas constitutes a form of indiscriminate attack, and amounts to a war crime.3


White phosphorus is a weapon intended to provide a smokescreen for troop movements on the battlefield. When each 155mm artillery shell bursts, it releases 116 wedges impregnated with white phosphorus which ignite on contact with oxygen and can scatter, depending on the height at which it is burst (and wind conditions), over an area at least the size of a football pitch. In addition to the indiscriminate effect of air-bursting such a weapon, firing such shells as artillery exacerbates the likelihood that civilians will be affected. When white phosphorus lands on skin it burns deeply through muscle and into the bone, continuing to burn until deprived of oxygen. It can contaminate other parts of the patient's body or even those treating the injuries.


A 16-year-old girl, Samia Salman Al-Manay'a, was asleep in her home in the Jabalia refugee camp, north of Gaza City, when a phosphorus shell landed on the first floor of the house at 8pm on 10 January. Ten days later, from her hospital bed, she told Amnesty International that she was still experiencing intense pain due to the burns to her face and legs. “The pain is piercing. It's as though a fire is burning in my body. It's too much for me to bear. In spite of all the medicine they are giving me the pain is still so strong.”4


Amnesty International has seen documents written during the Israeli military offensive on Gaza by the office of the Israeli army Chief Medical Officer and Medical Field Operations headquarters.5 A document signed by Colonel Dr Gil Hirschorn, head of trauma in the office of the army’s Chief Medical Officer, states: "When the phosphorus comes in contact with living tissue it causes its damage by 'eating' away at it. Characteristics of a phosphorus wound are: chemical burns accompanied by extreme pain, damage to tissue ... the phosphorus may seep into the body and damage internal organs. In the long run, kidney failure and the spread of infection are characteristic ... In conclusion: a wound by an ordnance containing explosive phosphorus is inherently dangerous and has the potential to cause serious damage to tissue."


Another document entitled "Exposure to White Phosphorus," prepared by Medical Field Operations HQ and sent from the Health Ministry, notes that "most of the data on phosphorus wounds stems from animal testing and accidents. Exposure to white phosphorus is highly poisonous, according to many lab experiments. Burns covering a small area of the body, 12-15 percent in lab animals and less than 10 percent in humans, may be lethal as a result of its effects, mostly on the liver, heart and kidneys."


In addition to the danger posed by the incendiary effect of white phosphorus, the artillery shells themselves continued to pose lethal threat after they dispersed the white phosphorus, as they continued on their trajectory and in many cases smashed into home full of civilians.


In Khuzaa, east of Khan Younis, in the south of Gaza, Amnesty International delegates found white phosphorus artillery carrier shells, both whole and in fragments, in several homes in a densely-populated residential area. In one home, they found the fragments of another 155mm artillery carrier shell which had killed 47-year-old Hanan al-Najjar, a mother of four. She and her family had fled their home and were staying with relatives in a residential area well inside the town. On the evening of 10 January an artillery shell penetrated the roof of the house and travelled through two rooms, breaking up in the hall, where a large fragment hit Hanan in the chest, almost severing the upper part of her body. She was killed instantly. In the patio of the house, Amnesty International delegates found an artillery shell (illuminating round) and in a nearby house they found another whole artillery carrier shell which had crashed through the wall and landed on the young couple’s bed, where a baby had been sleeping only minutes earlier.'

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/012/2009/en/5be86fc2-994e-4eeb-a6e8-3ddf68c28b31/mde150122009en.html#1.0.7.Misuse%20of%20conventional%20arms%20by%20Israeli%20forces|outline

[shira]

48. that's pretty weak evidence

a defense against that kind of accusation by AI is that the IDF could just say that they tried to be as careful as possible before dropping WP in the areas they chose to carry out military ops. There's nothing illegal about dropping WP into densely populated areas during military ops.

As long as no one has evidence the IDF was deliberately trying to find crowded areas to use WP, or deliberately dropping heavy WP shells on the heads of individual Palestinians or groups of Palestinians, then no objective court of law would convict the IDF. They could ask the IDF if they were careful. IDF says yes, and maybe they provide evidence that they really were careful WRT white phosphorus. Case closed.

Realize that AI and HRW make these claims all the time and the evidence is so weak or non-existant that the cases never make it past preliminaries.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Of course. It didn't come from CAMERA.....

There's nothing illegal about dropping WP into densely populated areas during military ops.

And if you'd taken the time to read the ICRC link I'd posted, you'd know that's not true at all....

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 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.

------------

If you need me to go through this slowly with you, I'm more than happy to. If yr going to ignore it, then keep on believing what you want to believe...

As for this comment:

Realize that AI and HRW make these claims all the time and the evidence is so weak or non-existant that the cases never make it past preliminaries.

Yeah, I forgot. AI and HRW just make up shit when it comes to human rights violations against Palestinians carried out by Israel, but when it comes to them pointing out human rights violations by groups like Hamas against Israelis, then suddenly it's a whole different story! How silly of me not to have realised! btw, I don't think you understand how AI works, Shira. What preliminaries are you talking about??

[shira]

50. let's go through this slowly

1. Where in your C&P do you find that it's illegal for a military to drop WP into a densely populated area like Gaza - as if there is some rule stating in the W.Bank it is legal but in Gaza, since it's more densely populated, it's not legal to use WP? There is no law distinguishing b/w densely populated areas like Gaza from that of the W.Bank or more sparcely populated areas. Rules of war stipulate that WP not be used deliberately on civilians and that the risk to civilians, if it is used at all, should be minimized, or proportional to the military objective. That's it. As your C/P shows, there are so many factors that have to be taken into consideration, that unless there's obvious proof of malicious intent or totally reckless abandon, there's simply no way any objective court will find Israel guilty. So far the allegations are all smoke and mirrors.

2. AI and HRW have in the past been right in the middle of hoaxes like al-Dura, Jenin, Gaza beach, Qana, the UN school building, white flag incident, etc. All stories blown way out of proportion and proven later, after all the damage caused by the initial allegations, to be completely false. Frankly, with the kind of record they have in accusing Israel, I find it hard to believe anyone in the know takes any of their accusations with more than a grain of salt.

Preliminaries are what happens before things go to trial. Evidence is first considered to ascertain whether it's even worth the court's time to go through a trial, and if not it's just thrown out. Such has been the case with pretty much every single warcrime allegation against Israel. Nothing sticks because the 'evidence', like contradictory or demonstrably false eyewitness reports, rumors and hearsay, is about all the 'prima facia' evidence that exists.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Okay, tell me if I need to go even slower...

Where in your C&P do you find that it's illegal for a military to drop WP into a densely populated area like Gaza

You've got it all messed up straight from the start, Shira. I was correcting yr false claim 'There's nothing illegal about dropping WP into densely populated areas during military ops.' This is what the ICRC say about the legality of the use of white phosphorous: '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.

Do you comprehend what the ICRC is saying? They're definately not saying there's nothing illegal about using it densely populated areas during military operations. What they're saying is that while the weapons themselves aren't illegal, the use of them in densely populated areas can be, and it depends on whether the rules of international humanitarian law have been adhered to or not....

AI and HRW have in the past been right in the middle of hoaxes like al-Dura, Jenin, Gaza beach, Qana, the UN school building, white flag incident, etc.

Oh yeah, I forgot. That highly unbiased CAMERA has declared just about anything the IDF does wrong to be a hoax. What more proof does an objective soul in the know like you need? Seriously, Shira. Is there anything the IDF has done when it comes to the mistreatment and killing of Palestinians that you don't label a hoax?

Preliminaries are what happens before things go to trial. Evidence is first considered to ascertain whether it's even worth the court's time to go through a trial, and if not it's just thrown out.

Ah, so if AI or HRW bring something to light, no matter where it happens in the world, and a court doesn't prosecute wrongdoers, then it's rumor and hearsay and demonstrably false? Or does this rather bizarre attitude about how human rights organisations work only apply to Israel? As I said in my previous post, you seem to have no clue as to how an organisation like AI works or what it does. Here's some information you need to read and digest, and I don't see anything about preliminaries or court cases in there, do you? I've bolded the most important part.

'Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights to be respected and protected for everyone.
We believe human rights abuses anywhere are the concern of people everywhere.

So, outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world, we work to improve people’s lives through campaigning and international solidarity.

Our mission is to conduct research and generate action to prevent and end grave abuses of human rights and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated.

Our members and supporters exert influence on governments, political bodies, companies and intergovernmental groups.

Activists take up human rights issues by mobilizing public pressure through mass demonstrations, vigils and direct lobbying as well as online and offline campaigning.'

http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/about-amnesty-international

So, if as you claim what AI finds doesn't end up in court, it's just rumours and hearsay, then you must think most of what AI does around the world when it comes to human rights abuses in places like China, Iran, Sri Lanka, and even what it's reported of human rights violations carried out by Hamas, must be rumours and hearsay seeing as how they haven't gone through a court....

Another question to add to the one I would like you to answer up above (I've bolded both so you don't miss them as I would really appreciate you answering them). When it comes to evidence of human rights abuses, what in the way of credibility would be needed for you to not automatically dismiss them? And do you hold the same standard when it comes to *proof* when it comes to allegations of human rights abuses committed by other countries or groups, or is Israel's burden of proof somehow different?

[shira]

52. response

I agree that the law is that WP dropped on densely populated civilian areas can be warcrimes.

I just read in another thread that you have a copy of HRW's report, so if you don't mind sharing - maybe you can present here the strongest evidence you believe they have of illegal or improper WP usage, okay? Maybe HRW's 1-2 strongest proofs of wrongdoing? And let's at least agree before you post anything that if the 1-2 claims you find for HRW against the IDF consists of any half truths (devoid of context), unverifiable evidence, speculation or subjective claims, there's really no case, okay?

Do you agree with me that HRW went way beyond "screwing up" cases like al-Dura and Jenin? Simple yes/no type question.

As for Israel, I'm certain the IDF makes mistakes like any other military. They're not perfect and shouldn't be expected to be any more perfect than any other western military (whom they compare favorably with). That they believe they're the most moral army is their call, it's not anyone else's call to single them out and hold them to that standard or better. I don't believe they're uniquely worse than any other military and in fact, in most cases they are better than others in conflict. OTOH, the occupation is corrupt by its very nature so of course mistakes in policy and procedure have been and will continue to be made until it's over. I have no reason to believe that Israel and its people who represent the IDF don't mean well and feel they have few good choices (some less shitty than others) WRT the conflict. Claims of torture were proven true, as were allegations that the IDF used human shields (this answers your 1st question btw). Fortunately, the state is extremely self-critical (moreso than any other nation) and outlawed such practices.

As for AI and HRW and their work worldwide, I'm not aware of any other situation in which they have consistantly proven to be as hostile and dishonest in their activism as they are with Israel. If you have examples more egregious than al-Dura and Jenin, for example, I'm all ears.

And no, just because cases haven't been prosecuted elsewhere doesn't mean there is no case - but with so many demonstrably dishonest reports against Israel, there's very good reason to believe that HRW's claims were so outrageous and unsubstantiated that there was simply no reason for external investigations. A thorough investigation by the UN on Jenin, for example, was eventually called off when they realized HRW's claims were completely false.

When it comes to evidence of human rights abuses, what in the way of credibility would be needed for you to not automatically dismiss them?

I would certainly need more than innuendo, subjective claims, and unverifiable 'eyewitness' reports - and I would assume you would too if sensational claims were made against Hamas or in favor of Israel. At the very least, if eyewitness testimony and unverified news reports are utilized as evidence, this evidence would have to be balanced against counter-claims and conflicting eyewitness reports. For example, HRW claimed during the Lebanon 2006 war that they had no evidence of Hezbollah using human shields. But there were news articles and eyewitness testimony such as this:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404EFDA123FF93BA15754C0A9609C8B63

And far more impressive and irrefutable evidence like this that cannot be rationally disputed:

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/human_shields.htm

The NYT article is an example of the type of limited, and many times, unverifiable evidence HRW utilizes in their reports, but it's never balanced with opposing reports, nor is it framed within the proper context. For example, given the NYT testimony and the other evidence in the comprehensive report above, how can HRW claim with such certainty that the IDF indiscriminately or recklessly kills civilians? One report is based on eyewitness testimony; the other based on visual proof, testimony by Nasrallah and Hezbollah detainees, and captured Hezbollah documents. The answer is obvious. If they use this counter-evidence to their claims, their sensational accusations become worthless due to the knowledge that Hezbollah makes it nearly impossible for Israel to defend itself without harming civilians in the process. It's now been over 2 years and HRW still sticks to its guns stating they have no evidence Hezbollah used human shields - and now they claim the same of Hamas. That second comprehensive report is a great example of the kind of irrefutable and indisputable evidence needed by HRW to justify their 'criticism' of Israel. If HRW had the goods on Israel with a comprehensive report as fullproof as the one above, that would absolutely be credible enough for me and any other objective person.

And do you hold the same standard when it comes to *proof* when it comes to allegations of human rights abuses committed by other countries or groups, or is Israel's burden of proof somehow different?

Same standards for everyone.

It's a shame HRW holds Hamas and Hezbollah to no standards and ignores all evidence pointing to their numerous human rights violations against Palestinian or Lebanese civilians. This is obviously due to the fact that exposing widespread usage of Hamas/Hezbollah human shields paints the IDF's military operations in a much better light - making it impossible for HRW's accusations to be taken seriously by anyone objective. One has to wonder what HRW's primary objective is in defending Hamas and Hezbollah's victimization of their own citizens. If HRW someday succeeds and Israel is really punished, all they will have managed to do is give Hamas a freer hand to brutalize and terrorize their own population (and Israel's). This will ensure that Palestinians suffer under more misery like sharia law and further radicalization. Who would actually want this besides someone who absolutely loathes Palestinians and wants to ensure that Palestinian suffering is maximized?

Articles pointing to Hamas utilization of human shields in Gaza:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11393578/David-Harris-Cremonesi-HamaGaza-Article-210109
http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_Jan2009.htm#b290109

[Violet_Crumble]

53. I have two favours to ask...

First off, thanks for the civil discussion so far. While I strongly disagree with most of what you say, I appreciate that we're having a civil discussion about it...

Now for the two favours: The first is would it be alright if we continued this discussion in the thread on white phosphorus? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x267558 This thread's pretty big and it's a pain to scroll through it. It's okay if you don't want to, but the other thread's much less cluttered....

The other favour is if you could answer the question you must have missed seeing in my post. What I wanted to know was whether there has been anything the IDF has ever done that you think is wrong-doing on their part? If so, could you give me one or two examples?

[shira]

54. yes, let's move the discussion into that thread if you'd like

In my opinion, Israel's past policies WRT torture and human shields, for example, were wrong. The cluster bombs in Lebanon the last few days, Sabra/Shatilla, and not prosecuting some individual cases more vigorously are other examples. If you'd like, you could just ask me to simply respond with (yes/no) about other examples.

[Jefferson23]

38. You wanted to know why I thought Israel used WP, and now you

say, "there is also nothing immoral about choosing self-preservation over the life of a dangerous enemy combatant."

So you are ok with the use of WP for OCL? If so, very nice shira.

[LeftishBrit]

23. The poet John Davidson said it all, over 100 years ago.

www.theotherpages.org/poems/2001/davidson0102.html



"...Of old it was ordained
That we in packs like curs,
Some thirty million trained
And licensed murderers,
In crime should live and act
If cunning folk say sooth
Who flay the naked fact
And carve the heart of truth.

The rulers cry aloud,
'We cannot cancel war,
The end and bloody shroud
Of wrongs the worst abhor...

From fear in every guise,
From sloth, from lust of pelf,
By war's great sacrifice,
The world redeems itself...'

Some diplomat no doubt
Will launch a heedless word
And lurking war break out.

We spell-bound armies then,
Huge brutes in deep distress,
Machines compact of men
Who once had consciences,
Must trample harvests down -
Vineyards and corn and oil;
Dismantle town by town,
Hamlet and homestead spoil...

In vain - always in vain,
For war brings war again..."


I had always thought that this was about WW1, but just found out that Davidson died five years before that war began. At any rate, it describes the way that war ends up corrupting us all.

[bemildred]

27. Nice. nt

[bemildred]

37. Soldiers: Drunk IDF reservists vandalized Palestinian cars

Reservists marked their last night stationed in the southern Hebron Hills by damaging confiscated Palestinian vehicles, their replacements told Haaretz on Monday.

---

On their last night at the base, the reservists got drunk and vandalized some of the vehicles they had confiscated from Palestinian drivers, for transporting passengers who lacked permits to enter Israel, soldiers told Haaretz. Some soldiers broke windshields, ripped out mirrors and electronic equipment, and beat the cars with their weapons, the sources said. None of the soldiers present tried to stop the vandalism.

The Israel Defense Forces Spokesman's office said, "The force in question completed its operational engagement on Wednesday in a professional manner. The complaints were forwarded to the commanders. Once checks are complete, further steps will be decided upon."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073466.html

[grassfed]

39. IDF IN GAZA: MURDER IN COLD BLOOD

Khaled Abed Drabo was trapped inside his house several days into the Israeli ground offensive. Artillery shells hammered his neighborhood east of the Jabaliya refugee camp. Three tanks parked outside his front door, and loudspeakers announced that civilians should leave the area.

Khaled says that’s when his wife, mother and three daughters stepped outside the front door waving white flags. They stood on the front steps for five minutes waiting for instructions from the Israeli soldiers only 10 yards away. But instead, Khaled says, a soldier appeared on one of the tank turrets, raised his rifle and began shooting. All three of the girls fell.
Khaled’s mother was shot in the upper left arm and abdomen. Recovering at her brother’s house, she tells the same story. ”The soldier shot us slowly aiming at each one.” The women fled back into the house dragging the bleeding little girls. Suad, 7 years old, died immediately from bullets to her chest. 2 year old Amal survied a few moments longer. ”She was asking her mother for candy and chips. Then her mother asked her: ‘Do you love me.’ She said: ‘Yes.’ Then she died.

The third daughter, Samar, aged 4, was bleeding from a wound to her lower back. The family waited frantically inside the house for two more hours hoping for an ambulance to come during a 3 hour “humanitarian pause” in the fighting. No one came. And Khaled decided to carry his wounded mother and daughter a mile to a hospital.
Khaled called out for help but no one came to his aid. The Israeli soldiers, he says, were eating potato chips and chocolates as they walked by. When they reached the hospital, his daughter Samar was transferred to the Egyptian border and is now in Europe getting medical treatment. Contacted in Brussels, her uncle says she may never walk again.

more with audio
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/01/21/idf-in-gaza-murder-in-cold-blood/

[shira]

55. IDF soldiers speak out

http://www.soldiersspeakout.com/