Comments on: Blinding the Children: Israel and White Phosphorus in Gaza

By: Scott MacEachern

Scott MacEachern — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:19:46 +0000

This sounds like the ’shake and bake’ tactics used by US forces in Fallujah – where WP was used to drive insurgent forces out from under cover, where they could be destroyed.

This use of WP as an anti-personnel weapon was widely condemned – see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm

By: Alex Stein

Alex Stein — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:22:39 +0000

We’re going round in circles, Richard, and davka at the point when I was about to thank you for your last post. Of course I am disturbed by the notion that any Israeli soldier would fire phosphorous shells at civilians, and I hope that whoever gave that order will be punished accordingly. Unfortunately, we both know that’s unlikely to be the case.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:59:23 +0000

It doesn’t seem like they’re talking about its use as a smokescreen.

What other use does it have unless you’re using it as an actual weapon to attempt to burn people on the ground in which case it certainly contravenes international law?

Read my most recent post for respected international human rights groups which have not only condemned Israel’s use of the weapon, but called it a likely war crime. Do you think they would do this for sport? Do you think these experts on the subject wouldn’t feel they had the consensus of international jurisprudence on their side in making these judgments.

Don’t you dare charge me with refusing to provide you with evidence. The evidence is there in my archives open for anyone to peruse including you. If you’re too lazy to do so after accusing me of making “excuses” for not providing you with spoon fed information, then it’s your own “look out.” What I have “refused” to do is your homework for you.

I’m glad I entertain you. Nice to know that amidst discussions of Israeli brutality & war crimes you feel entertained by it all. What I find truly disgusting is how you see this as a jousting match between wits on both sides of the conflict. Man, can’t you show any real human emotion ever? Doesn’t it disturb you one bit that Israel burned a boy’s eyes out with the hellish brimstone? Or that it killed Mrs. Abu Halima’s husband & 4 daughters causing one of them to “dissolve before her eyes” as she says in the NY Times story? You are all mind & no heart.

By: Alex Stein

Alex Stein — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:50:53 +0000

“Alkalai’s probe is thus focusing on the second type: phosphorus shells, either 81mm or 120mm, that are fired from mortar guns. About 200 such shells were fired during the recent fighting, and of these, according to the probe’s initial findings, almost 180 were fired at orchards in which gunmen and rocket-launching crews were taking cover.”

It doesn’t seem like they’re talking about its use as a smokescreen.

Again, fascinating how you refuse to provide evidence of your own claims when you routinely demand it of others. Your constant shifting of standards is hugely entertaining, particularly amidst the rage.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:31:42 +0000

I don’t like your snarky tone. I don’t need to provide “excuses” to you or anyone else for anything. I don’t owe you anything. Period. The research & links as I’ve told you in is in posts I wrote during the Lebanon war. If you hadn’t behaved like such a twit I might’ve done the research for you & gone back to find those links. Now, you’ll have to do it yrself. I’ve got more important things to do than to delve back into my archives to answer yr quibbles, quarrels and nitpicking.

My original post made no distinction between using it as a smokescreen or any other use. No matter what purpose its used for in urban areas it is illegal. You will maim civilians in urban areas whether you use it for a smokescreen or any other purpose. Hence it’s illegality. The use the IDF is investigating would certainly have been for a smokescreen. That’s the only use the IDF made of it that I’m aware of in Gaza.

The only ambiguity is in yr own mind & possibly that of the IDF, though they seem to be clearer about it than you.

By: Alex Stein

Alex Stein — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:39:20 +0000

Richard – we all agree that it can’t be used as a weapon in densely population urban areas. Hence the IDF investigation. Your original post dealt with its use as a smokescreen. Also, I like your comment that as the IDF is holding an investigation (the same IDF you routinely accuse of lying) there’s no need to quote scholars. If you remember, your original excuse was that you were too busy blogging the conflict. With the last Israeli soldier having left Gazan territory, perhaps you’ll find the time. In case you’re unclear: I’m interested in whether or not white phosphorous can be used as a smokescreen in densely populated urban areas. Again, I’m open to whatever you find – I’m just interested to clear up the ambiguity, if indeed that is possible.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:09:11 +0000

No need to quote scholars when the IDF itself accepts the claim that phosphorus should not be used in densely populated urban areas as it is investigating an artillery unit which allegedly fired at least 20 shells in such conditions.

By: Alex Stein

Alex Stein — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 05:55:24 +0000

Richard – before you ask others to prove their claims, shouldn’t you provide reference to these scholars?