Not to be outdone by the brutality of the U.S. Marines who used white phosphorus in Fallujah to burn out insurgents who resisted their assault on the city, Israel has decided to jump on the band wagon of nations that use virtually any weapon (excluding possibly nuclear weapons–for now) that will guarantee them an effective kill.
Evidence already points to the IDF’s use of DIME tungsten munitions which cause dismemberment and savage burns which penetrate to the internal organs. It is so experimental that no international law has ever yet considered the question of whether it should be outlawed (which it certainly should).
Now, an Israeli minister admits that the IDF used white phosphorus (WP) against Hezbollah in Lebanon:
Israel has acknowledged for the first time that it attacked Hezbollah targets during the second Lebanon war with phosphorus shells. White phosphorus causes very painful and often lethal chemical burns…and until recently Israel maintained that it only uses such bombs to mark targets or territory.
The announcement that the Israel Defense Forces had used phosphorus bombs in the war in Lebanon was made by Minister Jacob Edery, in charge of government-Knesset relations. He had been queried on the matter by MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz-Yahad).
“The IDF made use of phosphorous shells during the war against Hezbollah in attacks against military targets in open ground,” Edery said.
Here’s what Danny Mayer wrote about WP in Zmag:
During the battle of Fallujah in November 2004, the United States used white phosphorus in “shake and bake” missions to flush out insurgent positions. Such use potentially violates the Geneva Convention on Biological and Chemical Weapons of 1980 banning the use of incendiary weapons in civilian areas.
Let’s compare that to the minister’s defense of the use of white phosphorus:
Edery also pointed out that international law does not forbid the use of phosphorus and that “the IDF used this type of munitions according to the rules of international law.”
This statement, depending on the exact circumstances under which the IDF used the weapon, could be a lie, but it is certainly disingenuous. The key phrase in his statement is “open ground.” He’s trying to distinguish between the use of WP in civilian areas and its use away from such areas. The former is patently illegal under the Geneva Conventions. The latter may not be.
So should we believe Edery’s claim that Israel did not use the weapons near civilians?
Edery did not specify where and against what types of targets phosphorus munitions were used. During the war several foreign media outlets reported that Lebanese civilians carried injuries characteristic of attacks with phosphorus, a substance that burns when it comes [in]to contact with air. In one CNN report, a casualty with serious burns was seen lying in a South Lebanon hospital.
In another case, Dr. Hussein Hamud al-Shel, who works at Dar al-Amal hospital in Ba’albek, said that he had received three corpses “entirely shriveled with black-green skin,” a phenomenon characteristic of phosphorus injuries.
When an Israeli government spokesperson makes a claim such as the one Edery made, I automatically suspect it unless he provides authentication or proof. Given that there is evidence to the contrary, I find Edery’s statement to be untrustworthy.
In addition, Israel and the ultra-Israel crowd made a hue and cry about Hezbollah hiding and fighting in civilian areas and using civilians as human shields. If that is so, then how did the IDF find Hezbollah fighters who were fighting in “open ground?” Isn’t it a coincidence that when it’s convenient for Israel to claim Hezbollah fought amid civilians you make that claim; but when it’s convenient for you to claim that it fought in “open ground” then, voila, you make the opposite claim.
Haaretz claims that Edery’s characterization of white phosphorus as permitted under international law is flat out wrong:
During recent decades the tendency has been to ban the use of phosphorus munitions against any target, civilian or military, because of the severity of the injuries that the substance causes.
Some experts believe that phosphorus munitions should be termed Chemical Weapons (CW) because of the way the weapons burn and attack the respiratory system. As a CW, phosphorus would become a clearly illegal weapon.
The International Red Cross is of the opinion that there should be a complete ban on phosphorus being used against human beings and the third protocol of the Geneva Convention on Conventional Weapons restricts the use of “incendiary weapons,” with phosphorus considered to be one such weapon.
Israel and the United States are not signatories to the Third Protocol.
It appears that Haaretz might’ve been a bit sloppy in this passage as I’ve gone back and read Protocol III. One of the salient passages is this:
It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
While Zmag’s characterization of the protocol appears more accurate, it is also clear that it places the onus on the user of WP to ensure to a high degree that it has done everything possible to guarantee that civilians are unlikely to be injured. Anyone who follows the IDF’s targeting policies realizes that it pays lip service, if that, to respecting civilian targets. So the idea that the IDF really gave a shit about Lebanese civilians when it dropped those WP bombs is highly improbable. Just look at how the IDF treated the entire Lebanese civilian population during the war. It made absolutely no distinction between civilians and militants in its bombing campaign. Why should it make a distinction regarding white phosphorus?
There is also a corollary discussion about whether WP should be banned outright under a separate section of the Geneva Conventions:
There is a…debate on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are “dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare” (Article II, Definitions, 9, “Purposes not Prohibited” c.). The convention defines a “toxic chemical” as a chemical “which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals”.(CWC, II)
Since the issue has not yet formally been adjudicated under international law, WP has not yet formally been banned under CWC. Let us hope that it will be sooner rather than later.
And lest anyone minimize the severity of white phosphorus as a weapon, just consider this statement in which ZMag quotes:
A U.S. serviceperson, at the height of the Vietnam War, remarked, “We sure are pleased with those backroom boys at Dow. The original product wasn’t so hot—if the gooks were quick they could scrape it off. So the boys started adding polystyrene—now it sticks like shit to a blanket. But then if the gooks jumped under water it stopped burning, so they started adding Willy Peter so’s to make it burn better. It’ll even burn under water now. And one drop is enough; it’ll keep on burning right down to the bone so they die anyway from phosphorus poisoning.”
Our Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea would be proud to know that their latter day nation was upholding the rigorous standards of ethics and morality which they bestowed to us in their sacred books.
Well Richard, thank you for being horrified. It seems that most of the rest of the planet just shrugs the shoulders.
In 1982 when Thomas Friedman reported from Beirut that Israel had dropped cluster bombs, the NY Times editors CENSORED his report because it was too scandalous. At that time, the idea that Israel would use cluster bombs was so horrible that it couldn’t be printed in the paper. Cluster bombs were illegal BTW, the US had sold them to Israel with the promise they wouldn’t use them. Or something. Anyway, Friedman fought and eventually the story came out. But everybody squealed. How terrible, to accuse Israel of dropping cluster bombs on civilians!
Now of course with this new war…
Forgive me, I feel very bitter. But your valiant posts remind me of the humanity that still lives in so many people’s hearts. Thank you.
Leila: Unfortunately, events have caused us to lose our innocence when it comes to horrors like this. In 1982, we still believed that military forces wouldn’t consider using such horrific weapons on civilians. We still believed then that there were limits beyond which nations and armies would not go. Now, we know there are almost no such limits. It seems only a matter of time before some insane national leader will think little of dropping an atomic weapon on his enemy. That may be the last taboo. But I’m sorry to say that like all other previous ones, this taboo will be broken. I hope not in my lifetime, but I fear it will. And what people do not sufficiently credit is that it is as likely as not someplace like the Mideast where this fool will drop the big one. That’s why it’s so imperative that we make peace there.
I know in talking to you, Leila, I know I’m preaching to the choir. But in case someone reading this hasn’t thought of this–then maybe it will provoke some thought in others who haven’t yet come to our understanding of the issues.
please! you condemn the use of cluster bombs, WP, and DU but I dont hear you condemning the use of suicide bombs filled with shrapnel! going into packed malls and blowing civilians up? blowing up pizzerias? killng a young woman on the eve of her wedding?? thats ok by your standards?> thats playing fair is it?? war is dirty and Israel should do whatever it takes to keep our land and people safe. Gd bless Eretz Israel and the IDF and its use of whatever it needs to keep us safe!
It always annoys me when morons like this one claim I don’t believe something merely because in their laziness & ignorance they don’t bother to do any research before spouting off as good ‘ol Osh has done here. I am opposed to all forms of violence against civilians on both sides including suicide bombs. If you’d spent 20 seconds doing a Google search of my site you could’ve discovered that.
Spoken like the Good German you would’ve been if you’d lived during the Hitler era. You may’ve forgotten there are other Jewish values than merely preserving Jewish life. Did you forget that Judaism also accords value to non-Jewish lives as well? Even Arab lives God forbid!
Other jewish values?? right now the ones Israel is concerned with is keeping its borders secure and its people safe!!! instead of spouting off negative crap in public about Israel, reassess your damn loyalties to the country that is ours to defend no matter what!!!!!! learn some respect for your nation and stop “bad mouthing” them in public. you want to talk about jewish values? dont talk bad. give charity. repsect your father and mother. arab lives ar enot at the top of our agenda when they are out for Jewish blood. and next time when you write some more junk, make sure to include both opinions if you want it to be clear!!!
a good piece of writing is one in which it is transparent as to your views as a whole, so if someone like me does read just one of your articles it is clear as to what your opinions are!!!
and ps had you done your research better you’d know that tikun olam means fixing the world! you dont seem to be doing much fixing round here with your vitriol!!!!
No, that is a perversion of Jewish values. Survival is not an end in itself. Survival for what purpose? Merely to survive? No. Survival to stand for something–for a value, for respecting human life (Jewish & non-Jewish). Life w/o values is not a Jewish life.
Ooooh, criticizing Israel “in public” is mui mui malo, isn’t it?
Careful about all those exclamation points (!!!!!), you might get a stroke just typing them.
I respect my nation by suggesting the best way for it to live in peace. It is you who cultivate the death wish–the path that leads to death of more of the Jews you claim to care for so much.
They’re not at the top of my agenda either. But they’re a helluva lot higher on my agenda than yours. In fact, they’re not on yr agenda at all. What’s on yr agenda is more death & destruction for Arabs AND Jews.
I do, but you’re too lazy & ignorant to be bothered to try to find precisely what you claim isn’t there (sympathy for Israeli Jewish victims).
Your level of analysis & reading comprehension is about that of my 7 yr old son. You understand my views like a rock understands the laws of the universe.