Jump to content

Gaza Strip


Recommended Posts

Just wondering, what would world sentiment be like if Israel didn't bother with the heavy equipment (air/arty) and made it a purely infantry/armor war? There would be more casualties for the Israelis and less innocent death, correct?

Yes, probably, but what military commander in his right minds, in any army in the world, would limit himself that way?

The problem is not with the execution, the problem is with the futility of the operation and that any operation in such a dense place is bound to cause lots of civilian deaths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's the question - would limiting the war to small arms/infantry action considerably change the number of civilian deaths?

Why would a military commander limit himself that way? Strategic reasons, not tactical.

A big part of that decision depends on the general military philosophy. One school of though is more police like. You shoot one of ours and we will attempt a surgical strike to get those specifically responsible. The other mindset is that by responding with overwhelming force to even the smallest incident you can overawe your opponent and make them reluctant to act. Both have their good and bad points.

One thing that terror organizations have learned is that even the most militaristic of Western type powers have nearly zero ability to sustain losses. States and NGOs without the Western regard, in many cases fanatical regard, for casualties know that they have the upper hand in any long term action as long as they can survive the initial hammer blows. It is only the West that is at all concerned about the loss of civilian lives in Gaza. For Hamas the civilian population is simply a goldmine of recruits and press releases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

States and NGOs without the Western regard, in many cases fanatical regard, for casualties know that they have the upper hand in any long term action as long as they can survive the initial hammer blows. It is only the West that is at all concerned about the loss of civilian lives in Gaza. For Hamas the civilian population is simply a goldmine of recruits and press releases.

SgtMuhammed

I agree with your analysis 100%. It is also interesting to contrast with the Western/Israeli responses how some of the Arab powers in the area have dealt with similar attacks against their regimes by irregular forces, and to also consider how successful those responses have been in achieving the prevention of further attacks against their regimes.

An insurgency by Islamic groups, particularly the Muslim brotherhood, culminated in an uprising against the Assad regime in Syria in 1982 in Syria's 5th largest city - Hama.

Syrian army forces led by the current President Assad's uncle (Rifaat al-Assad) quelled the revolt by brute force, and nothing of a similar nature has occurred in Syria in the past 27 years - which from the Baath regime's perspective would seem to be a success.

Prior to the Syrian military attack on the city (Hama) it was subject to an intense shelling which destroyed much of the city. The military action is estimated to have killed 20,000 people (it is reported that a significant portion of whom were women and childern). Some accounts of the incident cite a figure of 40,000 deaths. It is worth contrasting this with the current level of casualties in Gaza.

The Syrian response in relation to Hama was clearly a shameful incident, from a human rights perspective. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, it did not generate anywhere near the level of condemnation or hostility from the usual suspects in either the West or the Arab world (or even the UN at the time).

The Hama incident in 1982 does serve as an interesting (and I might add personally undesirable) example of how middle eastern regimes can control attacks and uprisings by finatical fundamentalist groups if they put the "Western Approach" to one side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yair,

I think the better example of what Adam is hinting at is smarter use of small unit assets instead of taking out the sledgehammer to hit at a couple of flies. For example, Israel could have taken out the tunnels along the border with Egypt in many ways that would have involved very few civilian casualties. In fact, with aid from the US it might have been possible to get the Egyptians to blow up their end of the tunnels and thereby avoid ALL civilian casualties. Not only would this have precluded the need for an overkill military operation, but it would have also have meant the draconian economic embargo would either not have been necessary or would have been far more effective (from a weapons control standpoint).

So I agree with you, no military commander in his right mind would conduct a full scale military action without using every tool in his toolbox to project power with the least risk to his own forces. Therefore, the sensible thing is to not rely on such military maneuvers because you get backed into a corner before you've even started. Likewise, the prosecution of policies that are likely to result in military conflict (such as the economic embargo of Gaza) should be avoided since it predetermines future course of action and, by definition, reduces the total number of options available.

markh,

Yes, the massive slaughter around the operations in Syria you spoke of are an example of a temporary way to clamp down on regionalized areas of unrest. Saddam's ops against the Kurds is another such example. Dead people can't cause problems in the short term. However, long term history generally shows us that it doesn't work. The Turks, for example, have not been able to suppress the Kurds and the Armenians have still not forgotten the genocide (which in turn is still a domestic and international PR and policy problem for the Turkish state).

For a variety of reasons both governments and their people want to believe that quick fixes to long standing problems are possible. Because military action has the illusion of being an effective quick fix, it's far too often the tool of choice. The problem is that military action outside the context of a larger plan for peace apparently never works. Even for Syria since they still have problems with the Muslim Brotherhood, which in turn requires policing resources, continued Human Rights violations, and black marks internationally.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw the reports on the Israeli "white phosphorous" shelling of the main UN compound in Gaza, resulting in all their food and medicine supplies being burnt. It was hit once, the occupants rang the Israelis to inform them and were told it was an accident, and then they were hit again whilst still in conversation with the Israelis. Later, the Israeli PM changed the story, saying it wasn't an accident but return fire against militants firing on Israeli positions from within or near the compound.

It seems to me that this cannot have been an accident and that the Israelis are lying to the world. I just don't buy that this could be either a) an accident, or B) return fire on militants. As one of our own forum colleagues has described the UN in Gaza as "collaborators", I can only assume that the same sentiment is shared by the IDF and Israeli government.

At least two UK journalists, Mary Nightingale and John Snow, looked to be "losing it" when asking for an explanation of this event from Israeli officials. I can only imagine that they let their professionalism slip because they knew damn well that their Israeli interviewees were lying to their faces but they had to stomach it and not be seen to accuse them of lying directly.

It seems clear to me now that the goals of Israel in Gaza over the past few weeks have been:

1. To cause maximum damage to the HAMAS infastructure and leadership, regardless of the cost to the civilian population.

2. To teach the civilian population a lesson that they should never elect a militant organisation like HAMAS ever again.

3. To punish the UN for its so-called "collaboration" with HAMAS, and to wreck its ability to relieve the suffering of the Palestinian people of Gaza, which is contrary to Israel's other aim of teaching the civilians a lesson.

4. To do all this before Obama is sworn in and before the Israeli elections in an utterly cynical move to avoid US official condemnation and to gain votes.

Until this Gaza offensive I would have considered myself a supporter of Israel in general and an admirer of the IDF to a degree also, although at the back of my mind I did feel a bit uneasy about the IDF from reports I'd heard in the past of them shooting journalists and the like. Now I am pretty much directly opposed to Israel - and quite frankly if there was some sort of spectacular terrorist attack on Israel I'd probably feel like they had it coming. I'm really ashamed to say that because Israeli civilians are civilians too - but it's hard not to feel like that when you hear that 78% of Israelis support this action and are happily standing by watching Gaza burn, with 300+ Palestinian children dead already and close to a thousand horribly injured, including some shot at close range and others scarred by white phosphorous.

Good result Israel!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IDF initially lied about using WP, which was idiotic because we had already had a discussion here on this Forum positively identifying some footage of WP in use. How stupid was that? I mean, usually it's not smart to lie on TV unless you either have a chance of getting away with it or you're speaking on behalf of a government that doesn't give a crap what foreign people think (like Iraq's Minister of Disinformation).

I also agree it is unlikely that the UN warehouse was hit by mistake. The 2006 incident Sergei mentioned (and I mentioned a few pages ago) clearly was deliberate, so there is precedent. Even gross incompetence or error couldn't explain the direct hit of a UN observation post out in the open, established for years, and in constant contact with the IDF.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2006 Israel bombed a UN observation post, killing 4, despite that the post was marked on their maps. "Accident", yeah.

And it ain't first time. They have shelled other posts back in 90s, one base was rather large and i believe it drove them several times per day to shelters. Each time they informed to IDF that they were UN peacekeepers and IDF is firing at them.

Also tanks firing and sniper fire at UN compounds around 70s and 80s, told by General Gustav Hägglund who served around that area quite much during 70s-90s. I don't know ho many actually died or got wounded because of IDF's fire, but harashment seemed rather regular, from Israel side mostly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IDF initially lied about using WP, which was idiotic because we had already had a discussion here on this Forum positively identifying some footage of WP in use. How stupid was that? I mean, usually it's not smart to lie on TV unless you either have a chance of getting away with it or you're speaking on behalf of a government that doesn't give a crap what foreign people think (like Iraq's Minister of Disinformation).

I also agree it is unlikely that the UN warehouse was hit by mistake.

Well, the attack was not by mistake according to IDF, but a response to an ATGM attack from the area (thus the smoke mission). The resulting effects on the UN compound were claimed as a mistake. They could have used HE or a JDAM, I suppose, so perhaps they felt they were acting with restraint.

Re: WP, I think the confusion is between its use and its use for illegal purposes. Also not sure the IDF lied about its use. I saw an Israeli politician make the statement that it wasn't being used at all.

The M825A1 White Phosphorus shell deploys 116 WP impregnated felt wedges that provide screening for about 5-10 minutes over a 125-250 meter area that obscures enemy vision or screens maneuvering elements. It deploys about 12.75 lbs of White Phosphorus impregnated felt wedges, and weighs about 102 lbs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I’m going to go ahead and, against my better judgment, dip my toes into this thread. I hate to get into any sort of heavy debates with Steve though because he makes such fantabulous games! Ironically enough, a few years ago we were on opposite sides on similar debates although I was advocating the “Arab” viewpoint and he the “Israeli”. I suspect Steve’s motivation in this case is from a strictly technical standpoint as opposed to an emotive one or just an exercise in debating. I’m going to approach this from that angle.

So Steve (and others), I just want to begin by saying that as far as the facts available in this thread and in the general media go I can’t fault your analysis of the situation. I believe that you are technically correct in your assertions for the most part if the assumptions they are based upon are accurate. Therefore I’m not going to challenge your debating points individually but rather I’m going to make an effort to shift the perspectives of those who are participating in this thread in an effort to show that the basic assumptions held by many in this thread are suspect. In other words, I’m going to attempt a ‘shift of worldview’. That will also make this a very long post, so here is your fair warning.

Let’s just start off with the question of “How many missiles fired per day from Mexico into America would be an acceptable number?” If all of us who were typing away so amicably on our computers at home were subjected to even one rocket landing nearby our home we would think that was quite enough. If we had rockets landing daily for years I should think that at some point we would get fed up with it. It’s not really a question of casualty statistics per rocket fired as put forward in this thread but rather how it would affect your lifestyle. If you wanted to move would you be able to sell your home? Will you make it home from work today? When you get home from work will your home still be there? I think the case for Israeli action against Hamas in Gaza is pretty clear.

However, many who might agree that Israel has a right to stop the rocket attacks can’t support Israeli action due to a proportionality argument. In other words the Israeli response is disproportionate to the actions of Hamas and their incessant rocket firing. I’m not going to debate that point because everyone’s sense of proportionality is going to be different and as a debating point it will go nowhere. For one person even one Palestinian killed by the Israelis would be too much, for others thousands of Palestinians killed would be irrelevant. Everyone reading this thread will lay somewhere along that spectrum. The casualty figures themselves though is our first base assumption which I would like to shift. Here is an interesting article about the casualty figures as reported up to now http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODY1NjNiMmQyMThlN2ZhZDhjYmYwYWM4M2ZlOTk4MDE= . Full disclosure – the NRO is a conservative website, although truth be told the democratic party has historically been stronger supporters of Israel than the Republican party and “the Jewish vote” almost always goes overwhelmingly in the dems favor. From the article

Palestinian Death Toll Tops 900: Gaza Official,” blared an AP headline on Monday morning. Over at CNN, the headline was “Gaza death toll since airstrikes began is above 500, Palestinian sources say.”

Once again, a high and asymmetric death toll will be invoked to justify a premature end to Israel’s campaign to wipe out arms-smuggling tunnels and otherwise weaken Hamas’s infrastructure. But can we believe the numbers? Who are the sources of these figures? The AP, for instance, continually quotes unspecified “medical officials.” Sometimes reporters offer up hospital administrators in Gazan hospitals, sometimes people like “Bassem Naeem . . . health minister . . . in Gaza,” who “told reporters that 42 percent of those killed were women and children.”

Okay, so in that article she mentions the Israeli attack on Jenin. I’m really surprised that the Israeli supporters haven’t already mentioned it but here are some press clippings from the time:

From the BBC you get this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1937048.stm

Prof Derrick Pounder, who is part of an Amnesty International team granted access to Jenin, said he has seen bodies lying in the streets and received eyewitness accounts of civilian deaths.

Snip

He said: "The truth will come out, as it has come out in Bosnia and Kosovo, as it has in other places where we've had these kinds of allegations.

"I must say that the evidence before us at the moment doesn't lead us to believe that the allegations are anything other than truthful and that therefore there are large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see."

Snip

He said: "We know there are families who were there and killed and buried.

"We were on the ruins yesterday and two elderly men came forward, each of them pointed to where their houses had been and one of them told us that 10 members of his family were buried under the rubble."

From this unbiased eyewitness account you get this: http://www.peacecouncil.net/pnl/03/718/718EyewitnessJenin.htm

From the eyewitness accounts that leaked out of the camp during the days of intense fighting it seemed that hundreds, if not thousands, of people were dying in the camp. There were reports of heavy sniper fire at anything that moved, of missile attacks from the air, of houses being bulldozed over while their occupants screamed inside, of injured people moaning and screaming, left to die because ambulances were not allowed through. There were stories of men being bound, blind-folded, lined up, and shot point blank in the head; there were reports of food and water shortages and children having to drink from open sewers; there were accounts of Israeli solders going house to house, arresting and killing. And then, after the fighting was over, there were the stories of truck loads of bodies being driven out of the camp and hidden; of prisoners released miles from their homes, sometimes stripped naked, unable to make it back through the Israeli checkpoints to reunite with their families; and of the stench of death being so strong in Jenin that those working on rescue and recovery had to wear face masks.

Here is another wonderful account of atrocities

http://www.cactus48.com/jeninbook.html

The courageous reporters who combed the streets of Jenin, interviewed medical personnel, resistance fighters, and even children, including an 8 year old girl named Rund, who complained that the army broke her only doll. Rund's father was later shot and killed by the army. They also interviewed an elderly widow who explained how she implored Israeli forces as they demolished her small home, burying her disabled son alive under the rubble. Her son's body was never recovered.

Israeli dirt bags even broke that little girl’s doll!! That’s just lower than low! Here is a whole series of news articles you can check out http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/index-d.html . I won’t quote them all but here is a choice quote from the first link on that page

The Refugee Camp of Jenin goes down into history with Sabra and Chatilla, Qana, and Deir Yassin...to name just the better-known of the horrendous massacres the Israelis have perpetrated in the past in order to suppress and conquer the Palestinian people. Whether a day of reckoning will eventually come, complete with trials and reparations and truth and reconciliation commissions is one of the big unknowns for the future. What is known at this juncture in history is that what the Israelis have now done in still further expanding their military occupation with such terrible bloodshed and destruction has inflamed not only the next generation of Palestinians, but a considerable part of the Arab and Muslim worlds, as well as many others especially in Europe and around the globe.

A few more links for your viewing pleasure http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/66233_jenin12.shtml

http://www.albalagh.net/current_affairs/devastation_jenin.shtml

http://www.damascus-online.com/pal/jenin/oracle_at_jenin.htm

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. So what actually happened in Jenin? This is from Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html

A Time investigation concludes that there was no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers. But the 12 days of fighting took a severe toll on the camp. According to the U.N., 54 Palestinians are confirmed dead. An additional 49 are missing; it is unclear how many of them perished in the fighting and how many either fled or were captured by Israeli troops. In the final count, there may well be fewer dead in Jenin than the 78 killed in Nablus Casbah in a battle that took place at the same time. But it is Jenin that has attracted worldwide attention because of the widespread destruction of property and because some of those who died during the fighting were mere spectators.

Human Rights Watch, which in a published report last week also concluded that no massacre took place, nonetheless documented 22 civilian deaths and said the Israelis used excessive and indiscriminate force during the operation. Time found that as Israeli soldiers moved from house to house, they sometimes compelled Palestinian civilians to take the dangerous job of leading the approach to the buildings. On the other hand, a senior Palestinian military officer has admitted to Time that some of those who died were killed by rubble from the exploding booby traps with which Palestinian fighters had honeycombed the camp.

Wow, that’s some kind of a massacre isn’t it? Don’t like Time Magazine? Here are some more links for extra credit

http://www.adl.org/Israel/jenin/

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/operation_defensive_shield_and_the_myth_of_the_jenin_massacre

If you think they just try that kind of stuff with Israelis, I would submit to our readers that the US has faced similar accusations

http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/fallujah_massacre.html

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-8-2004-61311.asp

In other words – casualty reporting is a strategic component of Arab middle eastern warfare and I would submit that anyone who views the casualty figures that have been reported for Gaza uncritically is just being foolish. I would say to those in this thread that whatever casualty figures have been tossed around are completely unreliable and should be tossed out of any consideration of either the facts or any argument about proportionality. There is no doubt that Palestinians are being killed though. However, we don’t know how many have been killed, nor do we know by whom they have been killed.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/985grouf.asp

Similarly, when Hamas began killing fellow Palestinians in what can only be viewed as war crimes (shooting injured combatants and killing prisoners point blank), there were no demonstrations. Yet, when Israel responds to Hamas aggression using great care to follow the international laws of war--avoiding civilian casualties at all costs--the international community is frothing. Demonstrators are pouring into the streets of Western capitals. The condemnation of Israel is unanimous.

Here is a summary of several news stories on Gaza

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001002.html

HAMAS KILLS, KNEE-CAPS ITS POLITICAL OPPONENTS

Several papers, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, have reported that among the “civilian dead” in Gaza in recent days are Fatah supporters executed by Hamas in hospitals, schools and other locations. (Unsurprisingly anti-Israel media in Britain, France and elsewhere have misled readers and viewers to believe they are part of a death toll Israel is responsible for.)

How about that UN organization that is faithfully reporting the truth in Gaza for the world? From this article from back in May of 2008 http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/19/defund-unrwa/

A few days ago an Israeli air strike killed a member of a Palestinian missile team that had been firing rockets from Gaza. Now the United Nations has come out with an unusual statement of bewilderment and utter shock as the truth has come out. The dead man, Awad al-Qiq, was a U.N. employee and headmaster of a top prep school in Gaza. He was also the chief rocket-maker for Islamic Jihad.

Mr. Al-Qiq — not surprisingly, a science teacher — worked for one of the schools run by the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Now that he is out of the rocket business, the employment of such a "respectable" individual by the sole U.N. agency devoted to Palestinian refugees deserves an explanation.

Snip

It was under the leadership of former UNRWA Commissioner Peter Hansen that the organization's complicity with terror was openly exposed. In a statement to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Hansen admitted: "I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll " and I don't see that as a crime."

Here is a more recent article about the UNRWA http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2009/01/07/gaza-hamas-unrwa-oped-cx_cr_0108rosett.html

These days, UNRWA officially runs periodic reviews that are supposed to winnow out terror connections. But donors must by and large rely on UNRWA's word that this is a serious process.

The history of terror out of Gaza in recent years suggests that, at best, a lot falls between the cracks. In response to e-mailed queries this week, a UNRWA spokesman said the agency now runs periodic name checks for relief recipients against a UN watch list named for counter-terrorism resolution number 1267 and has found no matches.

That's no big surprise; the 1267 watch list is for major players among al-Qaeda and the Taliban, not Iranian-backed Hamas.

Newsflash: for all practical purposes the UN in Gaza is Hamas. Finally, who are all these ‘Palestinians’ anyway? Extra credit reading for you all

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_right_of_return_and_the_fo.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/the_arab_right_of_return_to_is.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick point about WP... the IDF's first statement was that they were not using WP at all, then they changed their story to "we're using it within the letter of the law". While it might be true, it's also true that WP is an incendiary. Hence the controversy of using this weapon over densely packed civilian areas despite the legal gray area.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ASL Veteran,

Okay I’m going to go ahead and, against my better judgment, dip my toes into this thread. I hate to get into any sort of heavy debates with Steve though because he makes such fantabulous games! Ironically enough, a few years ago we were on opposite sides on similar debates although I was advocating the “Arab” viewpoint and he the “Israeli”. I suspect Steve’s motivation in this case is from a strictly technical standpoint as opposed to an emotive one or just an exercise in debating. I’m going to approach this from that angle.

Correct, I am not arguing from an emotional standpoint. My point of view is simply a practical one. I don't see what good can possibly come out of an operation like this, therefore I question why it should be done at all. My primary point throughout this debate, and more recently, is that if a nation state wishes to have peace with its neighbors it's actions speak louder than words.

Israel has a long history of metering out collective punishment, deliberately, because it thinks that beating the civilians into the ground will eventually make them pliable to Israel's wishes. I've challenged that assertion by asking what historical examples provide Israel with reason to suspect that it will work the way they envision. So far I've not seen a single example, though I could list dozens where it has clearly failed.

As for UN being in the pocket of Hamas... the UN is a huge, corrupt, and inept organization that sometimes does good in spite of itself. But again, I don't see any benefit in Israel deliberately targeting symbols, personnel, and material of the UN. It simply reinforces the notion that Israel is in a blind rage and not thinking very clearly in terms of long term impact. Plus, one could argue that Israel's defiance of the UN (including resolutions passed by the US) over the past 30-40 years has not been helpful either.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The IDF [israeli Defense Forces] acts only in accordance with what is permitted by international law and does not use white phosphorus," IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi told Israel's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Tuesday in response to a query.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0114/p07s01-wome.html

So yep they lied.

This I think is where the confusion lies. Use of white phosphorus for smoke and concealment is not outlawed under international law. US, UK, Russia, etc. all use WP for the same purposes. It is not necessarily an incendiary. The shells being used here are specifically meant to produce effective smoke screens, dispersing felt wedges impregnated with WP rather than bursting WP directly onto a target.

GENEVA (AP) — The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest the incendiary agent is being used improperly or illegally.

The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using white phosphorus, hich ignites when it strikes the skin and burns straight through or until it is cut off from oxygen. It can cause horrific injuries.

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."

In response, the Israeli military said Tuesday that it "wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j2vQ8GynRSG8lBEQir4RtXL9Ib2AD95MLHHG0

However, that doesn't mean the IDF is using good judgement as to when to utilize WP, but if they feel they have to respond to threat, better an obscurant with potential incendiary side effects than direct application of HE to a sensitive area. In the end the use of WP smoke is irrelevant, it being less harmful than HE. The real issue is the IDF using force of any kind in the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AKD,

The real issue is the IDF using force of any kind in the circumstances.

Indeed. Legality and good judgement are not necessarily mutually linked. But I think the primary objection was the IDF initially saying they weren't using WP and then had to backtrack when it was clear nobody believed them (because, of course, they were using WP).

Furthermore, there is some claim that WP is what burned out the UN warehouse. I heard a quote from one of the UN officials at the warehouse who said something like "it smelled like WP, looked like WP, and burned like WP. It was WP". Whether this is true or not, I have no way of knowing. What is true is that warehouse burned up pretty quickly, which does suggest WP was involved. Therefore, if it is true WP hit the UN compound then that puts this into a whole other category of problems for Israel.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see now that if you try to use those two links a few pages back to live streaming video from Gaza it says you can't connect to the server. Maybe the Israelis pinpointed where the camera was and bombed it.

There was some heavy explosions pretty close to that location last night. I forgot I had the sound turned all the way up and I thought my house was under attack. But the roosters are still calling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AKD,

Indeed. Legality and good judgement are not necessarily mutually linked. But I think the primary objection was the IDF initially saying they weren't using WP and then had to backtrack when it was clear nobody believed them (because, of course, they were using WP).

Furthermore, there is some claim that WP is what burned out the UN warehouse. I heard a quote from one of the UN officials at the warehouse who said something like "it smelled like WP, looked like WP, and burned like WP. It was WP". Whether this is true or not, I have no way of knowing. What is true is that warehouse burned up pretty quickly, which does suggest WP was involved. Therefore, if it is true WP hit the UN compound then that puts this into a whole other category of problems for Israel.

Steve

Frankly, I think the quote might have been taken out of context and the IDF CoS meant that it is not being used for illegal purposes, or that bursting incendiary WP is not being used. It was blatantly obvious that IDF was using M825A1 basically from the beginning of their ground incursion. I think IDF even acknowledged this at some point before the CoS' comments. Seems Israel often speaks with many heads. ;)

From Jan. 4

aaugdl.jpg

2ypn9s3.jpg

Whitish ones are the M825A1

...and then pics/vid from then on, day and night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not doubt that the IDF shelled the UN compound on purpose, probably not as a direct order from high up, but rather, there might have been some movement or fire or some pretext and the local commander was given permission to fire with the knowledge of all involved that it is a UN building.

The animosity people in Israel feel towards the UN is difficult to underestimate, and is probably justified to an extent, at least in my opinion. But to fire on a UN compound, and to do so while the Sec Gen of the UN is in Israel? Seems to me that the leaders have lost the plot, drunk with their pyrrhic victory in the First Gaza War (as it will no doubt be named The Gaza War, and no doubt not be the last).

Soon this operation will end, and then the true nature of the destruction will start coming to light. I predict that the casualties won't be quite as high as the Palestinians are reporting (they always over-report), and instead on focusing on the fact that the operation killed say 200 civilians, discourse in Israel will be that they said 300 and there were only 200... My only prayer is that Israel will make good out of the quiet period that will surely come now, and use it to make a just peace deal with the Palestinians, but I'm not keeping my hopes up...

This article, on Ha'aretz, the best newspaper in Israel, captures my feelings quite well (don't worry, it is in English) - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055968.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I think the quote might have been taken out of context and the IDF CoS meant that it is not being used for illegal purposes, or that bursting incendiary WP is not being used. It was blatantly obvious that IDF was using M825A1 basically from the beginning of their ground incursion. I think IDF even acknowledged this at some point before the CoS' comments. Seems Israel often speaks with many heads. ;)

I don't think the CoS was misunderstood, at an earlier point an IDF spokesperson insisted that M825A1 wasn't even an WP shell.

Confronted with the latest evidence, an IDF spokeswoman insisted that the M825A1 shell was not a WP type. “This is what we call a quiet shell - it is empty, it has no explosives and no white phosphorus. There is nothing inside it,” she said.

“We shoot it to mark the target before we launch a real shell. We launch two or three of the quiet shells which are empty so that the real shells will be accurate. It's not for killing people,” she said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the CoS was misunderstood, at an earlier point an IDF spokesperson insisted that M825A1 wasn't even an WP shell.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece

That is very interesting, as I was told that was actually the purpose of the solid white shell in the picture above. Seems there is a great deal of confusion amongst the Israeli leadership. I wish we could see the particular picture/pictures she was confronted with, and the actual question asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...