The IDF is now busy refuting claims of breaking international law by using white phosphorus in built-up areas of Gaza.
Channel 4 News last night was busy showing old footage of Gaza two days after the end of the conflict where the stuff was alleged to have been found in a schoolyard. Shocking images of people who apparently had been struck by white phosphorus hammered home the point and tried, as usual, to paint Israel has heartless monsters indiscriminately burning down a UN compound etc etc.
The IDF reports:
This particular investigation is dealing with the use of ammunition containing elements of phosphorous, including, amongst others, the 155mm smoke shells which were referred to in the Human Rights Watch report. This type of ammunition disperses in the atmosphere and creates an effective smoke screen. It is used by many Western armies.
The investigation is close to conclusion, and based on the findings at this stage, it is already possible to conclude that the IDF’s use of smoke shells was in accordance with international law. These shells were used for specific operational needs only and in accord with international humanitarian law. The claim that smoke shells were used indiscriminately, or to threaten the civilian population, is baseless.
It should be noted that contrary to the claims in the report, smoke shells are not an incendiary weapon. The third protocol of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) – which defines particular limitations on incendiary weapons – makes it clear that weapons intended for screening are not classed as incendiary weapons. The State of Israel is not a signatory of the third protocol, however, in any, case, as noted this protocol does not ban the use of smoke shells for the purpose of screening.
The problem with this statement is that it avoids mentioning the affects of white phosphorus in built-up areas. It takes a line of stressing the legality whilst ignoring the moral aspects.
Furthermore, the statement that WP is not an incendiary weapon because it is not classed as one is, frankly, ridiculous. tell that to the people in the UN compound.
The Red Cross representative, Peter Herby backed up Israel’s claims of legality during the conflict as reported by the Associated Press (article no longer available on their website):
‘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 IDF 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.’ Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or knowingly putting civilians at risk.
OK. All very well. I completely accept it wasn’t used deliberately to harm civilians. I’d like to see an investigation by the IDF to see whether there were any occasions when it was used in way which was reckless of life. Apparently other screening material is available, but I am not an expert.
The rider to all of this is that the IDF used WP to protect its soldiers in precisely the conditions where without its use they and probably civilians would be at risk in a fire fight between the IDF and Hamas. The IDF’s main objective was to minimise its own casualties; this is a primary obligation of ANY army. If you have a defensive material which will save lives judgements have to be made. Sometimes they are wrong. Do you defend your men or worry about the propaganda value given to the enemy.
Once again, the IDF by blandly putting the legal case does not address the image case and does not explain the conditions under which it used WP or any reluctance to do so in residential areas.
Neither do we know what machinations Hamas were up to. Did they plant WP in places that reporters would find it? We know they had it because they fired it indiscriminately at Israel as a weapon, not as a defensive measure. But no-one mentions that particular breach of international law. But as I have said before, Hamas are terrorists, so no-one expects them to observe the law.