The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #129840   Message #2951845
Posted By: Emma B
25-Jul-10 - 10:45 AM
Thread Name: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
Jim wrote

"it is a weapon and the effect on people is as described - they knew that and attempted to deny its use when challenged"

White Phosphorous, of the type used in shells in Gaza is defined as an incendiary weapon (Causing or capable of causing fire or containing chemicals that produce intensely hot fire when exploded) with legal use restriced to open battlefield conditions as a smokescreen.

NB Israel has not ratified Protocol III on Incendiary Weapons and Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War.


But let's look at the second part of Jim's statement.....

"FIRST, THERE WAS TOTAL DENIAL OF USE; THEN THE IDF ADMITTED USE BUT CLAIMED THAT IT WAS LEGAL.
WHEN BREAKING THE SILENCE PUBLISHED CLEAR TESTIMONIES OF ITS ILLEGAL USE, TOGETHER WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONIES OF THE GAZANS, THE RESPONSE WAS TO SHOOT THE MESSENGER

WELL, NOW, RIBONO SHEL OLAM, ISRAEL HAS FINALLY ADMITTED TO ILLEGAL USE OF WHITE PHOSPHORUS IN THE GAZA CAMPAIGN IN ITS REPLY TO THE GOLDSTONE REPORT. WE ARE EVEN TOLD WHAT OFFICERS GAVE THE COMMANDS, AND THAT THEY WERE "REPRIMANDED."
(** see below)

HOW MANY CHANCES DOES THE IDF GET TO CHANGE ITS STORY BEFORE PEOPLE STOP TAKING IT SERIOUSLY? AND AT EACH STAGE THE HASBARA MOONIES PARROT WHATEVER HAPPENS TO BE THE CURRENT VERSION!

WILL SOMEBODY EXPLAIN TO ME WHY ANYBODY SHOULD GIVE ANY CREDENCE TO WHAT THE IDF SPOKESPERSON SAYS – EVEN IF IT HAPPENS TO BE TRUE? "


Is this a quote from one of those human rights organization like Christian Aid so 'hated' and smeared by the supporters of NGO Monitor etc?

No!, It is from the blog of an orthodox Jewish studies and philosophy professor, who divides his time between Israel and the US


However, the accurately recorded stages of denial, until refuted by evidence, protests of contentious 'legality' and placing blame on almost anyone else is repeated elsewhere not least in the official reports of the attack on the flotilla - the difference being on this occasion that photographic evidence that might disagree with the IDF version of events was confiscated

** Haaretz reported on 01.02.10 that -

'In an official response provided to the United Nations over the weekend in response to last September's Goldstone Commission report, the government said that a brigadier general and another officer with the rank of colonel endangered human life during by firing white phosphorous munitions in the direction of a compound run by UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency

But the IDF on Monday flatly denied that Division Commander Brig. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg and Givati Brigade Commander Col. Ilan Malka been subject to disciplinary action by GOC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Yoav Gallant. It did not deny that the munitions were in fact used during the war, however.

Nonetheless, the report that the Israeli government gave to the United Nations last Friday explicitly states that the two senior officers were disciplined after one of the investigating committees noted among its findings that they approved the firing of phosphorus shells at Tel al-Hawa "exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others." '

From the same Haaretz report -

"The army also contended that the munitions were used in
locations remote from heavily -populated areas. "