Comments on: The Phosphorus Question, Revisited

By: S Brennan

S Brennan — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 02:30:10 +0000

“However, in the US Army I always taught that you have to use appropriate force. For example, if you have a sniper shooting at you from a mosque, you use a counter-sniper to get him, not an artillery barrage.”

As an enlisted I was taught the same line in US Army Basic Training, however, clearly things changed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4442988.stm

“…[P]ublished by the US Army’s Field Artillery Magazine in its issue of March/April this year. The article, written by a captain, a first lieutenant and a sergeant, was a review of the attack on Falluja in November 2004. “WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. ..We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out,” the article said. ”
…a reported US army document from 1991 which refers to WP as a chemical weapon. The document reports the possible use of WP by Iraq against the Kurds who rose up after the Gulf War. It says: “Iraq has possibly employed phosphorous chemical weapons against the Kurdish population.” …the United States has not signed up to a convention covering incendiary weapons which seeks to restrict their use.

Agreed in 1980, its Protocol III covers “Prohibitions or Restrictions on use of Incendiary Weapons.”…This prohibits WP or other incendiaries (like flamethrowers) against civilians or civilian objects and its use by air strikes against military targets located in a concentration of civilians. It also limits WP use by other means (such as mortars or direct fire from tanks) against military targets in a civilian area. Such targets have to be separated from civilian concentrations and “all feasible precautions” taken to avoid civilian casualties.

By: fiddler

fiddler — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:55:31 +0000

Nimrod, phosphorus is also a component of some insecticides, herbicides, and chemical weapons (Sarin, Soman, VX are essentially esters of phosphonic acid). OTOH phosphorus is a component of many essential biomolecules like DNA and ATP. It’s the specific compound that’s toxic or not, not the element itself.
Among the allotropes of elementary phosphorus white phosphorus (P4) is very toxic indeed, while red and black phosphorus are not. The latter have also much higher flash points and won’t normally self-ignite.

By: Secretary of State in the West Bank

Secretary of State in the West Bank — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:12:21 +0000

[...] suggestions, which Israel was free to ignore at their discretion, of course. And what about the alleged use by the IDF of white phosphorous against civilian targets in Gaza? Again, not a peep. In fact, Israel actually had the audacity to [...]

By: Nimrod Tal

Nimrod Tal — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:19:08 +0000

Isnt phosphorus a component of bones? Someone told me that bones were mostly calcium phosphate, with some proteins added. So whats the big deal about phosphorus-how toxic could it be since our bodes contain a lot of it?

By: Scholars and Rogues » Nota Bene for 2 March 2009

Scholars and Rogues » Nota Bene for 2 March 2009 — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:39:01 +0000

[...] sheds light on the India-Pakistan “back channel” … Gershom Gorenberg revisits the use of white phosophorus in Gaza … Ousted senator Rick Santorum froths along with the rest of the GOP parrots that he [...]

By: dana

dana — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:46:38 +0000

dave,

Actually, there were well OVER 700 civilian casualties. unless, of course, you consider any male to be a combatant, by definition – AND – you believe the IDF numbers, which are somewhat suspect – having every reason in the world to whitewash casualty figures.

The sad truth is that the casualty numbers could well have been 10 or 50 times higher had there not been a well-founded fear of even greater public outcry. Surely, you don’t believe that the IDF – or the majority of israelis – really care all that much about just how many dead palestinians there are. If you don’t believe this, you must not have been listening to the tenor of the public discourse in israel.

But then, I strongly suspect you are part of that discourse, and have a feint suspicion as to what side you’re on. Especially when it comes to attributions of human characteristics to palestinians.

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 21:44:54 +0000

” israel and its armed forces have displayed absolutely no regard for palestinian lives. That’s the definitive conclusion one CAN draw from watching the assault on gaza and its citizens unfold in real time.”

If that were true there would be 25,000 dead civilians not 250. There is only one group to blame for civilian deaths and that is Hamas who fires rockets from the middle of them and then uses them as human shields.

By: dana

dana — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 07:44:32 +0000

The merits of the international law regarding WP notewithtanding, the ethical problem here is clear: israel and its armed forces have displayed absolutely no regard for palestinian lives. That’s the definitive conclusion one CAN draw from watching the assault on gaza and its citizens unfold in real time. That this was a clear cut case of collective punishment is beyond doubt. It’s enough to look at the devastated infrastructure, even forgetting for a moment the hundreds of dead children. By the evidence will israel’s army be condemned, as will its government and the 90% of the citizens who wholeheartedly approved of the slaughter.

back to WP – ask yourselves this: would israeli police have used it against say, some non arabs? think of some armed rioters or even a mafia hold out, or better yet, a posse of settlers run amock?

We know the answer to this question. What else do we need to know? that DIME weapons were also used against civilians? that it was done purposefully? that it had devastating effects on lives and limbs?

For many of us, when we next meet an israeli who was in the reserves – or on duty as a soldier in time to participate in the gaza carnage, we will shrink as one would from an accused serial killer. maybe this particular person was a ‘good soldier’ (whatever that is exactly in the idf context). Unfortunately for israelis, as long as their citizen army continue behave (on government orders) as thugs, they will all so be tagged. Which is of course unfair to many, but what are those of us, that saw the tapes- and photos – of the merry kibitzers in their lawn chairs cheering every “hit”, to think?

By: Fred2

Fred2 — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:44:55 +0000

And, of course, Hamas obeys no laws of war whatever. Hamas has signed no treaties.

By: Fred2

Fred2 — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:41:48 +0000

The cellphone video is perfectly ambiguous and unclear.

Miller uses too many journalistic tricks to be trustworthy. Most egregious is his use of anonymous quotes about what ‘Gazans believe’, the ‘world believes’ and the old man in front of the school. Miller forgot to mention that the old man might be a Hamas operative. And in any case, does not have the right of free speech to contradict Hamas.

A full investigation is not possible because it would require the IDF to reveal methods an techniques it needs to keep to itself.

In the Miller report, the boy with the sutures has some injuries, but we see no evidence that they came from the phosphorus smoke shells Israel used. And we see no evidence that Israel used any WP other than phosphorus smoke shells.

If the IDF wanted to create civilian casualties, everybody at the school would be dead. All of them.

You could take the same video and narrate it to show that Hamas is addicted to Human Shields. That is, the video has almost no evidence, the story is all in the narration.

Watch the video with the sound off a few times and you’ll see almost nothing useful.