Where does your reflexive must-defend-Israel response come from? It's clear to anyone who cares to open their eyes and ears that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza. Splitting hairs over white phosphorus is not going to persuade anyone here that Israel is somehow acting in justified 'self-defence'.
Thank you for that contribution to the debate. The fact that Israel is involved has precisely no bearing on the legality of their arms, operation or on any individual incidents (not that we are in much position to decide the legality of the latter two). I’m not exactly sure how it is “clear to anyone who cares to open their eyes that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza.” Similarly, I’m not sure how this is related to my argument – except, a la droid, to uncharitably suggest that I am somehow defending Israel’s actions, when I have in fact registered my disgust further upthread. The moral and strategic bankruptcy of Israel’s war on Gaza is not the subject of discussion. Rather, it is the legality of WP.
Nevertheless, given that a cursory scan through the literature might suggest quite the opposite, it is reassuring that issues of international law and jus in bello are so easily resolved.
I am also glad that we now agree that WP, despite the initial posts (“When used...
in open areas WP is not classed as a chemical weapon”; “We know from all of this evidence that Israel have used WP”), and as per the exemptions written into Protocol III of the CCCW, is not illegal in civilian areas if used to provide effects in which its incendiary properties are incidental (such as smoke and signalling).
If Israeli forces were targeting enemy troops using air-dropped rounds in which WP was used
specifically for its incendiary properties (for instance, in an anti-personnel device) in civilian areas, it would indeed constitute a war crime (see
Protocol III). In addition, jus in bello is such that incendiary devices are only permissible for use against enemy troops
in the open if other weapons will not suffice; otherwise, it is a war crime. Furthermore, if Israeli forces were deliberately targeting civilians, it would also constitute a war crime, always,
regardless of the type of munition used (see list of customary rules of IHL,
here).
Since deliberate targeting of civilians is both clearly a war crime regardless of munition used (and thus irrelevant to the point I was trying make so many posts ago), and impossible for a few anonymous sock-puppets on a dubstep discussion board over 2000 miles away to ascertain, there doesn’t seem to be much more to say about it at present.
And as the type of munition used is obviously not illegal, and the deliberate targeting of civilians obviously is regardless of munition, the real issue (insofar as we are interested in this limited aspect of jus in bello and not in any of the other probably much more relevant and suspect aspects of Operation Cast Lead, such as the widening of the definition of combatant and the consequential narrowing of the definition of collateral damage, or in any of the other related and equally suspect aspects of Operation Cast Lead with regards to jus ad bellum) is whether Israeli actions in specific incidents violate the basic IHL rules of proportionality (relative to the expected military gain) and discrimination (between civilian and military targets). In order to make a judgement, we – someone, at least – would need access to Israeli operational planning, targeting procedure and available intelligence for those specific incidents. There is simply no way to a priori decide that any incident violates the laws of war because it involves WP in an area of civilian concentration.
What I will say regarding the incident at the UN school is that there is clearly a legally acceptable explanation. If the Israelis really did think they were firing at militants, then use of WP to produce smoke is not proscribed insofar as smoke would aid Israeli targeting and inhibit the militants from returning fire (and there are obviously targets for the militants to fire at, because someone must have been firing the WP rounds). Nevertheless, none of this allows us to make an a priori judgement in either direction. Did its use here violate the basic principles of IHL? We have no access to the relevant information and thus no way of knowing. All we can do is guess. (Of course, none of this is a reflection on the legality of any other specific incident or the operation as a whole).
So, for Israel’s use of WP at the UN school there are at least three possible explanations, each with different implications with regards to the laws of war:
- Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians and were therefore acting in clear violation of IHL.
- Israeli forces targeted militants using WP rounds, but due to factors in the planning or execution of the attack, violated the basic proportionality and/or discrimination principles of IHL.
- Israeli forces targeted militants using WP rounds, and did not violate the basic principles of IHL.
If none of this is a judgement on the legality of any other common or specific aspect of the war, it is certainly not a moral judgement on the incident, the war itself or on war in general (a monstrous and highly offensive suggestion). International law will not solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It does not take sides. It does not, has not and will not prevent wars from happening, nor will it prevent them from being horrible and hellish events where misery, suffering and death are forced upon the undeserving and the innocent. Although I can find no hard figures, I am willing to bet that immediate fatalities from WP do not exceed 1% of total deaths. The vast majority of Palestinians have been killed by weapons explicitly designed to kill (regardless of intent when the trigger is pulled), not by the chemical Israel uses to produce smoke. This is hardly surprising, yet this distracting debate is playing out much the same way in the blogosphere, wholly predictable and wholly entrenched on either side. Given the ongoing conflicts in, to name but three, the Great Lakes region (excellent thread, BTW), Sudan and Sri Lanka (Sri Lankan forces recently captured the final LTTE stronghold), it is a great shame that the same enthusiasm does not carry over to other equally pressing events.
think you better shut up vimothy. you look stupid now.
Not for the first time, and not, I trust, for the last.
You win at teh internets, luka.
