Since it's been a while since we had an Israel/Palestine thread...

[droid]

More on ceasefires, lulls and the consistent and undeniable pattern of Israeli provocation and resort to violence:

Reigniting Violence: How Do Ceasefires End?

...We decided to tally the data to find out. We analyzed the entire timeline of killings of Palestinians by Israelis, and killings of Israelis by Palestinians, in the Second Intifada, based on the data from the widely-respected Israeli Human Rights group B'Tselem (including all the data from September 2000 to October 2008).

We defined "conflict pauses" as periods of one or more days when no one is killed on either side, and we asked which side kills first after conflict pauses of different durations. As shown in Figure 2, this analysis shows that it is overwhelmingly Israel that kills first after a pause in the conflict: 79% of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian, while only 8% were interrupted by Palestinian attacks (the remaining 13% were interrupted by both sides on the same day). In addition, we found that this pattern -- in which Israel is more likely than Palestine to kill first after a conflict pause -- becomes more pronounced for longer conflict pauses. Indeed, of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%, and it unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days.

Figure 2. For conflict pauses of different durations (i.e., periods of time when no one is killed on either side), we show here the percentage of times from the Second Intifada in which Israelis ended the period of nonviolence by killing one or more Palestinians (black), the percentage of times that Palestinians ended the period of nonviolence by killing Israelis (grey), and the percentage of times that both sides killed on the same day (white). Virtually all periods of nonviolence lasting more than a week were ended when the Israelis killed Palestinians first. We include here the data from all pause durations that actually occurred.

Thus, a systematic pattern does exist: it is overwhelmingly Israel, not Palestine, that kills first following a lull. Indeed, it is virtually always Israel that kills first after a lull lasting more than a week.

...

 

[vimothy]

Pictures of the UNRWA school hit by WP. If there could be any doubt about this its gone now.

You get that from looking at a picture, eh -- what type of rounds are they using?

We defined "conflict pauses" as periods of one or more days when no one is killed on either side, and we asked which side kills first after conflict pauses of different durations.

I've come across this article before and I don't find it that convincing -- what happens if you widen the definition of violence to include more than just outright killing? The firing of unguided (i.e. indiscriminate) rockets at Israel is obviously not non-violence. Focusing on 'killing' just means that Israel is going to look like it broke the peace every time, regardless of whether it actually did or not.

 

[droid]

You get that from looking at a picture, eh -- what type of rounds are they using?

Well no actually. I got it from testimony from UN officials who witnessed the attack, statements from Amnesty International and testimony from Gazan doctors based on wounds they've treated, video evidence of burns victims, statements from military specialists who identified the rounds based on serial numbers and photographs, and testimony from Gazans who have found spent [URL="http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jah/jah_0461.html"]155mm M825A1 shells[/URL]. The photographs are simply more confirmation of the obvious.

We know from all of this evidence that Israel have used WP in Gaza, but you're the military fetishist aren't you? Why not inform us as to what incendiary airburst round (its obviously not HE) which gives off that amount of smoke, causes these kind of burns, and is known to have been in the IDF's armoury and to have been used by the Israelis in civilian areas in past conflicts.

I've come across this article before and I don't find it that convincing -- what happens if you widen the definition of violence to include more than just outright killing? The firing of unguided (i.e. indiscriminate) rockets at Israel is obviously not non-violence. Focusing on 'killing' just means that Israel is going to look like it broke the peace every time, regardless of whether it actually did or not.

Of course you don't. And you're right, that graph does not take into account non fatal/non conflict related incidents, so lets expand it to include the effects of economic warfare and blockades, house demolitions (19,000 since 1967), beatings, arrests, torture and internment. Why not throw in deaths caused 'indirectly', like the deaths or stillbirth of full term Palestinian babies (35 since 2000) and critically ill patients in ambulances refused access refused access to hospitals at checkpoints (112 since 2000), as these are not covered by B'Tseelem's figures.

How about it?

 

[vimothy]

you're the military fetishist aren't you?

The same old bull-shit never stops. Yes, I love death and money. Shakespeare was mad too -- haven't you read Hamlet?

WP is used in smoke rounds -- such as the M825 155mm Projectile mentioned in most of your links:

The M825 White Phosphorus (Felt-Wedge) is a 155mm base ejection projectile designed to produce a smoke screen on the ground for a duration of 5 to 15 minutes. It consists of two major components, the projectile carrier, and the payload. The projectile carrier delivers the payload to the target. The payload consists of 116 WP-saturated felt wedges.After ejection, the WP felt wedges fall to ground in a elliptical pattern. Each wedge will then becomes a source of smoke. The projectile is ballistically similar to the M483A1 DPICM family of projectiles.​

Here's a blog article about WP use in live firing exersises.

Since we'd all rather reduce these situations to emotive slanging matches, we get stuff akin to the above, like the UN 'accusing' Israel of using WP. But of course, Israel is using WP, openly -- there's no need to accuse it of anything! IIRC, the same thing happened WRT Falluja. Press types: 'The US is using WP!' Mil types: Wait a minute, that's not quite right. Press types: 'Now the US is denying that it uses WP!!' Round and round it goes. It's not a chemical weapon, it's not banned, and Israel isn't denying it's use.

 

[droid]

The same old bull-shit never stops.

I was referring to your propensity to refer to strategic issues and military theory (4GW anyone?)...

WP is used in smoke rounds -- such as the M825 155mm Projectile mentioned in most of your links:

So let me get this straight. youre arguing that the IDF did not use WP rounds, just rounds with WP in them?

As we can see from the pictures and evidence, the consequences seem to be quite similar - toxic fumes, unquenchable fires, horrific chemical burns.

Is this really a distinction you're comfortable in making?

Since we'd all rather reduce these situations to emotive slanging matches, we get stuff akin to the above, like the UN 'accusing' Israel of using WP. But of course, Israel is using WP, openly -- there's no need to accuse it of anything! ...Israel isn't denying it's use.

Er... What are you on about?

Israel has not 'admitted' it is using WP, all it has said is that is 'abiding by international law in its use of weapons'. Can you provide a link where Israel openly admits it is using WP?

Israel has in fact explicitly denied its use:

...On Tuesday, Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi denied the Israeli military is doing anything illegal.

"The Israel Defense Forces act only in accordance with what is permitted by international law and does not use white phosphorous," Ashkenazi told the Israeli Parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in Tel Aviv...

...The IDF has told Human Rights Watch and reporters that it is not using WP in Gaza. On January 7, an IDF spokesman told CNN, “I can tell you with certainty that white phosphorus is absolutely not being used...”

On 13 January Brig-Gen Avi Benayahu, chief spokesman for the Israel Defense Force (IDF), said that in its assault on Gaza Israel was using weapons in accordance with international treaties and conventions. He denied Israel was using white phosphorus. ''I repeat Commander in Chief Ashkenazi's words: The allegations of the IDF using WP [white phosphorus] are false.''

It's not a chemical weapon, it's not banned, and Israel isn't denying it's use.

The 2nd point is irrelevant, I never claimed WP was banned, but now you mention it:

The use of white phosphorus against civilians was banned in the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. (The convention was enforced in December 1983 and is an annex to the Geneva Conventions 1949). Israel signed the convention on 22 March 1995 but has not signed the relevant protocol III dealing with incendiary weapons such as white phosphorus

The 3rd point is blatantly false (see above).

So the first point is all thats left here - is it a chemical weapon?According to the Pentagon, when Iraq uses it, it is. Intersting to note that there is little quibbling when an official enemy uses WP.

I agree though, that it is not an open and shut case. When used as a smokescreen or flare in open areas WP is not classed as a chemical weapon. However, when used as a weapon against civilians, or in built up areas where the toxic effects of the smoke and the chemical effect of the burns will affect civilians, then it can be classed as a chemical weapon. According to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons, the definition of a chemical weapon includes:

“any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm”​

But anyway, tell me. What type of incendiary round would you consider suitable for attacking UN run schools filled with refugees?

 

[scottdisco]

The Times has been admirably dogged on this particular WP issue.
today's carries a story of a 14 y/o boy who has been horribly affected.

Israel's three-week offensive in the Gaza Strip may be over but Mahmoud Mattar, 14, will not be able to sense the quiet that has descended on his home town of Jabalya.

(link carries a photograph of the poor mite lying in hospital with appalling injuries. at the end there is the tale of a 26 y/o and a 18 y/o who both lost their legs.)

elsewhere, for the hard-men of Hamas, it appears it might be back to business as usual, as they allegedly bring the pain to hundreds of Fatah members.

According to the official, at least three of the detainees had their eyes put out by their interrogators, who accused them of providing Israel with wartime information about the location of Hamas militiamen and officials.

 

[droid]

elsewhere, for the hard-men of Hamas, it appears it might be back to business as usual, as they allegedly bring the pain to hundreds of Fatah members.

According to the official, at least three of the detainees had their eyes put out by their interrogators, who accused them of providing Israel with wartime information about the location of Hamas militiamen and officials.

Quite:

8. Israeli intellignce assets in Gaza were obviously superior to those in Lebanon '06 -- I think that much is self-evident.

 

[vimothy]

Just read the specs you posted!

The M825 White Phosphorus 155mm Projectile contains -- yes, it's true -- white phosphorous.

So let me get this straight. youre arguing that the IDF did not use WP rounds, just rounds with WP in them?

No. I repeat: the IAF and the IDF use WP rounds regularly -- just like lots of other modern militaries. Your quotes merely show the Israelis getting played at the same dumb game the USMC got played at -- deny it, look guilty; admit it, be guilty. But there is nothing to deny, because the whole premise is false: use of WP is generic, and in accordance with international law, as your quotes state -- indeed, as all the links in your previous post also state.

What type of incendiary round

It's not an incendiary round.

What Protocol III actually says is,

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems​

It's not banned under Protocol III.

It isn't a chemical weapon.

 

[droid]

Just read the specs you posted!

The M825 White Phosphorus 155mm Projectile contains -- yes, it's true -- white phosphorous.

Wow, really?

I asked if one can credibly make the distinction between rounds which contain white phosphorous for use in a smoke screen and other WP rounds when the effects when used on human targets is practically identical.

It seems you can. Forgive me for not sharing your view.

No. I repeat: the IAF and the IDF use WP rounds regularly -- just like lots of other modern militaries. Your quotes merely show the Israelis getting played at the same dumb game the USMC got played at -- deny it, look guilty; admit it, be guilty. But there is nothing to deny, because the whole premise is false: use of WP is generic, and in accordance with international law, as your quotes state -- indeed, as all the links in your previous post also state.

You plainly said that the IDF admitted they used white phosphorous. I provided multiple examples of Israeli military spokespeople explicitly denying this, you now say that this is irrelevant because, yknow, everybody uses white phosphorus.

It may be the case that use of WP is 'generic', what is not generic is the use of WP in built up civilian areas where it can not credibly be claimed it is being used as a smokescreen or a flare - as the Israelis have used it in Gaza, and as the US admitted using it in Fallujah.

This is why Israel denies it, because it is aware that WP should not be used in built up areas.

It's not an incendiary round.

OK - what kind of round would you consider suitable for use against UN run schools full of civilians?

What Protocol III actually says is,

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems​

It's not banned under Protocol III.

It isn't a chemical weapon.

Except when used against a 'concentration of civilians', or 'civilian objects'. As a link in my previous posts attests, Israel has implicitly acknowledged this distinction by stating that it used WP "against military targets in open ground" in south Lebanon which they say was permitted under international conventions.

The CWC spokesman Peter Kaiser backs this up:

...The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

As humans have been harmed by the caustic properties of these WP rounds due to Israel's undiscerning use of them, then it seems, according to the CWC, that it's use in Gaza is that of a chemical weapon.

 

[droid]

Channel 4 news at the site of the Beit Lahiya school shelling including footage of WP reigniting days after the shelling:



It seems that 4 WP rounds - oh sorry, rounds containing WP were fired at the school along with other artillery or tank shells... 'shake and bake' anyone?

Channel 4 news on the aftermath of the 'war'.



'As bad or worse than hurricanes, tsunamis or earthquakes'...

Chomsky on Gaza (video).

...All of this is normal, and quite openly discussed by high Israeli officials. Thirty years ago Chief of Staff Mordechai Gur observed that since 1948, "we have been fighting against a population that lives in villages and cities." As Israel's most prominent military analyst, Zeev Schiff, summarized his remarks, "the Israeli Army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously...the Army, he said, has never distinguished civilian [from military] targets...[but] purposely attacked civilian targets." The reasons were explained by the distinguished statesman Abba Eban: "there was a rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that affected populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities." The effect, as Eban well understood, would be to allow Israel to implement, undisturbed, its programs of illegal expansion and harsh repression. Eban was commenting on a review of Labor government attacks against civilians by Prime Minister Begin, presenting a picture, Eban said, "of an Israel wantonly inflicting every possible measure of death and anguish on civilian populations in a mood reminiscent of regimes which neither Mr.Begin nor I would dare to mention by name." Eban did not contest the facts that Begin reviewed, but criticized him for stating them publicly. Nor did it concern Eban, or his admirers, that his advocacy of massive state terror is also reminiscent of regimes he would not dare to mention by name....

Chomsky interview on Gaza (text).

DOSSANI: The Israeli government and many Israeli and U.S. officials claim that the current assault on Gaza is to put an end to the flow of Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel. But many observers claim that if that were really the case, Israel would have made much more of an effort to renew the ceasefire agreement that expired in December, which had all but stopped the rocket fire. In your opinion, what are the real motivations behind the current Israeli action?

CHOMSKY: There's a theme that goes way back to the origins of Zionism. And it's a very rational theme: "Let's delay negotiations and diplomacy as long as possible, and meanwhile we'll 'build facts on the ground.'" So Israel will create the basis for what some eventual agreement will ratify, but the more they create, the more they construct, the better the agreement will be for their purposes. Those purposes are essentially to take over everything of value in the former Palestine and to undermine what's left of the indigenous population.

I think one of the reasons for popular support for this in the United States is that it resonates very well with American history. How did the United States get established? The themes are similar.

There are many examples of this theme being played out throughout Israel's history, and the current situation is another case. They have a very clear program. Rational hawks like Ariel Sharon realized that it's crazy to keep 8,000 settlers using one-third of the land and much of the scarce supplies in Gaza, protected by a large part of the Israeli army while the rest of the society around them is just rotting. So it's best to take them out and send them to the West Bank. That's the place that they really care about and want.

What was called a "disengagement" in September 2005 was actually a transfer. They were perfectly frank and open about it. In fact, they extended settlement building programs in the West Bank at the very same time that they were withdrawing a few thousand people from Gaza. So Gaza should be turned into a cage, a prison basically, with Israel attacking it at will, and meanwhile in the West Bank we'll take what we want. There was nothing secret about it.

Finkelstein on Gaza (text).

The operative plan for the Gaza bloodbath can be gleaned from authoritative statements after the war got underway: "What we have to do is act systematically with the aim of punishing all the organizations that are firing the rockets and mortars, as well as the civilians who are enabling them to fire and hide" (reserve Major-General); "After this operation there will not be one Hamas building left standing in Gaza" (Deputy IDF Chief of Staff); "Anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target" (IDF Spokesperson's Office).[14] Whereas Israel killed a mere 55 Lebanese during the first two days of the 2006 war, the Israeli media exulted at Israel's "shock and awe" (Maariv)[15] as it killed more than 300 Palestinians in the first two days of the attack on Gaza. Several days into the slaughter an informed Israeli strategic analyst observed, "The IDF, which planned to attack buildings and sites populated by hundreds of people, did not warn them in advance to leave, but intended to kill a great many of them, and succeeded."[16] Morris could barely contain his pride at "Israel's highly efficient air assault on Hamas."[17] The Israeli columnist B. Michael was less impressed by the dispatch of helicopter gunships and jet planes "over a giant prison and firing at its people"[18] -- for example, "70...traffic cops at their graduation ceremony, young men in desperate search of a livelihood who thought they'd found it in the police and instead found death from the skies."[19]

As Israel targeted schools, mosques, hospitals, ambulances, and U.N. sanctuaries, as it slaughtered and incinerated Gaza's defenseless civilian population (one-third of the 1,200 reported casualties were children), Israeli commentators gloated that "Gaza is to Lebanon as the second sitting for an exam is to the first -- a second chance to get it right," and that this time around Israel had "hurled [Gaza] back," not 20 years as it promised to do in Lebanon, but "into the 1940s. Electricity is available only for a few hours a day"; that "Israel regained its deterrence capabilities" because "the war in Gaza has compensated for the shortcomings of the [2006] Second Lebanon War"; and that "There is no doubt that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is upset these days....There will no longer be anyone in the Arab world who can claim that Israel is weak."[20]

 

[droid]

More on the aftermath from Aljazeera:

"There is no life after this"...

"They destroyed everything..."

 

[polystyle]

Phosphorus

Smoke that burns and takes a while to clear ... from another source >
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/middleeast/22phosphorus.html

 

[vimothy]

It seems that 4 WP rounds - oh sorry, rounds containing WP

This is getting pretty tiresome. I have never made the above distinction. This will be my final attempt at explaining the actually fairly simple distinction between incendiary weapons (banned in “civilian concentrations”) and weapons whose incendiary effects are incidental (not banned).

Israeli forces are using the M825 155mm projectile. According to GlobalSecurity.org,

The M825 White Phosphorus (Felt-Wedge) is a 155mm base ejection projectile designed to produce a smoke screen on the ground for a duration of 5 to 15 minutes. It consists of two major components, the projectile carrier, and the payload. The projectile carrier delivers the payload to the target. The payload consists of 116 WP-saturated felt wedges. After ejection, the WP felt wedges fall to ground in a elliptical pattern. Each wedge will then becomes a source of smoke. The projectile is ballistically similar to the M483A1 DPICM family of projectiles.

Let’s review: the M825 is a smoke bomb. It is used to provide cover or aid target location. It contains a felt wedge dipped in WP that burns up the projectile detonates and as it comes into contact with air, forming a column of smoke from wherever the wedge lands on the ground.

Here is (once again) the text of Article 1, Protocol III of the CCCW:

For the purpose of this Protocol:

1."Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.

(a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

In Article 2.2 of the Protocol it says “It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.” However, as we have just seen, “Incendiary weapons do not include...Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems”. That is, the M825 round is not an incendiary weapon. The fact that this is taking place within a “concentration of civilians” does not affect the legality of the M825 round, because the M825 round is not an incendiary weapon.

Let’s go back to what the CWC spokesman actually said:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement. If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.”

So if WP is used within the context of munitions designed to produce cover – such as the M825 round – rather than anti-personnel effects, it is not proscribed by the CCCW.

Furthermore, I do not think chemical weapons stop being chemical weapons if you use them on troops.

Peter Herby, head of the Red Cross’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... 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 consciously putting civilians at risk."

GlobalSecurity.org:

Israel used White Phosphorus against HAMAS targets in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in January 2009. This violated no international laws or conventions.

White Phosphorus (WP), known as Willy Pete, is used for signaling, screening, and incendiary purposes. White Phosphorus can be used to destroy the enemy's equipment or to limit his vision. It is used against vehicles, petroleum, oils and lubricants (POL) and ammunition storage areas, and enemy observers. WP can be used as an aid in target location and navigation. It is usually dispersed by explosive munitions. It can be fired with fuze time to obtain an airburst. White phosphorus was used most often during World War II in military formulations for smoke screens, marker shells, incendiaries, hand grenades, smoke markers, colored flares, and tracer bullets.

See also: Israeli Chemical 'Atrocities' in Gaza? Not So Fast – Jason Sigger, WIRED

 

[Agent]

anyone the status of Iran's ICBMs? The Sahab (i think) can reach Isreal, but it isn't intercontinental. You can put a small amount of plutonium on the end mixed with other elements like a dirty bomb. It could easily wipe out Jerusalem.

 

[Agent]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavoshgar-1

 

[vimothy]

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/shahab-4.htm

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2110/designing-irans-icbm-from-the-ground-up

 

[droid]

This is getting pretty tiresome. I have never made the above distinction. This will be my final attempt at explaining the actually fairly simple distinction between incendiary weapons (banned in “civilian concentrations”) and weapons whose incendiary effects are incidental (not banned)...

Yes, you're right, this is getting tiresome. The straw man you've erected has no bearing on my main point, the crux of which is not that WP is banned, and not that WP is automatically a chemical weapon.

The point is that when WP is used in civilian areas, where the chemical effects are likely to affect civilians, or when civilians are targeted directly, then it can be classed as a chemical weapon.

It is obvious that these rounds were not used as a smokescreen for troop movements in this case as there were no troops. They were not used as a flare as it was daylight at the time. They were fired on the Beit Lahiya school as a weapon.

Let’s review: the M825 is a smoke bomb. It is used to provide cover or aid target location. It contains a felt wedge dipped in WP that burns up the projectile detonates and as it comes into contact with air, forming a column of smoke from wherever the wedge lands on the ground.

A minor point, but indicative of your inability to read or comprehend the quotes you yourself post. it does not contain a wedge - it contains 116 wedges.

So if WP is used within the context of munitions designed to produce cover – such as the M825 round – rather than anti-personnel effects, it is not proscribed by the CCCW.

You are being completely disingenuous here. It is not the purpose of the round by design, but the intent of the use of the round and the effect of the round on civilians which matters.

Let’s go back to what the CWC spokesman actually said:

:slanted: Yes, lets. In context as I originally quoted it, without the relevant part deleted by yourself:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

So, I repeat. According to the spokesman for the CWC, White Phosphorous is classed as a chemical weapon and prohibited if it is used against civilians. The design of the munition is irrelevant. If you fire a round containing WP at civilians it is a chemical attack.

This is why I said that the Israelis were using chemical weapons. I was not saying that WP is a chemical weapon by definition I was saying that it is a chemical weapon because it was used against civilians.

The only only credible argument you can make is based on "the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used", so is it the case that WP was used against civilians?

The evidence that it is, (linked to a few posts up) already clear through the testimony of independent witnesses and doctors, the wounds of victims, the photographs, videos and debris etc.. is becoming incontrovertible.

According to Amnesty International:

Weapons expert Chris Cobb-Smith, who visited Gaza as part of a four-person Amnesty team, said he had found widespread evidence of the use of the incendiary material.

"We saw streets and alleyways littered with evidence of the use of white phosphorus, including still-burning wedges and the remnants of the shells and canisters fired by the Israeli army," he said in a statement.

"White phosphorus is a weapon intended to provide a smokescreen for troop movements on the battlefield. It is highly incendiary, air burst and its spread effect is such that it should never be used on civilian areas," he said.

So to sum up:

• According to the spokesperson of the CWC, WP is a chemical weapon when used against civilians or in areas when it is likely to affect civilians.
  
• According to the UN, Amnesty International, HRW and other NGOs and human rights organisations it is almost certain that WP was used against civilians or in civilian areas.
  

Your argument seems to be that regardless of who it was used against, these rounds are not chemical weapons because they were designed to be used as a smokescreen - this is contradicted by the statement from the CWC - as you know since you read and quoted it.

And if you are saying that WP was not used on civilians, or in areas where it was likely to affect civilians - this is contradicted by the UN, AI and HRW and by a huge and (quickly growing) amount of evidence on the ground despite the out of date red cross article you quoted.

This will be my final attempt...

I really hope so.

 

[droid]

Y'know, if you were really cynical you might say that Israel deliberately fired WP rounds which were not designed for use as weapon, intending that their indiscriminate incendiary and chemical effects would cause a huge amount of damage to civilians and property, whilst allowing them to claim that their use was legal.

So in this way I guess you could say that claims the rounds were used as a 'smokescreen' are accurate...

Israel opens investigation into white phosphorus use

Human rights activists had accused Israel of violating international law by bombarding built-up areas with the incendiary material in Operation Cast Lead. Palestinian hospitals treated dozens of Gazans with wounds consistent with use of the weapon.

Israeli newspapers reports said a reserve paratroop brigade was the focus of the probe after it fired 20 artillery shells at densely populated parts of northern Gaza, including a United Nations compound.

Army officials confirmed that an investigation was under way but would not reveal its scope.

Under international law white phosphorus is permitted to create a smokescreen on an open battlefield, but it is banned in built-up areas.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch independently claimed to have gathered proof that white phosphorus material was found in residential areas that were attacked.

White phosphorous and DU: United Nations to probe weapons used in Gaza

...The Israeli army says it has launched an internal investigation into the use of white phosphorus, a highly incendiary substance that can burn away flesh to the bone.

On Wednesday, Israel's Haaretz newspaper reported that the inquiry would focus on the alleged firing of about 20 phosphorus shells around the northern town of Beit Lahiya by Israeli paratroopers.

Amnesty International, a London-based human rights group, has said that its use in Gaza's densely populated urban neighbourhoods was a "war crime".

International law does not ban the use of white phosphorus used to create smoke screens to cover troop movements or illuminate targets, but human rights groups have said that its use could be illegal in civilian areas if "all feasible precautions" were not taken.

Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, along with the United Nations relief agency in Gaza, have said there is widespread evidence of Israel's use of the controversial chemical during the Gaza war.

Israel has refused to confirm whether white phosphorus was used in the territory, but said that all weapons it used were legal under international law.

Haaretz reported that the Israeli military fired a total of 200 white phosphorus shells during the three-week Gaza offensive.

There have also been accusations that the Israeli military used Dense Inert Metal Explosive (Dime) weapons in urban areas causing horrific abdominal and leg injuries.

When detonated, a Dime device expels a blade of charged tungsten dust that burns and destroys everything within a four-metre radius...

C4 news had a video report last night in which it was stated that Israel had admitted the use of WP against 2 UN facilities as well as containing testimony from victims and evidence of the use of other weapons of 'questionable legality':

Phosphorus controversy in Gaza

...Throughout the three-week offensive there were claims about Israel's use of controversial weapons, possibly against international law, in a densely-populated area and their the deadly effect on civilians.

Flechette bombs, deployed by the Americans in Vietnam, also appear to have been fired.

These weapons should not be used against civilians, but there is evidence some were hit. Civilians have also been killed in attacks that may have involved DIME bombs.

None of these three weapons is explicitly banned under international humanitarian law.

But the way they are used could contravene laws meant to protect civilians in conflict, specifically in built-up areas like Gaza.

White phosphorus ignites on contact with oxygen. Flechettes expel razor sharp darts. DIME bombs cause large blasts over small areas...

Israel responds to the report by claiming that the wounds on victims which point to the use of these weapons may have been caused by Hamas...

Amnesty International Calls on Israel to Urgently Disclose Weapons and Munitions Used in Gaza

Saying doctors are finding new and unexplained patterns of injury among the wounded in Gaza, Amnesty International today called on the Israeli authorities to urgently disclose all weapons and munitions their forces used during military operations to prevent the loss of more lives.

"It is vital and urgent that the Israeli authorities disclose all relevant information including what weapons and munitions they used," said Donatella Rovera, who is leading Amnesty International's investigations team in Gaza. "More lives must not be lost because doctors do not know what caused their patients' injuries and what medical complications may occur. They have to be fully informed so that they can provide life-saving care."

Rovera said doctors are telling Amnesty International they are encountering new and unexplained patterns of injury among some of the Palestinians injured. "Some victims of Israeli air strikes were brought in with charred and sharply severed limbs and doctors treating them need to know what weapons were used," she said.

Dr. Subhi Skeik, head of the Surgical Department at al-Shifa Hospital, told Amnesty International delegates: “We have many cases of amputations and vascular reconstructions where patients would be expected to recover in the normal way. But to our surprise many of them died an hour or two after operation. It is dramatic.”

Rovera said the human rights organization has irrefutable evidence of the use of white phosphorous munitions in civilian areas, although the Israeli authorities previously denied using this munition...

Regardless of the legalities or classification of these weapons, it's clear that their indiscriminate use in built up civilian areas is an absolute monstrosity, is morally indefensible and amounts to terror.

If Hamas launched airburst WP, flechette and DIME shells into densely populated areas of Tel Aviv, there would be no debate whatsoever about the unmitigated evil of the use of such weapons against civilians...

 

[elgato]

Regardless of the legalities or classification of these weapons, it's clear that their indiscriminate use in built up civilian areas is an absolute monstrosity

agreed

 

[IdleRich]

"So in this way I guess you could say that claims the rounds were used as a 'smokescreen' are accurate..."

Ha, yes.
This really does seem to be happening and, if so, it is completely indefensible. I don't really see where there is even room for debate on this.