Burning Down The House

By Cernig, with apologies to Talking Heads.

The Israeli Defense Force is using white phosphorus on built up areas in Gaza. They've denied it, sort of, by saying only that Israel is using "munitions that are allowed for under international law". Israel isn't a signatory to key arms control treaties, upheld by most of the rest of the world, which govern the use of WP and other chemical weapons. So those treaties can be ignored in favor of long-planned PR spin. Both the US and Israel claim that using WP as a smokescreen generator isn't prohibited by any treaties and they're correct - as long as the WP isn't being employed over built up areas, at which time the indiscriminate nature and incendiary anti-personnel effects of these airbursts make them illegal by the Geneva Conventions governing responsibilities towards civilian non-combatants and by article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Weapons. That is, a war crime.

That distinction came up in Fallujah, Iraq during 2004 when US forces initially said they were using white phosphorus only as a smokescreen, later on admitting reluctantly that it had also been used as an anti-personnel weapon on insurgents. The US military never officially admitted to using WP on civilian areas, however, despite numerous reports of second and third degree chemical burns consistent with WP use.

Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), burns. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multi-organ failure.^[26] These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed.

Earlier, the US had no problem with saying that Saddam's use of WP on civilian areas had been an atrocity, a war crime.

Now, it looks like the IDF isn't just using the same weapons over built up areas, it's using the same excuses. Compare this footage from Gaza:

With this from Fallujah in 2004.

They show identical patterns of glowing airbursts leading to explosive incendiary effects on the ground over a wide area, as do many of the photos from Gaza. That pattern is of the US-made 155 mm M825A1 smoke WP projectile.

Let us all be clear about something.

The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated pieces of property in the world. The presence of militants within a civilian population does not, under international law, deprive that population of their protected status, and hence any assault upon that population under the guise of targeting militants is, in fact, a war crime.

Moreover, the people Israel claims are legitimate targets are members of Hamas, which Israel says is a terrorist organization. Hamas has been responsible for firing rockets into Israel. These rockets are extremely inaccurate and thus, even if Hamas intended to hit military targets within Israel, are indiscriminate by nature. When rockets from Gaza kill Israeli civilians, it is a war crime.

But the debate really does resolve down to this question from the movie "Night At The Museum" - who is evolved? Who is the terrorist and who has the moral high ground? Descending to the tactics of terrorism can never defeat terrorists. As we've seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere such tactics only ever create a new generation of hardliners on both sides willing to use conflict to their own ends. In Israel's case, right now, the hardliner's purpose isn't defeating Hamas - it is winning an election. To that end, Israel is using a definition of "enemy combatant" wider than any in common useage.

The International Committee of the Red Cross - guardian of the Geneva Conventions on which international humanitarian law is based - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities".

But Israeli Defence Forces spokesman Benjamin Rutland told the BBC: "Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm."

Philippe Sands, Professor of International Law at University College London, says he is not aware of any Western democracy having taken so broad a definition.

"Once you extend the definition of combatant in the way that IDF is apparently doing, you begin to associate individuals who are only indirectly or peripherally involved… it becomes an open-ended definition, which undermines the very object and purpose of the rules that are intended to be applied."

That means that Israel will continue indiscriminately burning down the house in Gaza, with predictable consequences:

The scene on Sunday at the hospital, a singular and grisly reflection of the violence around it, was both harrowing and puzzling. A week ago, when Israel began its air assault, hundreds of Hamas militants were taken to the hospital. Yet on Sunday, the day Israeli troops flooded Gaza and ground battles with Hamas began, there appeared not to be a single one.

The casualties at Shifa on Sunday — 18 dead, hospital officials said, among a reported 30 around Gaza — were women, children and men who had been with children. One surgeon said that he had performed five amputations.

“I don’t know what kind of weapons Israel is using,” said a nurse, Ziad Abd al Jawwad, 41, who had been working 24 hours without a break. “There is so much amputation.”

White phosphorus burns to the bone.

Comments

[truth101]

Cernig: this is the type on view that costs my Democratic Party two elections against Bush. Israel has every right to defend itself as President Elect Obama has said. Save me another explanation about war crimes because Hamas hides among the innocent. Hamas embraces terror. It is the enemy.

[courtneyme109]

"...any assault upon that population under the guise of targeting militants is, in fact, a war crime"

So what?

Deliberate use of innocent civilians to shield weaponry is, in fact, a war crime.

[Steve Hynd]

"Deliberate use" is difficult to prove in a built up area of 1.5 million people. Or do you expect terrorists to play by the rules and move out into the countryside for a manuever war that would suit Israel?

The thing about civilized people, Courtney, is that they don't act like terrorists.

[Steve Hynd]

But I have to admit I cringe every time I see conservatives dump all that "absolute morality" stuff overboard as soon as it suits them.

[anna missed]

White Phosphorous dropped on a densely populated civilian area must be Israel's brilliant new take on a "final solution" to the Palestinian problem - on the fly, so to speak.

[Graham]

Truth 101 - are you saying that the US will only elect war criminals and their supporters? If that's how you think you deserved two terms of Bush.

[Charles]

Courtney and Truth101, by the same definition, one could say that Israel uses civilians to hide military targets, since not every potential military target is outside of populated areas. In a densely populated area like Gaza, it would be impossible for Hamas to segregate military targets. This argument is a non-starter.

Even if Hamas is recklessly exposing civilians to harm, Israel claims to be morally superior to the terrorists. Burning children with area weapons like white phosphorus does not persuade.

[Batocchio]

I'm not familiar with the burst signatures of white phosphorus, but am somewhat with its effects - it's very nasty stuff, and like cluster bombs, should never be used. I'm dismayed to read anyone defending their use. J-Street, for example, supports Israel's right to defend itself, but feels their response has been disproportionate and will damage prospects for long-term peace. It's not hard to see that. Truth101 and Courtney's comments suggest a number of things - that the IDF is precise, all their intel is accurate, and they're only, specifically targeting Hamas members, and all other deaths are collateral or accidental - or perhaps that all the dead and injured had it coming, and anyway, Hamas alone is to blame. The current casualty rate and reports on the ground from international doctors suggest these are not "surgical" strikes at all, but regardless, it's troubling to see anyone excuse civilian death and injury. The same applies for rocket attacks from Gaza, of course, and they should stop, too - I don't see why it's hard to bemoan death and injury (sometimes horrific) to any and everybody. The biggest question remains: how does the current course of action possibly make Israel – or Gaza – safer and better off? Some other questions – I have to wonder about anyone who doesn't oppose the use of white phosphorus, cluster bombs and similar weapons. I'm troubled by idiots like Michael Goldfarb who view Gaza residents as inhuman. And while emotions can run high, it's not encouraging to hear anyone deny that there's a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. There are legitimate grievances all around, but the firepower is hardly proportionate, and neither are its consequences. I see fear, vengeance and callousness winning the day. What is the true goal here? And what has been and will be achieved?

[truth101]

My credentials as a Democrat take a back seat to damn few people Graham. Nobody deserved any Bush terms. But my Lib way of thinking doesn't blind me to the propaganda and murder spewed out by Hamas.
"Measured and proportional" responses do nothing but make those that decided them feel just and righteous for a few hours. They don't stop Hamas and other terror organizations from continuing to terrorize. It's clobberin time Graham.
I'd go on but I'll do that at my site when I feel like it.

[Andy]

Well, I guess by the standards of some here conducting warfare in a city is a war crime because, after all, as quoted above, "The presence of militants within a civilian population does not, under international law, deprive that population of their protected status, and hence any assault upon that population under the guise of targeting militants is, in fact, a war crime. "

Of course the assumption is that Israel's intent is to assault the population and not the militants. If that actually was the intent, I think we'd see several thousand dead at this point instead of several hundred.

As for WP it's primary role in the US military (every military, actually) dating back decades is an obscurant. That's what these shells were designed for. If the Israelis really intended to fry the flesh off of innocent Palestinians, they'd be set to detonate on impact to blow out windows and spread the WP felt pieces (those "burning" trails you see in the pictures are pieces of felt soaked in WP) into the interior of buildings and onto the people in the immediate area. Air bursting is safer for civilians (who are likely to be indoors where actual fighting is taking place)and it makes a better smoke-screen to boot, particularly in a city. Why? Because cities have tall buildings and opponents like to get in those building and shoot down at you, so a vertical smokescreen is quite nice and one can only get that with an airburst.

Someone may have mentioned it before, but smoke is a legitimate and some would say, essential element of urban warfare. It's been used, in some form or another, in almost every urban conflict in the past 80 or so years.

As for the legality of this particular munition, it is completely legal to use in the way Israel appears to be using it. There's no special legal provision that states this can't be used in cities or near civilians beyond the basic laws of armed conflict that govern all weapons. Cernig has cited the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Weapons in several posts now, but apparently hasn't taken the time to actually read it. Here are the relevant portions (emphasis added):

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.

I've already discussed what these weapons are primarily designed to do. But wait, there's more:

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include: (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

There it is, right there in the treaty. But wait, there's more! Incendiary weapons also do not include:

(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.

Because WP smoke rounds do have "incendiary effects" they are sometimes considered "combined effects" munitions. It's clear, however, that the WP-soaked felt pieces in these munitions are not specifically designed to cause burn injury to people. Unlike other WP munitions, the M825 (what Israel is likely using) contains the WP in felt pads, which burns more slowly and is less incendiary while producing more smoke over a longer period. For burning humans they are quite poor weapons when compared to true incendiary weapons. Dozens of these have been used in the past few days yet they haven't seemed to start many, if any, fires.

This war is terrible enough without people making wildly exaggerated claims. You don't need to engage in such gross hyperbole to condemn Israel's actions, which appears to be your primary goal here.

[Steve Hynd]

Andy, only burning people with weapons classified as
incendiaries is worth getting emotional about?

I don't have a problem with the classic uses of WP in combat - where I have a problem is in those classic uses being employed over heavily populated built-up areas. You seem not to and neither does Israel. Please excuse me if I think I have the moral high ground there.

And please also note my bolding the assertion that Hamas too has committed war crimes.

Regards, C

[Steve Hynd]

I've spoken to several military folk on this and most agree with FDChief, a retired Army artillery sergeant, who writes:
"They're using it as an indecendiary.

QS/IS is a ground burst mission and HC smoke would be better for a QS mission, anyway. Screening in the atack is usually a deliberate smoke mission with HC. You wouldn't used WP airburst for a smoke marker; the WP would frag (as you see it doing) and start little fires everywhere."

Regards, C

[Andy]

Cernig,

Please don't put words into my mouth or try to lump me in with Israel because I've corrected some of your false claims. Your supposed "moral high ground" doesn't excuse you from twisting the facts and/or sloppy research.

[J.]

"Andy, only burning people with weapons classified as incendiaries is worth getting emotional about?"

Yes. This has been another version of short answers to obvious questions.

Andy, thank you for confirming what I've already tried to explain to Cernig. It's one thing to decry what Israel is doing in Gaza, which is understandable, and it's another to misrepresent the nature of existing arms control agreements and military concepts of combat operations, which is not understandable.