Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Big_Bird]

There is much talk now of Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

From The Guardian (yes I know I know) The Israeli military are accused of:

� Using powerful shells in civilian areas which the army knew would cause large numbers of innocent casualties;

� Using banned weapons such as phosphorus bombs;

� Holding Palestinian families as human shields;

� Attacking medical facilities, including the killing of 12 ambulance men in marked vehicles;

� Killing large numbers of police who had no military role.

[Big_Bird]

Israel may face UN court ruling on legality of Gaza conflict

[Kuros]

[Jandar]

I don't see Whire Phosphorus listed in any of the chemical weapons listings.

Schedule 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_1_substances_(CWC)

Schedule 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_2_substances_(CWC)

Schedule 3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Schedule_3_substances_(CWC)

I see:

Phosphorus oxychloride - A colorless liquid.

Phosphorus trichloride - Another colorless liquid

Phosphorus pentachloride - Another colorless liquid

White Phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, using that term to describe white phosphorus is disingenuous.

The effects of white phosphorus is undoubtedly horrific however it is not considered a chemical weapon by the Geneva conventions.

The use of white phosphorus against anti-personnel devices landmines, IEDs and other booby-traps device have been found to most effective.

[kotakji]

White Phosphorous falls under the category of incendiary weapons and can be used within the constraints of protocol III to illuminate or screen. Moreover it can be used as a weapon as long as the primary target is not civilian. By the way, a military target is defined as any target:

"whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definite military advantage."

It should be noted that Israel is not a signatory party to protocol III anyway (nor is the US or S. Korea for that matter) and thus is not bound by it.

[wesharris]

Israel is damned on both sides. So go in, kill the suckers, let God sort them out, transplant the kids, ship out the rest, and hope for peace in the long term.
-=-
Wes

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Big_Bird]

Claims that Israel is using illegal bombs won't go away

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[NAVFC]

Heh. Why am I not surprised that most of the posters in this thead accusing Isael of war crimes, given thee threads have no clue wha they are talking about from a legalistic or military point of view?

Using tank shells in civilian ares a war crime? I think Not. There is no restriction to which weapons can be used in which areas as long as you are targetting enemies and so forth.
In reality Hamas is guilty of a war crime by using said areas as military staging grounds. Under international law, if you start using human shields and placing your assetts in civilian areas and so forth, deliberately as Hamas has done, then you, the group who put them there are held legally responsible for the deaths of the civilians, NOT the attacking army.

As far as destroying certain structures, such as Mosques, Hospitals, etc.

Normally in war such facilities are immune and precluded from attack, however under the laws of war such facilities lose their protection if used for purposes of the enemy.. like putting Anti Air craft cannons in mosques:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zd55Zhj5gQ&feature=channel_page

or firing from schools:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN9WzUc7iB0&feature=channel_page

and so forth.

As far as the "police" who had no military role. Unlike a normal government or principality where in justice, executive, nd judicial powers might be divided up into 3 or more parts. Hamas is Hamas.
If at war with Hamas, Israel would be pemitted to target Hamas assetts to gain a distinct military advantage.


Furthermore alot of people seem not to read much up on the History of war. People are acting as if Gaza were a massacre.

Gaza is a very population DENSE area, yet in 3 weeks of aerial and ground bombardment, there has been less then 1000 CIVILIAN casualties, adding in Hamas causulties and that number rises slightly above a 1000.
In 3 weeks, in a densely populated area.
Looking back on wars, even as recent as the Operation Iraqi Freedom war, that is a very very very low number given the population density, the location of the targets, and so forth.

Another thing that has become apparent to me, is when ever any other nation besides Israel goes to war the media coverage is diffeent. In the beginning of the Iraq war for instance you turn on the TV and they are bringing you live coverage of the bombing. Bringing on military correspondece to talk about the weapons being used, about the military tactics, about the war plan. TV specials on military equipmentand weapons and so forth.
Or even when Russia invaded SOuth Ossetia, it was constant updates on how far they were from this city or that city, or where the latest goergian v russian troop skirmih was, or how close they were to a deal to end the figting and so forth.
Or when Ethiopia invaded Somalia to dislodge the Islamic Government who took over, it was how far they were from MogaDishu, how many militants were dead, etc etc a totally different slant
Yet when ever Israel goes to war the nature of the coverage changes. It is almost a daily update on civilian casualties. A day by day tally. Pictures of destruction are shown. Crying Palestines screaming at the camera. Day after Day after Day after Day. and thats what it is.
You migh havesome discussion about how far ISraeli troops advanced into where, or if some senior Leader of the eemy gets illed that will be mentioned, but for the most part the news coverage seems to be
"Look at these Israeli monsters! look at the damage and death!"
etc.
and its funny because the world doesnt seem to care until Israel goes to war.
In 2008 alone thousands of rockets were fired into Israel by Hamas, until the temporary ceasefire. Then after that, 300 rockets landed in Israel before the Gaza offensive. But there was no international protest, the UN didnt seem to care, the other Arab nations, including Egypt, could have cared less. But even on the first day of aerial bombing, before a tally on the civilian death toll had even started, the UN and the entire arab region started calling what Israe did agression, they are in the wrong, etc etc.

And of course Hamas will cite the blockade as the reason, but what they dont tell you is that ISNT wha strted the attacks. Hamas had been attacking Isael long before the blockade, and indeed that blockade had been put in place to keep out suicide bombers, and pressure Hamas into giving up there terrorism tactics. In a war a blockade is a lawful measure, an Hamas and Israel, in reality have been at war long before this latest conflict ever began.

[NAVFC]

another issue I wantedto comment on from the Military/Legalistic point of view was the doctrine of proportionality which people have been throwing around in the media and discussion like it were the school tramp.

People have been, and mistakenly so, attempting to quantify and justify a war based on proportionality in which they arbitrarily assign certain strengths to certain variables, mainly the number killed.
This whole doctrine of proportional warfare, in the way the media spins it is a buzzword that comes out when ever Israel goes to war.
Andits blatanly false. The idea that a nation would be required to sustain constant rocket fire because enough people hadnt died is ludicrious.
The rocket fire includes variables which people can not possibly qauntify such as the un ease and so forth felt by the southern Israeli population.
There is no magic death toll # by which a nation is justified in defending itself, there is no number that must be reached before a nation can legally say enough. ALl that is required, legally, is that a continuin threat exists to that nation and they want to act to removie it

What the proportionality clauses in int'l law of war refers to is not casualty numbers or so forth, but the proportion of force used to carry out a military objective.
If for instance I was at war with you, and I wanted to bomb your Intelligence Head Quarters, and it was say smack dab in the middle of down town - lots of civilians, but I hae weapon capable of a pin point strike on the facility, that would destroy it, then I am required to employ it.
I could not legally say, carpet bomb the entire area to destroy your intelligence HQ when I can pin point it because it exceeds the PROPORTION of force required to carry out the objective, and in doing so needlessly indangers the civilian population around your intelligence Head Quarters.

[bacasper]

[NAVFC]

[Summer Wine]

You made some very good points NAVFC.

[Kuros]