• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gaza Terrorists Fire Phosphorus Shells into Israel

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,760
Reaction score
10,062
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
In a case that highlights the need for maintaining a maritime blockade so as to reduce the flow of weapons into the Gaza Strip, terrorists from that area fired shells containing phosphorous into Israel. The Jerusalem Post reported:

At least 2 of the 9 mortar shells fired during the day contained phosphorus, police confirm; regional council head intends to inform UN of Geneva Convention violation...

Israel Police said it was not the first time that phosphorous shells had been fired at Israel from Gaza.
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In a case that highlights the need for maintaining a maritime blockade so as to reduce the flow of weapons into the Gaza Strip, terrorists from that area fired shells containing phosphorous into Israel. The Jerusalem Post reported:

At least 2 of the 9 mortar shells fired during the day contained phosphorus, police confirm; regional council head intends to inform UN of Geneva Convention violation...

Israel Police said it was not the first time that phosphorous shells had been fired at Israel from Gaza.
Yet another warcrime out of Hamas that will be ignored by the international community, which will also be completely ignored by the anti-Israel crowd in claiming each and every step Israel takes to defend itself is "illegal".
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,109
Reaction score
12,031
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yet another warcrime out of Hamas that will be ignored by the international community, which will also be completely ignored by the anti-Israel crowd in claiming each and every step Israel takes to defend itself is "illegal".
How can it be a war crime if it was not a war crime when Israel did it during the Gaza attack? Or are there now two standards on what is a "war crime"?
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
nope. What Israel did was fire phasphorous artillery shells desgiend to illuminate an area. That they had done so in breach of procedure too close to populated areas was recognized as an error and corrected.

What Hamas has done, yet again, was used illegal weapns (a war crime) to indicriminately target Israeli civilians (also a war crime), as another attack in its continual war to destroy Israel by "liberating historic Palestine (which is actually genocide, if you read the convention).

But like I said, nothing done against Israel matters. The issue is always what Israel does to defend itself and how drastically and totally evil that is, and never about the continuous assault against Israeli civilians by the Palestinians.

We get it.
 
Last edited:

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,109
Reaction score
12,031
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
:shock:
nope. What Israel did was fire phasphorous artillery shells desgiend to illuminate an area. That they had done so in breach of procedure too close to populated areas was recognized as an error and corrected.

What Hamas has done, yet again, was used illegal weapns (a war crime) to indicriminately target Israeli civilians (also a war crime), as another attack in its continual war to destroy Israel by "liberating historic Palestine (which is actually genocide, if you read the convention).

But like I said, nothing done against Israel matters. The issue is always what Israel does to defend itself and how drastically and totally evil that is, and never about the continuous assault against Israeli civilians by the Palestinians.

We get it.
LOL okay, no double standard there none at all..:doh
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
:shock:

LOL okay, no double standard there none at all..:doh
Sorry, you want to explain that to me.

The key issue here is intent. What was the purpose of launching incendiaries that explode in the air to illuminate a battlefield in which soldiers are fighting house to hosue and door to door? What was the purpose of lobbing mortar shells into agricultural areas to explode on the fields where civilians work?

You don't want to think about that a teency bit, do you?

But again, I get it. Clear war crimes by Hamas are met not even with blank indifference, but with open and full propaganda support from the anti-Israel crowd.

You want to pretend to care about the Palestinians, go ahead. Think about wehat happens to the Palestinians in gaza if one of these things finds its way into an Israeli school (which are often the targets of these attacks).

Then maybe think it might be in the people you pretend to care about's interest that this not happen.
 
Last edited:

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,109
Reaction score
12,031
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Sorry, you want to explain that to me.

The key issue here is intent. What was the purpose of launching incendiaries that explode in the air to illuminate a battlefield in which soldiers are fighting house to hosue and door to door? What was the purpose of lobbing mortar shells into agricultural areas to explode on the fields where civilians work?

You don't want to think about that a teency bit, do you?

But again, I get it. Clear war crimes by Hamas are met not even with blank indifference, but with open and full propaganda support from the anti-Israel crowd.

You want to pretend to care about the Palestinians, go ahead. Think about wehat happens to the Palestinians in gaza if one of these things finds its way into an Israeli school (which are often the targets of these attacks).

Then maybe think it might be in the people you pretend to care about's interest that this not happen.
First off I am in no way defending the morons among the Palestinians who are lobbing these shells over the border. I am point out the double standard here.

Secondly your whole description of what happened during the Gaza incursion is at best partly wrong. The IDF used White Phosphorous to hide troop movements during the day, over civilian areas. Not to mention the IDF first denied using it, then said it was for illumination and when caught using it during day, said it was for covering troop movements. Not exactly the best reliability is it now.... especially when the whole world could see the white phosphorous falling from the sky over civilian areas of Gaza.

Gaza: Israel under fire for alleged white phosphorus use - CSMonitor.com

There are plenty of reliable links out on the web describing the use by the IDF if you dont believe the CSmonitor, and there is report by the UN, written by a jew, who also claim this and condemn it.

Frankly what the IDF did is no different than what these wackos from Gaza are doing.. other than those from Gaza cant aim for **** and that Gaza is far more heavily populated than the areas the Gaza rockets are trying to hit.

Hence my hypocrisy claim here.... how can ones side use be okay, but the other not?
 

Vader

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
How can it be a war crime if it was not a war crime when Israel did it during the Gaza attack? Or are there now two standards on what is a "war crime"?
Israel was at war at the time and Israel was not targeting civilians. Hamas WAS targeting civilians. You sir ... should be ashamed of yourself.
 

Vader

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
:shock:

LOL okay, no double standard there none at all..:doh
No, there is not one. Israel wasn't targeting civilians ... Hamas was. I am sorry you are incapable of understanding this.
 

William Rea

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
2,231
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Israel was at war at the time and Israel was not targeting civilians. Hamas WAS targeting civilians. You sir ... should be ashamed of yourself.
So the justifiable difference is that if you have a huge military you can mobilise then you are excused from any standards.
 

William Rea

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
2,231
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
No, there is not one. Israel wasn't targeting civilians ... Hamas was. I am sorry you are incapable of understanding this.
How do you know that the rocket firer wasn't targetting a military installation or an industrial area that supports the military?

You don't even know that Hamas was firing the rockets.
 
Last edited:

Vader

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
How do you know that the rocket firer wasn't targetting a military installation or an industrial area that supports the military?

You don't even know that Hamas was firing the rockets.
The attacks came from Gaza; therefore, Hamas is responsible. Also .. the areas targeted had no military infrastructure in them. It was a cowardly ape attack on unarmed civilians.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Under international law it is the right of an occupied people to resist the occupation. Hamas having renounced suicide bombs in 2006 coinciding with their entry into politics, opted for the largely symbolic and fairly pathetic form of resistance that is rocket fire.

So I'm genuinly wondering how they are supposed to resist occupation? How would the people on these boards resist the occupation? Throw spoons, maybe? Pray for snow and lob some snow-balls?

It almost feels like people want Hamas to revert back to suicide bombings...
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Under international law it is the right of an occupied people to resist the occupation. Hamas having renounced suicide bombs in 2006 coinciding with their entry into politics, opted for the largely symbolic and fairly pathetic form of resistance that is rocket fire.

So I'm genuinly wondering how they are supposed to resist occupation? How would the people on these boards resist the occupation? Throw spoons, maybe? Pray for snow and lob some snow-balls?

It almost feels like people want Hamas to revert back to suicide bombings...
The attempted murder of civilians is a right now, is it?

I guess since they are Jews...........
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,760
Reaction score
10,062
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Under international law it is the right of an occupied people to resist the occupation...
Indiscriminate bombardment, deliberate attacks on civilians, and use of weapons in a prohibited fashion e.g., the use of the phosophorous in the Gaza rockets, is not sanctioned under international law.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I have to add my voice to the people who find condemnation of this act somewhat hypocritical.

As has been pointed out, the IDF fired white phosphorous shells into populated areas in clear violation of international law and this has been acknowledged by the United Nations and, to my knowledge, not denied by the IDF.

While the IDF may not have specifically targeted civilians with their attacks during Cast Lead, it seems clear to me that they did almost nothing beyond token efforts to prevent civilian casualties.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,760
Reaction score
10,062
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I have to add my voice to the people who find condemnation of this act somewhat hypocritical.

As has been pointed out, the IDF fired white phosphorous shells into populated areas in clear violation of international law and this has been acknowledged by the United Nations and, to my knowledge, not denied by the IDF.
The only problem with that line of argument is that Israel used the shells for the specific and lawful purpose of illuminating an area. It did not use the shells as weapons of combat. The former practice is legal under the Laws of War. The latter is not. The shells fired from the Gaza Strip were used for the latter purpose. Even if no phosphorous were involved, the shells were fired in an indiscriminate fashion and indiscriminate bombardment is also prohibited under the Laws of War.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The only problem with that line of argument is that Israel used the shells for the specific and lawful purpose of illuminating an area. It did not use the shells as weapons of combat. The former practice is legal under the Laws of War. The latter is not. The shells fired from the Gaza Strip were used for the latter purpose. Even if no phosphorous were involved, the shells were fired in an indiscriminate fashion and indiscriminate bombardment is also prohibited under the Laws of War.
During operation Cast Lead, Israel's indiscriminate firing on Gaza was well documented. Extensively so. Read the human rights reports or the Goldstone report. When you consider that you can count on one both hands and feet the amount of Israelis killed from this feeble form of resistance out of 8000 or so that have been fired, the case of 'self defence' becomes laughable. Over 70 Palestinian civilians were killed in the Occupied Palestinian Territories last year... how many Israelis were killed by rocket fire?

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/a...a74-4853-860f-0563725e633a/mde150152009en.pdf

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf

The Goldstone Report blows your first sentence out of the water. Israel's use of phosphorus shells was indiscriminate and if it weren't for two members of the UN and their quick reactions, Israel would have killed around 400 more innocent civilians when they dropped phosphorus on a building housing highly flammable chemicals (I believe it was fuel of some sort), and a mass of civilians hiding from the bombardment.

And just a quick side note: Hamas would have been tried for war crimes after the Goldstone report's findings, but as that would also have meant Israel being brought up on war crimes far more extensive and immoral acts than the feeble rocket fire (I think one or maybe two or three people died from rocket fire during the operation, causing a few million dollars worth of damage, while Israel killed around 700 or so innocent civilians and caused over 2 billion dollars worth of damage... which Gazans are not being allowed to repair), and possible crimes against humanity, Israel's ever ready to veto friend, the US, has put a spanner in the works on that one.
 
Last edited:

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,760
Reaction score
10,062
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Goldstone Report blows your first sentence out of the water.
The Goldstone report is not an International Court of Justice judgment. It is not a binding ruling.

Furthermore, it is deeply flawed. For example, it attempts to define Hamas security personnel as having civilian status when no reasonable application of the Geneva Conventions or their Protocols would support such a position. While the report makes good political fodder, it undermines international law with its novel interpretations. With its politicized interpretations, it undermines the credibility of international law and the important principles of such law. The great tragedy is that even as the report purports to try to safeguard civilian protections, its overall impact is that it erodes protections that would otherwise be reinforced under a sound interpretation of international law.

Needless to say, I am not in any way suggesting that Israel committed no wrongful acts. Indeed, there were accidents. At the same time, Israel is also investigating a number of potential abuses. Those are serious matters that deserve review.
 

William Rea

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
2,231
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
The attacks came from Gaza; therefore, Hamas is responsible. Also .. the areas targeted had no military infrastructure in them. It was a cowardly ape attack on unarmed civilians.
Ah, that collective punishment thing again.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The only problem with that line of argument is that Israel used the shells for the specific and lawful purpose of illuminating an area. It did not use the shells as weapons of combat. The former practice is legal under the Laws of War. The latter is not. The shells fired from the Gaza Strip were used for the latter purpose. Even if no phosphorous were involved, the shells were fired in an indiscriminate fashion and indiscriminate bombardment is also prohibited under the Laws of War.
The use of white phosphorous shells in a populated area for ANY reason is prohibited. Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as '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'. The same protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Goldstone report is not an International Court of Justice judgment. It is not a binding ruling.
Well this is nice and convenient. The only reason it is not binding is because the US blocked any further action (without commenting why - I don't think they even read it). To then use that as an excuse is deplorable and completely immoral. It would have been kicked up to the Hague long ago if it weren't for their get out of jail card.

Furthermore, it is deeply flawed. For example, it attempts to define Hamas security personnel as having civilian status when no reasonable application of the Geneva Conventions or their Protocols would support such a position.
Have you read the Geneva Convention? When a target is not holding a gun directed at the enemy, he is a non-combatant. When a target is not housed at a military target, he is a non-combatant. Even if the guy is Hamas, never mind Hamas's security. Israel didn't even bother to distinguish, any difference between non combatants and combatants for the most part (the vast majority of the time).

And please provide plenty of examples because as I'm sure you are aware, the Goldstone report is long. A broad 'it's wrong because I say so' statement really doesn't cut it.


While the report makes good political fodder, it undermines international law with its novel interpretations.
Please give examples. It seems to me you're just spouting the official IDF propaganda. Who, just for the record, barely even carried out an investigation (as is the norm).

I would love to know how Richard Goldstone, one of the most respected judges in the entire world, has novel interpretations of international law? Do you even know of the man's credentials?

Again, are you just repeating what you have been spoon fed? Or can you provide specific examples? More broad statements really don't help your case.

With its politicized interpretations, it undermines the credibility of international law and the important principles of such law. The great tragedy is that even as the report purports to try to safeguard civilian protections, its overall impact is that it erodes protections that would otherwise be reinforced under a sound interpretation of international law.

Again I'm going to need some direct examples that show what you claim to be true.

I find it quite bare faced cheek for someone to claim that this law is being distorted when Israel themselves have tried to rewrite international law time and again.

Quick example, after '67, they said it was ok to acquire land through war, as long as you didn't start the war (which wasn't the case anyways). They repeated this time and again to the UN, who, quite correctly, completely disregarded the validity of that stance. All throughout their history they have continually tried to rewrite the laws of war and it seems now, so are you.

Or effectively legalising hostage taking, ('bargaining chips'.), kidnapping (they hold tens of thousands of political prisoners amongst others - including women and children), and torturing (Israel were the only country in the world to the best of my knowledge that ever legalised torture, lasting until roughly a decade ago).

Political assassinations, targeted assassinations, acts of terrorism and barbarism also... (the list is very long)
.
To hear someone who is obviously quite intelligent, claim that Goldstone is the one distorting laws is really surprising to say the least (it is a complete reversal of the realities of the situation). You have a cheek to try to defame Goldstone's work, out of hand.

Needless to say, I am not in any way suggesting that Israel committed no wrongful acts. Indeed, there were accidents. At the same time, Israel is also investigating a number of potential abuses. Those are serious matters that deserve review.
Is this a joke? Accidents? They used human shields and then went on to spread lies that Hamas were the ones using human shields (I would love for you to ask me to prove this. I take great pleasure in cutting through propaganda). Israel cannot investigate themselves. This has been demonstrated time and time again - they don't even try. 'Israel is also investigating a number of potential abuses' is completely misleading, as Israel cannot investigate itself. This is an extensively documented fact and not even a controversial one outside of certain, tiny, circles.

The entire policy was about destroying Gaza life (what little was left of it). Their 'deterrence policy' of demoralising civilians into giving up any form of resistance - it has been employed since the massacre of 20,000 in Lebanon in '82 (most of whom were civilians).There were no military objectives. And the whole world knows it.

The only reason they got away with it is because the US dismissed, out of hand like you do, the validity of the report. It's disgusting for me to watch this take place.


Oh, and just to add: 'We used phosphorus fired in Gaza war'

Member of one of Palestinian groups says bombs fired on Israel contained material collected from shells which hit Strip during Operation Cast Lead
'We used phosphorus fired in Gaza war' - Israel News, Ynetnews

So there you have it - this was Israel's/US's white phosphorus just lobbed back over. Hardly surprising when you consider it must be hard to come by (only three countries, US, Israel and Canada have ever used it), except in a war-zone that was battered by it. Although now we'll have Israel's pretense for using it during the next slaughter. 'But they used it'...

And just for the record, it has been reported that the white phosphorus fired from Gaza was no more destructive than any other form of rocket, so I'm not even sure what is so controversial about this detail. Israel claims that its use was within the parameters of international law... has anyone even seen the size of Gaza? It's practically impossible to use the stuff in such a densely populated area with it not being a violation of international law...
 
Last edited:

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
19,743
Reaction score
6,213
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The use of white phosphorous shells in a populated area for ANY reason is prohibited.
Incorrect, the use of white phosphorous shells in a civilian area are prohibited.
The definition of an area as a civilian/military area depends on what is done in such area.
When the government of a territory launches rockets at another country's civilians from a certain area, this area becomes a military area and not a civilian area.

Nevertheless it should be obvious that while the IDF was using WP to light up the area so the soldiers can fight in better conditions, Gazan terrrorists launching a WP on a rocket into an Israeli land has only one purpose.
They are not lightening up the way for their soldiers, are they?
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
When the government of a territory launches rockets at another country's civilians from a certain area, this area becomes a military area and not a civilian area.

Not even slightly true. I'm not even sure how someone could reach that conclusion - I guess this is more of Israel rewriting the laws of war.

I'll quickly demonstrate how completely backwards what you have suggested actually is.

Hamas lob a bomb into a civilian population. But, wait, this area is not civilian anymore because Hamas have fired on it... I'm actually laughing my ass off right now. No offence mate, but the lack of logic behind that claim is mind-boggling.

And how is anything obvious (in reference to the other party of your post)? They are fighting a force that doesn't have night-vision technology - the IDF does. If anything, lighting up the area benefits those who cannot see. I would love to know how it is obvious to you... because the IDF said so?


Just to add (I do love my editing) -anywhere that there is even a shard of doubt of whether or not there is a civilian present, is a civilian area (or at least not a legitimate target). Anytime they bomb a place where they haven't made absolute certain that there would be no civilian casualties, is a war-crime, by definition. Israel drop ton bombs into densely populated areas to get one man, and that was before the Gaza slaughter (I refuse to even consider calling that a war).


Sorry, it seems I misunderstood your meaning. I apologise. But what you say still doesn't hold a shred of truth. It is not legitimate to target a civilian population, ever.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom