This past week, it was revealed that the White Phosphorus used by Israel in Gaza came from the United States.
http://web.archive.org/web/20090205...article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003936897
I've no doubt this revelation will only increase tensions in the region for the US and make radical recruitment go up.
As I read the Geneva Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons at the link below, under Protocol 3 it defines incendiary weapons and in Article 2 lays out it's prohibitions around civilains and civilian objects
http://web.archive.org/web/20090609234729/http://ccwtreaty.com/KeyDocs/protocol3.html
Under Article 1, it defines what is an incendiary weapon and for the record it only identifies the weapon by what it does, not by specific name. In other words, white phosphorus by name is not listed as being an incendiary weapon but at the same time neither is napalm. Article 1 calls a weapon incendiary if it's deployment does or causes certain results that are specifically listed. It also states the following that an incendiary weapon is not:
b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
White phosphorus can meet this definition as it can be deployed as both for smoke and for tracer rounds. In the case of tracer rounds, in US and NATO standards, tracer round are normally made from a combination of strontium salts and a metal fuel of magnesium and even if WP was used in tracers, I'm not sure anyone is making the claim that small arms tracers were the source of WP in the photos getting passed around in the media. This would then move the argument over to an illuminant or smoke round which again is not considered an incendiary weapon.
First, I don't think someone would argue it was for illumination as the pics I've seen are in broad daylight. If there are night photos others have seen I stand corrected and the arguement for this may thus apply. But again, if deployed for illumination, this is not prohibited by any treaty or convention as it is not an incendiary device. I would think you'd only have to show just cause of it's use and as they say, game over!
Smoke. This IMO would seem the most logical arguement one would make to defend WP deployment which Israel has admitted they did and the US has admitted they sold them WP artillary rounds loaded at Pine Bluff. The State Department also stated these rounds are for illumination of a darkened battlefield or smoke cover for combat troops. Now the smoke cover does make sense but it only makes sense for example if say combat troops were posed to move into the area hit in order use the smoke as cover for it's operations. Now I have no idea what was the situation or what IDF troop movements were taking place but seems to me this whole matter could be answered quickly by IDF leaders showing International complaintants how they had troops positioned to move into the area hit and then the obvious use as smoke become apparent and the CCW violations disappear just as the smoke has.
If however there is nothing the IDF can show to support the use of WP deployment being for smoke cover, then Article 2 could come into play which is very specific when it comes to deploying incendiary weapons around civilians.
Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. 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.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
#3 above could be an out for the IDF depending on the circumstances but I'm not aware one way or the other when it comes to this specific point. Seems to me that my point about the IDF using smoke for troop cover backs this whole arguement into Article #1 when Art. 2 ,Sec. 3 has no need or application.
#4, I've not heard Smoke Bear complain so I assume nothing is there on that point. Where this all goes from here it's hard to say but so far I've not seen much from IDF or the Israeli gov't that would seem to quash the claims made concerning CCW violations.
If the allegations do prove true (and I say if because as yet it has not been proved one way or the other IMO) America will find itself in a very bad position when it comes to a matter of the rule of law and how it is seen globally in it's own quest of formitting global democracy and the rule of law around the world.
Our founders spoke well and often about resisting entangling alliances and this may become another example of why that was such wise advice.
.
