Gaurdian Fake News- Leaving A False Impression Of Confirmed Guilt

When it comes to Fake News about Israel people who would usually use logic and scepticism shut down all critical thinking, ignore a plethora of weasel words, accept accusations as confirmation of guilt and bad intentions.


This was a reply to me when I was discussing Israel's unfair treatement in the court of public opinion.


Here is a news story covering how the IDF admitted to firing at least 20 mortar rounds with white phosphorous into civilian areas (as I understand):


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/21/gaza-phosphorus-shells


Screen Shot 2018-08-01 at 1.48.31 PM.png

This Gaurdian article is a perfect example, you need go no farther than the headline for a glaring MAY.


This article as well as a picture of a dead baby were sent to me as proof of Israeli wrong doing. The events described in this article are from 2009 and as such the results of the investigations mentioned in this article are available and thus there is no reason for us to depend on maybe's and might be's when we can have is's or isn'ts. I couldn't find the source for the picture but I will ask.


330 During the fighting in Gaza, the IDF faced a major challenge in avoiding damage to U.N. and other international and sensitive facilities. In the densely populated Gaza Strip there are over 750 United Nations facilities, and almost 1,900 sensitive facilities in total.
331 The challenge was made many times more difficult by Hamas’ strategic placement of terrorist units and missile launching squads in close proximity to these sites, as evident in the following photographs:


GP5D-41.jpg

Mortar shells launched near an UNRWA school in the refugee camp in the central area of Gaza City (Source: IDF Spokesperson)

GP5D-40.jpg

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/terrorism/palestinian/pages/operation_in_gaza-factual_and_legal_aspects.aspx


Despite this articles implication that the IDF used incendiary rounds used in the infamous Shake and Bake bunker attacks of the Gulf War on civilian targets Even Human Rights Watch admits that the IDF only used the smoke generating munitions.

This reminds me of the first Gulf War when I asserted that the reasons we were being given for the war were not the real reasons for the war.
People went crazy and screamed at me about premature babies torn from incubators and bombs strapped to donkeys

You get the impression that the Israelis are firing incendiary shells into civilian buildings, which is simply not true. The Israeli tanks were were under fire from Hammas Anti-tank squads which were situated among civilians.

The best option for the IDF tank units would have been to return fire with high-explosive rounds but because of of International Law and the IDF's concern for civilians they refrained from sending explosive death amongst them.
Instead they used white phosphorus soaked felt wedges exploded in midair to form a smoke screen that not only obscured visibility but also blocked the the Hammas Anti-tank squads infrared targeting system.

The decision to use white phosphorus smoke generating shells was taken to protect civilian lives and yet the Fakestream news, the appeasers of Islamic Supremacists and those masters of the Information War Hammas have twisted it and painted as a war crime deployed to increase civilian suffering.

While white phosphorus does have secondary incendiary effects and does pose a danger it is much less dangerous than the alternatives. While the IDF has a duty to protect civilian lives they also have a duty to protect their soldiers.

Anyone can second guess how the Israelis respond to attacks from Gaza, I'm open to suggestions on how you would do it better but the fact remains the Gazans have no reason to attack Israel and should they stop their unceasing enimity they could live in peace and wouldn't have to worry about what kind of munitions or tactics used.




WEASEL WORDS WHICH IN THEMSELVES SHOW THIS ARTICLE TO BE FAKENEWS

Amnesty warns Israel could be guilty of war crimes

Israel has admitted – after mounting pressure – that its troops may have used

The use of phosphorus as an incendiary weapon as it now appears to have been used against Hamas fighters – as opposed to a smoke screen – is covered by the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons to which Israel in not a signatory.


Accusations In The Article Rebutted

Israel has admitted – after mounting pressure – that its troops may have used white phosphorus shells in contravention of international law, during its three-week offensive in the Gaza Strip.

Human Rights Watch Has To Admit The Munitions Themselves Were Not Illegal

Is Israel’s use of WP compliant with international law?

WP is not an illegal obscurant or weapon. However, Israel’s use of WP as an obscurant in densely populated areas of Gaza violates the obligation to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to the civilian population during military operations. Human Rights Watch urges Israel immediately to stop using WP in densely populated areas. Human Rights Watch will seek to investigate this matter further.

Israel appears to be using WP as an “obscurant” (a chemical used to hide military operations), a permissible use in principle under international humanitarian law (the laws of war). However, WP also has a significant, incidental, incendiary effect that can severely burn people and set structures, fields, and other civilian objects in the vicinity on fire. The potential for harm to civilians is magnified by Gaza’s high population density, among the highest in the world.

Human Rights Watch, Q & A on Israel’s Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza, 10 January 2009, available at

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/10/
q-israel-s-use-white-phosphorus-gaza

"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."

In response, the Israeli military said Tuesday that it "wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics."

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

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-eu-red-cross-white-phosphorus-011309-2009jan13-story.html

406 During the Gaza Operation, IDF forces used munitions containing white phosphorous, which is in common use by militaries worldwide. In particular, IDF used two different types of munitions containing white phosphorous – exploding munitions and smoke projectiles.
407 Exploding munitions containing white phosphorous. A small number of exploding munitions containing white phosphorous were used by the IDF during the Operation as mortar shells fire by ground forces and as rounds from naval vessels. These munitions were fired only at open unpopulated areas and were used only for marking and signalling rather than in an anti-personnel capacity. In one single incident, in an open uninhabited area, ammunition containing phosphorous was used by ground forces to uncover tunnel entrances that served for terrorist purposes. No exploding munitions containing white phosphorous were used in built-up areas of the Gaza Strip or for anti-personnel purposes. The restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons under Protocol III (relating to Incendiary Weapons) to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (“CCW Protocol III”)(277) were observed at all times, even though Israel is not a party to the Protocol (for further elaboration, see below).
408 None of the instances in which exploding munitions containing white phosphorous were used by the IDF during the Gaza Operation has given rise to particular criticism. Still, on 7 January 2009, although not required under international law, it was decided as a precautionary measure, in order to minimise the risk to civilians, that the IDF would cease to use such exploding munitions during the Gaza Operation. IDF forces fighting in Gaza were instructed to act accordingly.(278)

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/terrorism/palestinian/pages/operation_in_gaza-factual_and_legal_aspects.aspx

The Next Accusation Leveled By The Guadian That Israel Did Not Give Due Care To Prevent Civilian Causualties

However, Israel also is obliged under the Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law to give due care to protecting the civilian population when deciding on appropriate military targeting and response to hostile fire, particularly in heavily built up areas with a strict prohibition on the use of indiscriminate force.

Residents: Hamas Militants Staged Attacks from Cover of UN School


GAZA CITY, Gaza (AP) - Residents of a Gaza neighborhood are
confirming Israel's claim that Hamas militants had opened fire from
the cover of a U.N. school where hundreds of Palestinians had
sought refuge.
Israeli forces fired back with mortars, and hospital officials
says three dozen Palestinians were killed.
Two residents say a group of militants had fired their mortars
from a street near the school, then fled into a crowd of people in
the streets. The Israeli army says two of the dead were militants.
It accuses Gaza's Hamas rulers of "cynically" using civilians as
human shields.

http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/37163864.html

Some have suggested that IDF could have used less harmful munitions, or used the munitions in a less harmful manner, to achieve the same military objective, for example, by using smoke munitions without white phosphorous or by firing the munitions as ground-burst rather than air-burst projectiles. However, neither of these alternatives provides the same military advantages…
Targeting the munitions at the ground rather than exploding them high in the air would fail to achieve the area of dispersal required for military purposes and would actually result in much more severe damage to buildings and persons on the ground.

The IDF took several precautions and other measures that were appropriate with respect to these particular munitions. First, the munitions were used only for the purpose for which they were designed, i.e. to create smoke screens, rather than to attack personnel or destroy buildings, purposes for which IDF has a variety of more effective munitions. Second, the use of felt wedges soaked in white phosphorous tends to further reduce dispersal of the substance and its incendiary side effects as compared to exploding munitions containing white phosphorous. Third, the smoke projectiles were employed using delay fuses which release the felt components of the projectile at a distance of at least 100 metres above the ground. This method (as opposed to the use of contact fuses), is consistent with the use of the projectiles for smoke-screening purposes only. Furthermore, air-bursting the munitions at a considerable distance above ground meant that it was less likely that any person or building would be harmed by the explosions.

In other words, while Amnesty International claims air-bursting impregnated filaments showed flagrant disregard for the safety of civilians, Israel claims just the opposite is the case.

The Israeli report also contradicts Amnesty International’s assertion that “Israeli forces continued to employ the same tactics for the entire duration of the 22 day offensive.” Israel stated that it changed the protocol for using the weapon after a Jan. 15 incident:

… after reports of an incident on 15 January 2009 during combat in Tel al-Hawa in which white phosphorous smoke projectiles set fire to a UNRWA warehouse, an IDF directive was issued, effective through the end of the Gaza Operation, establishing a safety buffer of several hundred metres from sensitive sites when using smoke projectiles.

https://www.camera.org/article/did-israel-s-use-of-white-phosphorus-constitute-a-war-crime/

09 Smoke projectiles containing white phosphorous. The second and main type of munitions containing white phosphorous employed by the IDF during the Gaza Operation was smoke screening projectiles. In the course of the ground manoeuvre, the IDF used smoke shells containing felt wedges dipped in white phosphorous. These shells contained relatively small amounts of white phosphorous and were used exclusively to create smoke screens for military requirements, such as camouflaging armoured forces from anti-tank squads deployed by Hamas in Gaza’s urban areas. Smokescreens are an indispensable tool in ground manoeuvres and were extremely effective during the Gaza Operation in protecting IDF forces from Hamas’ anti-tank capabilities.
410 In fact, these smoke-screening projectiles are designed to create a protective smoke screen for battlefield purposes, and were used exclusively for this purpose by the IDF during the Gaza Operation. The smoke projectiles may, on occasion, produce incidental incendiary effects, but this does not make them incendiary weapons for purposes of international law.

29 In light of claims that the IDF made illegal use of munitions containing white phosphorous during the Gaza Operation, the IDF launched a field investigation into this matter. The investigation has now been completed and has uncovered no violations of international law, although – as explained in Section V.C(5) above – further stages of the review are ongoing.
430 After reviewing the conclusions of the investigation, the Chief of the General Staff emphasised the importance of a clear doctrine and orders on the issue of various munitions which contain phosphorous. In particular, Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi ordered that any use of phosphorous for purposes other than smoke obscuration be treated as exceptional, in order to minimise the risk to civilians. These instructions are currently being implemented in IDF orders and operational plans.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/terrorism/palestinian/pages/operation_in_gaza-factual_and_legal_aspects.aspx

What are the Results of The Inquiry?

The Gaurdian

The second munitions, at the centre of the inquiry by Col Alkalai, are standard phosphorus shells – both 88mm and 120mm – fired from mortars.

About 200 of these shells were fired during Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, and of these – say the IDF – 180 were fired on Hamas fighters and rocket launch crews in northern Gaza.

Alkalai is investigating the circumstances in which the remaining 20 shells were fired, amid compelling evidence on the ground that phosphorus munitions were involved in the attack on a UN warehouse and a UN school.

Colonel Shai Alkalai

Many international organizations had accused Israel of using weapons containing phosphorous during the course of the operation. Colonel Shai Alkalai took charge of the investigation into those claims, concluding that the IDF had used phosphorous only within the boundaries of what was permitted by international law. He also confirmed that despite the legality of the IDF’s actions, the military decided to stop using phosphorous in the middle of the war, due to international criticism.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/130986

Details From The Battle in the Gaza township of Beit Lahiya,

UNRWA School: Beit Lahia Elementary School: 17 January 2009

359 This incident involved the alleged hitting of a UNRWA school being used as a shelter by white phosphorous-soaked felt wedges and certain debris. Several deaths and injuries were reported.
360 ’The IDF’s investigation found that the incident occurred during a period in which IDF ground forces, including tanks, were operating in Beit Lahia against rocket-launching units and terrorist infrastructure. The forces were moving in an inferior terrain, threatened by Hamas positions located in the higher urban zone, including by Hamas’ units armed with advanced anti-tank missiles. IDF forces were exposed to continuous fire from different sources.
361 In accordance with the combat doctrine for dealing with anti-tank threats, IDF forces fighting in Beit Lahia used standard smoke projectiles in order to create a protective smokescreen between themselves and Hamas’ anti-tank units along the route of their progress. This smokescreen was effective and prevented Hamas from launching anti-tank missiles at IDF tanks. In the absence of such a smokescreen, it would have been necessary to use reactive fire at anti-tank units, with the likelihood of more extensive collateral damage.
362 The initial target zone of the smoke projectiles was located at a distance of one kilometre from the UNRWA school. The target zone was later adjusted in accordance with the progress of IDF forces, the wind direction and the deployment of Hamas anti-tank units. The nearest target zone to UNRWA school was several hundred metres from the School.
363 Despite the maintenance of an appropriate safety buffer between the nearest target zone of the smoke projectiles and the School, some felt wedges and other components of the projectiles unfortunately may have landed in the School. According to U.N. reports, such components apparently struck the roof of the School and caused significant casualties in one of the classrooms. It should be noted that such a falling of components is incidental to any use of air-burst munitions, including for the purpose of smoke screening, illumination, and so on.
364 In conclusion, the incident involved the implementation of an effective smokescreen as a protective measure, in response to concrete threats of Hamas anti-tank units against IDF tanks operating in Beit Lahia. The operational advantage of using the smokescreen was significant.(270) IDF forces had not anticipated significant collateral damage in relation to this advantage. The IDF is greatly saddened that civilians were injured, but this unfortunate fact does not render the original targeting decision a violation of the Law of Armed Conflict.

  1. The U.N. Board of Inquiry reached its “conclusions” regarding the incident without making any findings “as to whether Hamas units were present in the Beit Lahia neighbourhood …, [or] whether IDF forces were exposed to fire or whether the laying of a smokescreen or other reactive measures were necessary in consequence.” U.N. BoI Report ¶ 64. Yet these factors are essential for any proper analysis of distinction or proportionality, because (as explained in Section V.A above), both tests require consideration of legitimate military objectives. Proportionality in particular requires the weighing of the importance of such objectives against the likelihood of civilian harm, from the perspective of a “reasonable commander” at the time. Nor did the Board apparently consider any precautions taken by the IDF to minimize civilian casualties. Instead, the Board simply concluded that “whatever precautions were taken by the IDF in the current case, they were clearly inadequate in relation to the use of an extremely dangerous substance in a populated urban area.” Id. ¶ 67.

The second component of the charges against Israel involves the broader question of proportionality. The Israeli report addresses this question:

…In the case of smoke munitions containing white phosphorous, the expected military benefit was that they would protect Israeli forces from attack: a compelling military objective. Against this objective, one must weigh the anticipated risk of harm to civilians and property from the use of smoke munitions, which are designed to be a non-lethal type of munition. The non-lethal nature of smoke screens when compared to the effect of explosive munitions was particularly important, given that Hamas and other terrorist organisations sought to blend in with the civilian population, making it difficult or impossible to use explosive munitions without inflicting substantial civilian casualties.

Israel acknowledges that civilians may have been harmed by the munition although it questions the reliability of such reports, stating that “There appears to be insufficient evidence to conclude that white phosphorous caused extensive injuries to civilians in the course of the Gaza Operation.” While acknowledging that some civilian structures may have caught fire as a result of the shells, it notes that out of thousands of these projectiles fired, each containing 116 wedges, the damage was not excessive. It concludes that the “scope of casualties and damage” resulting from their use was “relatively limited compared to the significant military advantage gained by smoke-screening.” Israel’s line of argument is consonant with the fact sheet of the American Federation of Scientists which allows that if structures catch fire inadvertently, that does not necessarily constitute a violation.

The still unanswered question is how many Palestinian casualties were caused by white phosphorus and how severe were most of these casualties. The heavy reliance by Amnesty International (and Human Rights Watch as well) on anecdotal incidents does not answer that question. A few anecdotal incidents cannot establish whether these casualties were unfortunate rare incidents or representative of a pattern of indiscriminate use.

While Hammas uses white phosphorous to manipulate all the anti-Israel useful idiot
's sensitive emotions the end result is more deaths of Gazan Arabs, without the protection from infrared targeting that white phosphorous smoke munitions the IDF would have to resort to high-explosive rounds to defend themselves from the Hammas anti-tank squads.

When people try to inject humanitarianism into warfare the end result is more civilian deaths. Take for example the "humanitarian" Rules Of Engagement employed in Iraq, if soldiers were fired upon they were required to fire a warning shot over the head of whoever fired upon them. Anyone who has read Dead-Eye Dick by Kurt Vonnegut JR knows that a bullet fired into the air goes somewhere and quite often into someone.

Well that is what happened in Iraq the warning shots hit innocent bystanders.


Further Reading and References

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-eu-red-cross-white-phosphorus-011309-2009jan13-story.html

https://www.camera.org/article/did-israel-s-use-of-white-phosphorus-constitute-a-war-crime/

http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/37163864.html

https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/01/10/q-israels-use-white-phosphorus-gaza

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/terrorism/palestinian/pages/operation_in_gaza-factual_and_legal_aspects.aspx

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Pages/Operation_Gaza_factual_and_legal_aspects_use_of_force_complaints_about_IDF_5_Aug_2009.aspx

http://www.confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/281063.php

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/130986

Sort:  
Loading...

Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)

  • Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.

  • Join our discord and chat with 250+ fellow Informationwar Activists.

  • Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW, via the share button on your Steemit post!!!

  • Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Leadership/Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call

Ways you can help the @informationwar

  • Upvote this comment.
  • Delegate Steem Power. 25 SP 50 SP 100 SP
  • Join the curation trail here.
  • Tutorials on all ways to support us and useful resources here

The decision to use white phosphorus smoke generating shells was taken to protect civilian lives and yet the Fakestream news, the appeasers of Islamic Supremacists and those masters of the Information War Hammas have twisted it and painted as a war crime deployed to increase civilian suffering.

This sums up the entire article. Deceptive reporting, biased thought influencers, fake news. They don't want people to think according to actual facts that may conflict with their world-view. They want people to think according to their world-view.

It seems so noble to impose humanitarian measures into warfare, but all that does is increase the suffering and death of innocent civilians. The most harmless wars are the ones that are won quickly and effectively. The most dangerous wars are the ones that go on for months at a time and reap devastation, destruction and misery.

@ironshield

Black September worked great for Jordan.

this is perfect information war writing, well done.

Where is the "According to international law..." crowd?

I notice they are very spicy when I comment in their posts but not so eager to confront my posts.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.37
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70162.45
ETH 3540.43
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.79