Senior officers punished over Gaza op

[[R_H]]

Ynet New

Senior officers punished over Gaza op

Israel's response to Goldstone Report reveals Gaza Division Commander Brigadier-General Eyal Eisenberg, former Givati Brigade Commander Colonel Ilan Malka 'disciplined for exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others' in incident involving alleged damage to UNRWA compound. Their punishment not disclosed

Yitzhak Benhorin
Published: 02.01.10, 07:49 / Israel News

WASHINGTON – On the 20th day of Operation Cast Lead, the Israel Defense Forces hit an UNRWA compound in the Gaza Strip, where hundreds of Palestinians were seeking shelter. The Israeli response to the Goldstone Report, which was submitted to the United Nations on Friday, revealed that Gaza Division Commander Brigadier-General Eisenberg and former Givati Brigade Commander Colonel Ilan Malka were disciplined for exceeding their authority.

According to Israel's response, "The special command investigation revealed that, during the course of a military operation in Tel El Hawa, IDF forces fired several artillery shells in violation of the rules of engagement prohibiting use of such artillery near populated areas. "Based on these findings, the commander of the Southern Command disciplined a brigade-general and a colonel for exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others."

Additional officers were disciplined after the operation, including a colonel who was rebuked.

The IDF Spokesperson's Office confirmed the details Monday morning, including the artillery fire "in violation of orders" at an UNRWA facility, although "as far as we know, there were no casualties in this incident".

The statement notes that "an officer holding the rank of brigadier-general and an officer holding the rank of colonel were put on disciplinary trial", without mentioning their names or whether they were convicted. The punishment is not mentioned as well.

It should be noted that the two were disciplined by Southern Command Chief Yoav Galant, despite his direct involvement as their commander during the operation.

The IDF Spokesperson's Office added that the chief of staff recently appointed a sixth team to investigate Operation Cast Lead, in addition to the five teams which completed their work about half a year ago, "in order to look into the treatment of detainees" during the operation" and examine "two additional individual incidents".

According to the statement, one of those incidents "was examined in a previous military investigation, but in light of new information received by the IDF, it was decided to check the claim once more."

The IDF ruled that the report submitted to the UN proves that the IDF properly investigated itself in any way possible and that "where a deviation from the procedures was revealed, even if accidentally, it was handled on the spot". All this, the IDF Spokesperson's Office stated, proves that "the IDF has nothing to hide".


'UN chief commended Israel'

An investigation of claims that UN facilities and other international buildings were damaged included 13 different incidents. According to Israel's response, "The military advocate general found no basis to order criminal investigations of the 13 incidents under review. With regard to two of these incidents, the military advocate general affirmed the decisions to pursue disciplinary proceedings against IDF personnel.

"One of these incidents involved alleged damage to the UNRWA field office compound in Tel El Hawa. The special command investigation revealed that, during the course of a military operation in Tel El Hawa, IDF forces fired several artillery shells in violation of the rules of engagement prohibiting use of such artillery near populated areas. Based on these findings, the commander of the Southern Command disciplined a brigade-general and a colonel for exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others."

Israel added that "the United Nations secretary-general established a board of inquiry to examine a number of incidents involving damage to UN facilities, independent of the ongoing investigations in Israel.

"Israel cooperated fully with the UN board of inquiry, sharing the results of its internal investigations and providing detailed information about the incidents in question. The secretary-general commended Israel for its extensive cooperation.

"Following the UN board of inquiry's examination, and notwithstanding certain reservations it had with some aspects of the board's report, Israel entered into a dialogue with the United Nations to address all issues arising from the incidents examined. On January 22, 2010, the secretary general thanked Israel for its 'cooperative approach' in these discussions and confirmed that all financial issues relating to these incidents had been satisfactory concluded."

One of the issues investigated by the IDF following Operation Cast Lead was the army's use of phosphorus shells. Israel was accused of firing those shells at the UNRWA facility. The IDF claimed that the phosphorus bombs fired using mortars and by the Navy were permitted according to international law under certain limitations.

On January 7, before the UNRWA office was hit, the IDF decided to stop using the shells. Several such incidents were still recorded after the order was issued, as the instruction had not reached all the soldiers.

BBC

Israel has revealed it has reprimanded two top army officers for authorising an artillery attack which hit a UN compound in Gaza last year.

In the attack on 15 January 2009 the compound was set ablaze by white phosphorus shells.

The admission is contained in the Israeli response to the UN's Goldstone report, which concluded both Israel and Hamas had committed war crimes.

Both officers have retained their ranks, according to reports.

The Israeli army has not specifically said the rules of engagement were broken over the use of white phosphorus.

During the 22-day conflict last year, media pictures showed incendiary shells raining down on a UN compound.The officers were named in Israeli media reports as Gaza Division Commander Brig Gen Eyal Eisenberg and Givati Brigade Commander Col Ilan Malka.

"Several artillery shells were fired in violation of the rules of engagement prohibiting use of such artillery near populated areas," the Israeli response to the Goldstone report says.

The officers were charged with "exceeding their authority" in ordering the use of the weapons in the attack.

An Israeli Defence Force spokesman said that the reprimand would be noted on their records and would be considered if they apply for promotion in future.

Brig Gen Eisenberg is still in command of Israel's Gaza division, and Col Malka has been moved to the West Bank under the same rank, according to the Reuters news agency.

'Evidence'

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said the military was investigating about 150 allegations. There was enough evidence in 36 cases to pass those claims to military police for criminal investigations.

"In this particular case, it was not referred to criminal investigation, it wasn't decided that there was evidence of criminal wrongdoing and a reprimand was warranted," Mr Regev said, referring to the shells fired on the UN compound.

Criminal proceedings have so far been opened in one case, concerning an alleged theft of a credit card from a Palestinian family by an Israeli soldier.

The soldier used the card to withdraw hundreds of dollars, Israeli media reported.

Mr Regev said there would be "serious consequences" for soldiers found guilty of criminal conduct.

'Hush money'

A Hamas spokesman said the disciplinary action was "further admission of Israel's guilt" over alleged war crimes.But he said he did not expect any further action to be taken against military officers.

He said Israel had paid the United Nations $10.5 million (£6.6 million) in damages to repair their compounds, which he called "hush money".

A UN representative who was in the compound in Gaza city during the attack told the BBC he "expected full accountability from the Israelis".

Two UN staff and two Palestinians sheltering in the compound were seriously injured, he said.

A doctor at Gaza city's main hospital told the BBC he treated hundreds of Palestinians for phosphorus burns during the offensive.

UN demands

The BBC's Paul Wood in Jerusalem says it is the first time Israel has revealed it reprimanded any officer for his actions during the offensive, named Operation Cast Lead by the Israeli military.

Our correspondent says the admission was buried in the document handed to the UN on Friday.

The UN General Assembly has demanded that both Israel and Hamas launch independent investigations into their conduct during the Israeli operation which began in December 2008.

An Israeli official said the submission to the UN was not intended to respond in detail to the allegations and incidents outlined in the Goldstone report, but to explain why the Israeli justice system was "reliable" and "independent".

The Islamist movement Hamas has denied that its forces deliberately targeted civilians with rockets.

Both sides have until 5 February to respond in detail to the UN General Assembly's request for independent investigations to be launched.

White phosphorus, which is used to lay smokescreens, is legal for use on open ground but its use in built-up areas where civilians are found is banned under international conventions.

Haaretz

The Israel Defense Forces on Monday denied that two of its senior officers had been summoned for disciplinary action after headquarters staff found that the men exceeded their authority in approving the use of phosphorus shells during last year's military campaign in the Gaza Strip, as the Israeli government wrote in a recent report.

In an official response provided to the United Nations over the weekend in response to last September's Goldstone Commission report, the government said that a brigadier general and another officer with the rank of colonel endangered human life during by firing white phosphorous munitions in the direction of a compound run by UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

The government finding aknowledges, at least in part, allegations by international organizations. But the IDF on Monday flatly denied that Division Commander Brig. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg and Givati Brigade Commander Col. Ilan Malka been subject to disciplinary action by GOC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Yoav Gallant. It did not deny that the munitions were in fact used during the war, however.

The incident in question occurred on January 15 of last year, two days before the end of Operation Cast Lead, in the southern Gaza City neighborhood of Tel al-Hawa, at a time when the Givati brigade and other Israeli forces were in the area.

In the course of engagement with a Hamas squad, which according to IDF intelligence possessed advanced anti-tank missiles, it was decided to use phosphorus smoke munitions to create cover that would make it harder for the Hamas fighters to see the IDF soldiers.

According to Israeli intelligence, the Hamas forces were stationed in a commanding location from which they could easily see the soldiers and the UNRWA compound that was located between the Israeli forces and the Hamas position.

The munitions disperse hundreds of pieces of felt impregnated with phosphorus and at least some of the pieces fell into the UNRWA compound, causing injury to an UNRWA employee there as well as to two Palestinian civilians who took cover at the location.

Many human rights organizations said that the IDF had illegally used the phosphorus munitions, which are shot from 155 mm. cannon, and that the material caused many burn injuries among the Palestinian population. The IDF responded that the munitions were permitted under international conventions and that similar shells are in use by other Western armies. The army also contended that the munitions were used in locations remote from heavily -populated areas.

With the conclusion of Operation Cast Lead, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi ordered the convening of five special investigative committees each headed by an officer with the rank of colonel to examine some of the serious allegations leveled against the army. One of the committees examined the use of phosphorus shells.

After three months, at the end of April of last year, then deputy chief of staff Maj. Gen. Dan Harel presented the committees' findings and with respect to phosphorus munitions said that they had found no instances in which shells were fired in violation of orders and in any event, they were fired in open areas.

Nonetheless, the report that the Israeli government gave to the United Nations last Friday explicitly states that the two senior officers were disciplined after one of the investigating committees noted among its findings that they approved the firing of phosphorus shells at Tel al-Hawa "exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others."

The report to the UN also says that Ashkenazi recently ordered the convening of a sixth committee to examine additional allegations made against the IDF as well as an incident which one of the previous panels had been unable to thoroughly probe.

The investigative teams have been looking into only the most serious and prominent of the allegations made as a result of Cast Lead. This is in addition to military police probes that were carried out, or are still in progress, into about 150 alleged incidents of improper conduct on the part of soldiers involving civilians and Palestinian property during the Gaza campaign.

Some of the incidents were raised in operational IDF debriefings held after Cast Lead, but most came to light following complaints by human rights organizations, individual Palestinian civilians and press reports. Twelve incidents were raised for the first time in the Goldstone Commission report, which was commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council.

In the course of the IDF investigations, about 500 soldiers were questioned and nearly 100 Palestinian civilians were interviewed at the Erez checkpoint on the Israel-Gaza border. As a result of the IDF's investigations, 36 criminal investigation files have been opened so far, but criminal legal proceedings have so far been opened in only one case, in which two Givati brigade soldiers were convicted of stealing a Palestinian civilian's credit card.

[Thanas]

So you use white phosphor and you get a slap on the wrist and retain your rank? As usual, Israeli war criminals get off scot-free.

[[R_H]]

So you use white phosphor and you get a slap on the wrist and retain your rank? As usual, Israeli war criminals get off scot-free.

In the manner they used the WP, it's not a war crime. BBC is also mistaken about the use of WP. Should they have used HE to suppress the Hamas fighters, and possibly have caused many more (serious) civilian casualities?

White phosphorus, which is used to lay smokescreens, is legal for use on open ground but its use in built-up areas where civilians are found is banned under international conventions.

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons

Article 1 Definitions

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. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(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.

2. Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.

3. Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

4. Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.

5. Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.

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.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So you use white phosphor and you get a slap on the wrist and retain your rank? As usual, Israeli war criminals get off scot-free.

Why is Willy Pete a war crime? Is it somehow less ethical to burn someone alive than to blast them to bits? All weapons are chemical weapons, and WP just uses a slightly different process to burn you to a crisp over conventional explosives, and is completely different from classic asphyxiation/nerve system affecting agents which cause the real ethical problems with "chemical weapons". Or why is it acceptable to drop napalm on your enemies but not WP? Shouldn't these officers be punished for the collateral damage they inflicted, and not for some trite distinction between different ways of killing people?

[[R_H]]

So you use white phosphor and you get a slap on the wrist and retain your rank? As usual, Israeli war criminals get off scot-free.

Why is Willy Pete a war crime? Is it somehow less ethical to burn someone alive than to blast them to bits? All weapons are chemical weapons, and WP just uses a slightly different process to burn you to a crisp over conventional explosives, and is completely different from classic asphyxiation/nerve system affecting agents which cause the real ethical problems with "chemical weapons". Or why is it acceptable to drop napalm on your enemies but not WP? Shouldn't these officers be punished for the collateral damage they inflicted, and not for some trite distinction between different ways of killing people?

Criminalisation of weapons systems is something that I find somewhat difficult to understand (to a certain extent). "Humane" weapons aren't humane at all. Using incediaries as AP weapons and burning people to death isn't pretty, but neither is evisceration by shrapnel, or drowning to death in blood because the alevoli were destroyed by blast from a "humane" HE shell. In this case though, would the collateral damage they caused be punishable?

It's sloppy reporting by the BBC though (intentional?), the last sentence of the article is completely freaking false, and it only requires a few minutes of googling or using Wikipedia to read about the legalities of using White Phosphorous.

[CJvR]

Shouldn't these officers be punished for the collateral damage they inflicted, and not for some trite distinction between different ways of killing people?

Not sure you can do that. If the enemy deliberately violates the protected status of an object, like a hospital or religous buildings, the war crime is theirs not the one who might fire on that object in response. As for punishment for collateral damage, that would be practically impossible to prosecute since it would have taken place in the fog of war. Now if there are some incidents where civilian and/or protected objects known to have no military value were attacked that might be possible to prove - but given Hamas talent for hiding behind civilians even such cases could probably be defeated by a reasonably cometent defender.

[Serafine666]

Criminalisation of weapons systems is something that I find somewhat difficult to understand (to a certain extent). "Humane" weapons aren't humane at all. Using incediaries as AP weapons and burning people to death isn't pretty, but neither is evisceration by shrapnel, or drowning to death in blood because the alevoli were destroyed by blast from a "humane" HE shell.

It really is a difficult thing to understand in the abstract. "Humane" VT-fused shells shred the bodies of anyone caught in their shrapnel radius. "Humane" .50 caliber bullets remove a quarter of some poor soul's body. "Humane" HE shells horribly burn and damage a body. True, WP produces terribly burns as does napalm... but not much worse than getting caught in the explosive radius of an HE. Grapeshot shreds bodies and tears pieces off... sort of like a standard artillery shell. Fragmentation grenades are designed for the sole purpose of disabling or killing with a cloud of fragments riddling the body of a soldier. There are actually very few weapons that are more terrible than the ultra-efficient armaments that come out of military R&D. I understand chemical/biological/nuclear bans because those have an extremely high likelihood of mass-killing civilians which has always been a big no-no in the traditional laws of war (although doing it deliberately temporarily stopped being a war crime during WW2). But with very few exceptions, when weapons are banned, they're typically things that do no more horrible things than most legal weapon systems. Thus why it's hard to understand why they get banned.

[Stark]

Man, anyone who believes accidentally dropping WP smoke on someone is an idiot. That's just the legal way to WP enemy targets these days.

And reducing the use of a weapon is the end; if banning WP makes people use it less, great. Banning land mines or cluster bombs or napalm would never change anything so there's no point.

[adam_grif]

Some weapon restrictions are just stupid. JHP rounds are illegal for standing armies to use, but not law enforcement agencies or civilians.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Shotguns are illegal for military use too...

[[R_H]]

Shotguns are illegal for military use too...

Er, no. If I'm not mistaken, the Germans during the First World War wanted to make them illegal because of how effective they were at clearing trenchs. Shotguns are still used now adays, mostly for breaching. The M590, the M870, the M1014 and the M26 are all currently being used by American forces.

[[R_H]]

More Operation Cast Lead/Goldstone Report news.

IDF set to counter Goldstone Report

Military officials finalizing Israel's response to Goldstone Report, which accused Israel of committing war crimes; NYT publishes findings that contradict report's claims. Judge Advocate General: Goldstone Report a vicious lie

Ynet
Published: 01.23.10, 22:43 / Israel News

The IDF report to be submitted in response to the Goldstone Report will include photographed evidence contradicting war crime charges against Israel.

The New York Times published Saturday findings from the IDF report that contradict some of Goldstone's claims regarding destruction in Gaza during Israel's Operation Cast Lead.

Among other things, a flourmill that was said to have been targeted by Israeli warplanes was in fact hit by Hamas fire, according to Israel's rebuttal. In another case, Israel will argue that a sewage facility said to have been deliberately targeted by the IDF was mistakenly hit during a firefight with Hamas.

'Truly vicious lie'
The Goldstone Report addressed at length cases where Gaza infrastructure was allegedly razed by IDF forces. The report charged that the great destruction of civilian facilities was a result of methodical and deliberate policy by Israel's army in a bid to punish, humiliate, and terrorize Palestinian civilians.

However, the charges have been vemently denied by Judge Advocate General Avichai Mandelblit in an interview with the New York Times.

"I have read every report, from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Arab League,” Mandelblit was quoted as saying. “We ourselves set up investigations into 140 complaints. It is when you read these other reports and complaints that you realize how truly vicious the Goldstone Report is. He made it look like we set out to go after the economic infrastructure and civilians, that it was intentional. It’s a vicious lie.”

Israel Poised to Challenge a U.N. Report on Gaza

TEL AVIV — The Israeli military is completing a rebuttal to a United Nations report accusing it of grave violations of international and humanitarian law in its Gaza invasion a year ago. Its central aim is to dispel the report’s harsh conclusion — that the death of noncombatants and destruction of civilian infrastructure were part of an official plan to terrorize the Palestinian population.The United Nations report, by a committee led by Richard Goldstone, an esteemed South African judge, was published in late September and called on Israel to carry out an independent investigation of its conduct of the three-week war.

Israel, which had refused to cooperate with the investigation, at first dismissed the report as unworthy of attention. But the government quickly found that the world took it quite seriously and found itself accused of premeditated war crimes. It now considers fighting that charge a priority.

“We face three major strategic challenges,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said recently. “The Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our civilians and Goldstone.”

The rebuttal will be given to United Nations officials in the coming weeks and its contents will remain under wraps until then. But officers involved in writing the report gave some details.

One concerned the destruction of Gaza’s sole flour mill. The Goldstone report asserts that the Bader flour mill “was hit by an airstrike, possibly by an F-16.” The Israeli investigators say they have photographic proof that this is false, that the mill was accidentally hit by artillery in the course of a firefight with Hamas militiamen.

The dispute is significant since the United Nations report asserts that “the destruction of the mill was carried out for the purpose of denying sustenance to the civilian population,” an explicit war crime.

A second finding concerned the destruction of a wastewater plant, leading to an enormous outflow of raw sewage. The Goldstone report contended that it was hit by a powerful Israeli missile in a strike that was “deliberate and premeditated.” The Israelis say they had nothing to do with that plant’s collapse and suggest that it may have been the result of Hamas explosives.

The two cases, along with the destruction of chicken coops, water wells, a cement plant and some 4,000 homes, are crucial building blocks in the Goldstone case that Israel set out to eliminate infrastructure so as to cause intense civilian suffering.

The report stated that “the destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces.” It added that Israel waged “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.”

Maj. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit, the Israeli military advocate general, said in an interview that those assertions went beyond anything of which others had accused Israel.

“I have read every report, from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Arab League,” he said at his desk in the military’s Tel Aviv headquarters. “We ourselves set up investigations into 140 complaints. It is when you read these other reports and complaints that you realize how truly vicious the Goldstone report is. He made it look like we set out to go after the economic infrastructure and civilians, that it was intentional. It’s a vicious lie.”

Another senior military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity following regular military practice, said that neither the military command structure nor the government wanted to invade Gaza in December 2008, but felt that the continual rocket attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians forced their hand. The war, he said, followed the least aggressive of three contemplated routes — conquer Gaza and occupy it again as was done in the West Bank in 2002, retake Hamas’s weapons supply routes and hold them to dry out the organization’s arsenal, or attack the Hamas military and state infrastructure and leave. It was the third that occurred.

That invasion killed some 1,400 Palestinians and destroyed a great deal of property, including buildings like the parliament’s offices that have no military function. There were accusations of inappropriate weapons use. All that led many human rights advocates, both foreign and Israeli, to accuse Israel of violating international norms.

So in November, Brig. Gen. Yuval Halamish, a former intelligence commander, led an investigation that involved scores of interviews of Israeli soldiers and Palestinian witnesses as well as reviewing military videotape and photographs. He submitted his findings to General Mandelblit, who is independent of the command structure but who wears a uniform, offered legal advice on targets before the operation and is widely seen as an insider.The military investigation is expected to argue that while errors were made, Israel is not guilty of any serious crimes. It will argue that the rules of war need to be adapted to the kind of asymmetric warfare Israel increasingly faces: fighting a popular militia that intentionally mixes with the civilian population.

Mr. Netanyahu and his government have not decided whether to submit the findings to independent scrutiny, as the Goldstone report specifies. They may do so in a partial way — by asking a group of nonmilitary Israeli jurists to examine the rebuttal but without power to recall witnesses, an approach favored by the military and those close to it.

Others say there must be an independent, nonmilitary investigation.

“Israel owes it to its own citizens and soldiers, as well as to the victims, to carry out an independent investigation,” said Moshe Halbertal, a professor of Jewish philosophy at Hebrew University and a co-author of the military’s code of ethics.

Mr. Halbertal said that he was concerned about persistent reports during the Gaza operation that commanders had a “no risk” policy for their soldiers, which led to the unnecessary destruction of property and the shooting of civilians who were feared dangerous.

This is also the view of the organization Breaking the Silence, a group of military reservists who have given testimony about receiving orders in the war to shoot or destroy in ways that violated ethical standards and the military’s own code.

General Halamish said in an interview that the army chose not to attack many leaders of Hamas because they lived among children and the elderly. He added that during the operation, Israel withheld fire for three hours a day so food and other aid supplies could be brought into Gaza. During those hours, he said, a quarter of the shooting from Hamas took place. Hamas also ambushed the civilian supply trucks.

While many here think that the Goldstone report failed to expose of the practices of Hamas, they are more concerned about their own army’s conduct. Still, virtually no one in Israel, including the leaders of Breaking the Silence and the human rights group B’Tselem, thinks that the Goldstone accusation of an assault on civilians is correct.

“I do not accept the Goldstone conclusion of a systematic attack on civilian infrastructure,” said Yael Stein, research director of B’Tselem. “It is not convincing. But every incident and every policy has to be checked by an independent body because the military cannot check itself. They need to explain why so many people were killed.”

[eyl]

Shotguns are illegal for military use too...

Technically, so is tear gas (AFAIK), except in training.

[Darth Yan]

Personally it's buisness as usual. the israelis never punish their own even when it's obvious that the soldiers are cold blooded murderers. The history of doing this has made me view any excuse by Israel as a load of bullshit.

[[R_H]]

Personally it's buisness as usual. the israelis never punish their own even when it's obvious that the soldiers are cold blooded murderers. The history of doing this has made me view any excuse by Israel as a load of bullshit.

What are you talking about? According to the BBC report, 4 people in the compound were injured. You go on about the Israelis, what do you think Hamas is like? A bunch of poor misunderstood pacifists?

[Stuart]

Shotguns are illegal for military use too...

No, they are not. Shotguns (and tear gas) are entirely legal as weapons. Shotguns are actually extensively issued to military forces around the world for various purposes (next time you're near a US warship, take a look; the sailor near the end of the gangplank probably has a pump action shotgun. As R-H pointed out, when teh US forces arrived in France during WW1, a lot of the troops were issued pump-action shotguns for trench-clearing. The Germans whined about it (remember these were the people who introduced the flamethrower for the same purpose) and were laughed out of court. Shotguns are entirely legal as a weapon of war.

So is tear gas. It's non-lethal. The operating regulation is Hague 1899 which states

The Contracting Powers agree to abstain from the use of projectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases. The present Declaration is only binding on the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them. It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Powers, one of the belligerents shall be joined by a non-Contracting Power.

Since neither Israel nor Hamas et al are signatories to Hague 1899, they are not bound by its terms. However, by common acceptance, "tear gas" (a generic term covering a wide range of substances) wouldn't be covered by Hague 1899. Hague 1899 is held to cover lethal gases; "tear gas" is neither lethal nor a gas.

[[R_H]]

Isn't "tear gas" covered by Article I.5 of the Chemical Weapons Convention?

5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.

Does that mean all lachrymatory agents are banned, or just ones currently being used as riot control agents?

Why are riot control agents even banned?

[Stuart]

Isn't "tear gas" covered by Article I.5 of the Chemical Weapons Convention? 5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.

I stand corrected on that point.

Does that mean all lachrymatory agents are banned, or just ones currently being used as riot control agents?

The definition of a riot control agent is in Article 2 Section 7 of the CWC.

"Riot Control Agent" means: Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.

Why are riot control agents even banned?

A very good question. One might suspect it semed like a good idea at the time.

By the way, neither Israel nor HAMAS are signatories to the CWC so it doesn't apply to them.

[bobalot]

Personally it's buisness as usual. the israelis never punish their own even when it's obvious that the soldiers are cold blooded murderers. The history of doing this has made me view any excuse by Israel as a load of bullshit.

What are you talking about? According to the BBC report, 4 people in the compound were injured. You go on about the Israelis, what do you think Hamas is like? A bunch of poor misunderstood pacifists?

Why is every criticism of Israel hand waved away with some bullshit reference to Hamas?

[Big Phil]

Personally it's buisness as usual. the israelis never punish their own even when it's obvious that the soldiers are cold blooded murderers. The history of doing this has made me view any excuse by Israel as a load of bullshit.

What are you talking about? According to the BBC report, 4 people in the compound were injured. You go on about the Israelis, what do you think Hamas is like? A bunch of poor misunderstood pacifists?

Why is every criticism of Israel hand waved away with some bullshit reference to Hamas?

Probably because of stupidity like this like the comment R_H was responding to; it's annoying to keep reading one-sided comments over and over and over again. "Israelis are WAR CRIMINALS!" Yeah, maybe, but "Palestinians are WAR CRIMINALS!" is also equally true, although conveniently ignored. For me personally, it's the "poor Palestinians getting pounded on by big, mean Israel" attitude that is irritating. I know the Israelis are dicks; don't diminish your argument by pretending that the Palestinians are innocents, however; it just makes you look dishonest.

[[R_H]]

Personally it's buisness as usual. the israelis never punish their own even when it's obvious that the soldiers are cold blooded murderers. The history of doing this has made me view any excuse by Israel as a load of bullshit.

What are you talking about? According to the BBC report, 4 people in the compound were injured. You go on about the Israelis, what do you think Hamas is like? A bunch of poor misunderstood pacifists?

Why is every criticism of Israel hand waved away with some bullshit reference to Hamas?

What criticism of Israel is being waved away? Where are the cases of "cold-blooded murders" not being punished?

The officers are being punished because they violated IDF rules, not international law. I made what you deemed to be a bullshit reference to Hamas (How is the reference to Hamas not being a bunch of pacifists bullshit?) to illustrate Darth Yan's bullshit, overly-emotional reference to Israelis being a pack of "cold-blooded murderers" who aren't being punished for their crimes.

[bobalot]

I know the Israelis are dicks; don't diminish your argument by pretending that the Palestinians are innocents, however; it just makes you look dishonest.

Nice Strawman. Where did I make such an argument? or anybody in this thread or that matter?

What criticism of Israel is being waved away? Where are the cases of "cold-blooded murders" not being punished?

The officers are being punished because they violated IDF rules, not international law. I made what you deemed to be a bullshit reference to Hamas (How is the reference to Hamas not being a bunch of pacifists bullshit?) to illustrate Darth Yan's bullshit, overly-emotional reference to Israelis being a pack of "cold-blooded murderers" who aren't being punished for their crimes.

Let's go through this step by step.

What criticism of Israel is being waved away? Where are the cases of "cold-blooded murders" not being punished?

Israel's own troops pointed out that there were many abuses in Gaza including murder. Shit, we even had a thread about it. Link

People in that thread predicted exactly what would be the result of Israeli "investigations" into these allegations, precisely jack shit.....oh wait, one guy was rebuked. I can see the Israeli military is getting serious.

I made what you deemed to be a bullshit reference to Hamas (How is the reference to Hamas not being a bunch of pacifists bullshit?) to illustrate Darth Yan's bullshit, overly-emotional reference to Israelis being a pack of "cold-blooded murderers" who aren't being punished for their crimes.

1. He said that Israel never punishes soldiers that do commit murder and other serious crimes, which is pretty much true as evidenced from the article above.
2. Hamas has nothing to do with the intimidate topic, which was Israelis obvious and historical reluctance to actually punish their troops. Bringing up stupid assholes like Hamas is a fucking red herring and not actually related to Darth Yan's criticism of the Israeli military.

[[R_H]]

After having read the article in the thread you linked to, I concede that the military juistice system in Israel could definitely improve.

[Darth Yan]

James Miller, the girl shot in her schoolroom from a guard tower, Amer Sherrub's father and brothers. The guy who shot up a crowded market place. After the Gaza war soldiers testified that they had slaughtered civillians and that they had used Palestinians as human shields. Then there was that family who was killed by that sniper. All of those qualify as cold blooded murders

I'm not defending Hamas. It's just the people like R_H ignore every single action that the IDF does by saying "Well Hamas does it as well." Doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of all the palestinians who died were non combatants or civillians, nor does it change the fact that soldiers who technically commited murder were let off the hook. When soldiers testified that they had killed people needlessly, improperly used white phosphorus, and used human shields, Israel dismissed it.

You talk about the "poor pals" attitude? what of the "ohh those poor israelis" attitude. That's what R-H is demonstrating, and I find it irritating in the extreme. That's why I side with the Palestinians. The attitude that R-H displays makes me instinctively opposed to Israel.

Please, the conduct of Hamas has nothing to do with the debate. Please just answer the numerous cases where Israeli soldiers have commited crimes and not been punished?

[Darth Yan]

in hindsight i did over generalize israel, but I still feel that they need to do a better job policing their soldiers.