As I was mind-sifting through topics to blog about, I thought about a news blurb I saw briefly when I was in Israel... The question of White Phosphorus shells (a chemical weapon that would be absolutley illegal to use in densely populated Gaza although not illegal in itself in war times in order to smokescreen moving troops) being used repeatedly was briefed by BBC news beginning in mid-January.
As I was watching, I really was in disbelief that Israel could be using the substance, especially amidst so many claims of their overly violent offensive in Gaza over those 21 days.
However, I haven't heard much about this massive breach of international code since. Now, looking in to a variety of news and news-related sites and blogs, it has in fact been getting a lot of attention from both the Arab and Euro-Americans.
An article on Amnesty Internation position states that " In response to the claims ... relating to the use of phosphorus weapons, and in order to remove any ambiguity, an investigative team has been established in southern command to look into the issue," the Israeli army said.In response to Amnesty's accusations, a military spokesman said on Monday the army "uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics."Amnesty is not the first group to accuse Israel of using white phosphorus -- Human Rights Watch made the accusation on Jan. 10, in the midst of the fighting, and the United Nations also said it believed the munition had been used.
However, Amnesty's accusations were made on the basis of an on-the-ground study by a British weapons expert following the ceasefire put into force by Israel and Hamas on Sunday.Weapons expert Chris Cobb-Smith, who visited Gaza as part of a four-person Amnesty team, said he had found widespread evidence of the use of the incendiary material."We saw streets and alleyways littered with evidence of the use of white phosphorus, including still-burning wedges and the remnants of the shells and canisters fired by the Israeli army," he said in a statement.
As an interesting rebuke to these inflammatory accusations Israel's foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, said on Monday she was "at peace" with the actions Israel had taken during the conflict, but also said the nation should be prepared to fend off international accusations of war crimes.
My question is how involved will the US be on these claims, and what will their position obviously suggest? Especially since the US has been accused of using the same white phosphorus in the same illegal method in Fallujah, how tightly bound can we be to Israel's action when they have been decidedly criminal at times?(http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/americas/us/war_crimes_fallujah.html)
Bringing in the media aspect, why is this not being more heavily reported? And, is this a US media phenomenon, or as with so many war crimes is this simply not the time to bring it to the table in any too-open forum?
p.s. Adding youtube was not working for me, so the initial video is linked to my title.
ReplyDeleteThe images you provided were interesting, the first being a sarcastic, dark humored representation of what is happening. Did you make that yourself or did you find it somewhere? If you did find it somewhere else, does that represent internet culture in any way? The Al-Jezeera clip was a bit sketchy in the fact that it said that it talked to everyone on the ground, but who is everyone on the ground saying that it is white phosphorous? It is not that I do not believe you (I do, adamantly) but the bias on the other way for Arab media.
ReplyDeleteGoing to your questions of guilt and action between the US and Israeli in using chemical weapons, it is interesting to note that somewhere our society and perhaps the global community forgives huge actors with perhaps, disproportional clout, any atrocity that may be claimed. The “bad people” are never forgiven and always remembered (Arab missiling). It makes me wonder why some people can wash their hands in war and others are not given permission and if it has to do anything with geopolitics.
Theory:
ReplyDeleteThe good guy always wins. The bad guy always loses; this is what we're taught how the world should work.
Following that theory, one may say the guy who wins is always the good guy, and the guy who loses is always the bad guy.
Of course, as we learn to be critical we realize the world isn't black and white. To say that the good guy always wins/the guy who wins is always the good guy is false.
HOWEVER, it is rarely ever the loser who writes history. Thus, when it comes to a popular story of events, the winner is the good guy (why would the winner write it otherwise?).
So, following Jackie's post, I believe part of the reason huge global actors are forgiven (by the general public for their atrocities) is because they have the ability and political power to impose their own narrative (because they’re the winners).
I wonder to what extent the public accepts the winner as the good guy? I wonder how much personal stories (vs. the popular narrative) play a part in the distinction.
I did a little bit of reading in the news about the use of illegal weapons, and found many references to illegal and semi-legal weapons used by the United States. It seems that currently, the US's use of depleted uranium in armament is causing the most stir, but there was much discussion of the Army's use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.
ReplyDeleteThe military uses depleted uranium, which is created in the process of making enriched uranium, to manufacture bullets and armor. It is twice as dense as lead, and catches fire upon impact, so it makes an ideal (and particularly horrific) weapons material. The resulting dust from its manufacture and use, however, is very carcinogenic and can cause respiratory and neurological disorders, both for the enemy and our troops. I don't think that you'd ever hear about it on the news, though. History is, indeed, told by the victor.