Phoenall, SherriMunnerlyn,
et al,
There is very little doubt that the ordnance used in January 2009 (five years ago) was a "white phosphorus munition." Both the forensic and direct observational evidence is consistent with a 155mm - Type M825A1, 116 Felt-Wedge airburst ejection projectile.
And, it appears that both the Foreign Ministry and Court do not deny the event and have taken steps to limit further use.
Apartheid nations carrying out Apartheid actions!
AND reasons to Boycott Israel!
Look and see what this Apartheid nation called Israel does to the occupied indigenous people of Palestine!
Care to check and see just which side used it as a weapon, and come back and let the board know that you now hate the palestinians
Was that you at 53 seconds into the video dancing and clapping your hands in glee. No actual evidence that the explosions came from Israeli weapons when you look at the footage, so once again a biased report from an ANTI SEMITIC NAZI JEW HATING NGO .
(COMMENT)
A couple points need to be made here. Yes, it appears the event is as described.
This particular event is an isolated incident. That is to say, that it had not occurred before and is unlikely to occur again, given the corrective action taken.
Not all decisions in the heat of a combat exchange are perfect. There are humans behind decisions and they are subject to all the mistakes humans are prone to make.
Secondly, you will note that there is an intent involved.
"White phosphorus munitions" are not prohibited by law, or unlawful to use. What is improper and unlawful is the use against the "apparent" target.
You should notice that the American Advisor (correctly) observed two important points.
One, that the apparent target was a "protected" site. Even if the site was used for hostile purposes, the end doesn't justify the means. It was a very poor decision to target the school and adjacent residential area. It did more harm than good.
Two, the "white phosphorus (WP) munition" is a most ineffective weapons against a rocket launch site. The munition is not designed or intended to be used in that fashion. For the type of target (rocket launch site) that Operation Cast Lead was intended to suppress, a Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICM) of a Type M483 (or similar) would have proved most effective.
In some respects, it is probably better that the WP was used. If a DPICM had been employed, there would have been a completely devastated area. It would have been quite miraculous if the cameraman, or any of the others in the compound, would have survived the event; if a more appropriate munition were employed. There certainly would have been a totally demolished school; not just burning felt wedges.
Maybe there was a miracle in play.
Given the number of responses to Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) attacks, there have been a surprisingly small number of such unfortunate events
(such as this); something worth actually considering.
Most Respectfully,
R