COMMENT: Amira Hass on Israel and HAMAS weapons

Is Israel using illegal weapons in its bombardment of Gaza? Amira Hass, an award-winning Israeli journalist examines this question in a recent report for Haaretz.

Hass begins by painting a picture eerily familiar to those accustomed (as Hass is) to seeing Israel's bombardment of Palestinian territories.

The earth shaking under your feet, clouds of choking smoke, explosions like a fireworks display, bombs bursting into all-consuming flames that cannot be extinguished with water, mushroom clouds of pinkish-red smoke, suffocating gas, harsh burns on the skin, extraordinary maimed live and dead bodies.

All of this is being caused by the bombs Israel is dropping on the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, according to reports and testimonies from there.

This kind of bombardment has been going on for years. Hass has witnessed it and has been writing about it for years. She has spoken to both Palestinian and Israeli authorities, NGO's and human rights groups, not to mention ordinary citizens. But there is something new about the most recent bombardment:

Since the first day of the Israeli aerial attack, people have been giving exact descriptions of the side effects of the bombing, and claiming that Israel is using weapons and ammunition that they have not seen during the past eight years.

Furthermore, the kinds of grave injuries doctors at hospitals in the Strip have reported are providing yet another explanation for the overwhelming dread inhabitants are experiencing in any case.

Enter Mark Galasco, a senior military analyst from Human Rights Watch. Galasco wants to get to the bottom of allegations against Israel. he wants to see for himself. He wants to determine what weapons have been used by Israel, and whether they are illegal. Israel, of course, is cooperating completely, confident that it will be exonerated.

The American-born Garlasco has not been permitted to enter Gaza - as is also the case with people from other human rights organizations and foreign journalists. Therefore, he says, since he is unable to examine actual remnants of the explosives and see the wreckage with his own eyes, he can only guess or make assumptions in some cases. But even from afar, he has no doubt: Israel is using white phosphorus bombs. That was immediately clear to him while he stood last week on a hill facing the Gaza Strip and observed the Israel Defense Forces' bombings for several hours.

So is there anything wrong with using white phosphorus in battle? What are the effects of white phosphorus on civilians? And where did Israel get this stuff from?

The use of white phosphorus is permitted on the battlefield, explains Garlasco, but the side effects on humans and the environment are severe and highly dangerous. The statement notes that the "potential for harm to civilians is magnified by Gaza's high population density, among the highest in the world."

The fireworks-like explosions, the thick smoke, suffocating gas, and flames that are not extinguished by water, but rather are heightened by it - all of these are characteristic of the white phosphorus bombs the IDF is using. Garlasco believes the decision to make such extensive use of these bombs, manufactured by America's General Dynamics Corporation, stems from conclusions drawn from the Second Lebanon War, in which the IDF lost many tanks.

"The phosphorus bombs create a thick smokescreen and if Hamas has an anti-tank rocket, the smoke prevents the rocket from tracking the tank," he explains. There are two ways to use the bombs: The first is to impact them on the ground, in which case the resulting thick smokescreen covers a limited area; the second way is an airburst of a bomb, which contains 116 wafers doused in phosphorus. The moment the bomb blows up and the phosphorus comes in contact with oxygen - it ignites. This is what creates the "fireworks" and billows of jellyfish-shaped smoke. The fallout covers a wide area and the danger of fires and harm to civilians is enormous. The phosphorus burns glass, and immediately ignites paper, trees, wood - anything that is dry. The burning wafers causes terrible injury to anyone who comes in contact with them. The irony is that tear gas is included in the Chemical Weapons Convention and is subject to all kinds of restrictions, whereas phosphorus is not.

And in the meantime, in the hospitals in Gaza there are people lying in beds - among them many children - whose severe injuries and burns have appalled the medical teams.

But in case you thought HAMAS was innocent and spotless in all this, think again. HAMAS doesn't seem to care much for civilians either. It also has some very strange views on international law.

Garlasco and Human Rights Watch also examine the other side, and he says, "We believe that the Grad and Qassam are illegal weapons because they are not accurate enough to be used in this situation." He adds that Hamas makes frequent use of land mines and explosive charges that are liable to injure civilians.

However, because he and his fellow experts can't go into Gaza, "We don't know what the extent of any [Palestinian] civilian casualties is because of Hamas - whether they are shooting soldiers and their bullets end up killing civilians, or whether their anti-tank missiles miss an Israeli tank and hit a house. We don't know."

In 2005, Garlasco met with a political representative of Hamas and told him that use of Grads is a contravention of the Geneva Convention. The reply he got from the Hamas man was: "'All Israelis are military.' And I explained to them that their reading of international law is wrong." It is amazing, he adds, that the Palestinians can manufacture the Qassams under the conditions in Gaza. The Grad, however, "is a real military weapon, three meters long. It has a significant warhead. The problem is that it is designed to be fired in mass, to be fired 21 rockets at a time, so that you are covering an area and you are having a shock effect. You don't only have an explosion, but also a shock and it covers a big area. Shooting one at a time is almost useless from a military perspective."

There are always two signs to every coin. Or as they say in Arabic and Hebrew (and Urdu and Hindi as well), you can't clap with one hand.

Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Why Israel is not at all responsible for civilian casualties in Gaza ...

There's little doubt that HAMAS is fully responsible for the current bombardment in Gaza. HAMAS is responsible for all civilian casualties. The logic is fairly straight forward. Here goes:

1. Gaza is 10 km wide and 40 km long. Its population is over 1 million people. Civilians have nowhere to go. HAMAS is responsible because it should have extended the area of land available in Gaza. Alternatively, it should have done what some Israelis have wanted to do for 40 years - expel all Palestinians from Gaza. This whole issue would have been resolved if Gaza underwent ethnic cleansing.

2. HAMAS rockets have killed 4 Israelis. Without doubt (and no, I'm not being sarcastic here), HAMAS should not have fired rockets into Israeli territory. This is because (and here the sarcasm recommences) HAMAS knows Israel always retaliates in a completely appropriate manner. Being a Jewish state and acting in accordance with Jewish ethics, Israel follows the Old Testament rule (which also exists in the Koran) of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Israel hasn't killed 500-plus civilians. This is all leftwing lies from Al Jazeera or the New York Times or other pro-terrorist sources.

3. Any remaining casualties beyond the 4 or 5 Palestinians killed by Israel could only have been the work of aliens from the Planet Fukasandshoe-III. HAMAS has failed to act against these aliens and must accept full responsibility.



4. If you choose not to believe the alien theory, try this. Israel can't help it if the bombs it drops on crowded areas manage to kill civilians. Israel cannot help it if its bombs and missiles and tanks and shrapnel end up killing so many civilians. Clearly HAMAS should have shared its state-of-the-art Qassam-rocket technology so that Israel could kill Palestinians using rockets giving Palestinians 15 seconds to evacuate (as opposed to the current weapons that only allow them 0.1 of a second).

It's not Israel's fault. It's all the fault of HAMAS, Al Jazeera, the leftwing pro-Arab media and aliens from the Planet Fukasandshoe. Israel bears absolutely no responsibility for civilian deaths.

COMMENT: Daniel Pipes' cartoonist claims HAMAS donated to Obama campaign ...

They say you can tell alot about someone by the company they keep.

Daniel Pipes' blog recently engaged the services of one cartoonist calling him/herself "Stogie". You can read about the arrangement between Stogie and Pipes' website CampusWatch here on Stogie's blog Saberpoint. You can also view the cartoon here.

Of greater interest, though, are Stoogie's claims about HAMAS. On the comments page of Stoogies' blog occurs this exchange between Stoogie and a reader named "gerry" ...

gerry [10.02.08 - 7:28pm]: So tell me, dude. Do you believe Obama is a secret Moslem?

Stogie [10.02.08 - 7:53pm]: Worse. He's a Democrat.

gerry [10.02.08 - 9:30 pm]: OK, but do you think he's a Muslim secretly trying to take over the White House for the Islam death-cult? I think Dr Pipes says he is.

Stogie [10.02.08 - 11:24 pm]: Gerry, I don't think Obama is a Muslim. He doesn't make his wife wear a chador and he doesn't go to a mosque. However, Hamas and a number of other terrorist groups have endorsed him and even contributed money to his campaign. Clearly, they think that the election of Barack Obama is good for Islamic terrorism.

This is a serious allegation from someone associated with Pipes and the Middle East Forum. The cartoonist/blogger is effectively accusing the Democratic Party of accepting donations from a banned terrorist organisation. Will Pipes, the Middle East Forum and/or CampusWatch be making any comment on the allegations made by their engaged cartoonist? Do we take it that they agree with Stogie's sentiments? Does Pipes believe Obama the candidate-of-choice of HAMAS?

UPDATE I: CampusWatch have now published the cartoon of the Stogie chap. In case you're wondering who the hell CampusWatch is, here are some of their staff. Their profile states that CW ...

... reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America, with an aim to improving them. The project mainly addresses five problems: analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students ...

The Middle East studies professorate is almost monolithically leftist due to a systematic exclusion of those with conservative or even moderately liberal views. The result is that Middle East studies lack intellectual diversity.

Among CW's goals are ...

Engage in an informed, serious, and constructive critique that will spur professors to make improvements. We look forward to the day when scholars of the Middle East provide studies on relevant topics, an honest appraisal of sensitive issues, a mainstream education of the young, a healthy debate in the classroom, and sensible policy guidance in a time of war.

Hence, CW is quite happy to post the works of a cartoonist whose blog includes this graphic ...


Obviously linking one's self to such objective critique of a Middle Eastern religion involves "an honest appraisal of sensitive issues" and "a mainstream education of the young". CW are clearly leading by example.

One wonders if CW believes that engaging and paying cartoonists who promote the burning of scriptures assists in overcoming "intolerance of alternative views". I mean, what is so intolerant about burning books? And what do CW donors think of the fact that their money is being used to pay cartoonists whose sensible views include:

... Hamas and Al-Queda and the Palestinians and the Iranian mullahs [are] in favor of Obama. They simply see him as the preferable candidate due to his perceived weaknesses. They think they can invade Israel and continue their jihad against the non-Islamic world with little or no intervention by Obama. He's the "peace" candidate. His father was a Muslim as was his grandfather, so they think he may have greater sympathy for their causes than McCain (and no doubt they are right).

A recent poll showed that close to 90% of Russians prefer Obama too; as they renew their aggression against neighboring countries like Georgia, they prefer a weak American president who will take no effective action to prevent their success.

Our enemies prefer Obama because they see him easier and more compliant with what they want to do in the world.

My advice to people like Professor John Esposito and others in the Middle East Studies sector is to ensure that the work of cartoonists such as Stogie are included in their teaching materials so that students can gain some insight into "alternative views". Follow the standard of objectivity and balance set by CampusWatch.

Words © 2008 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

CRIKEY: Marrickville & Bethlehem ...

Something is rotten in the almost-state of Palestine. HAMAS forces have taken over Gaza. The ruling Fatah faction of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas now controls the West Bank. Meanwhile, ordinary Palestinians are caught in the crossfire.

Palestinians are the most educated people in the Arab world. Although the majority are Muslim, the first democratically elected PA government appointed a Christian female (Dr Hanan Ashrawi) to head its sensitive education ministry.

Anti-Palestinian racists have tried to paint Palestinians as nasty blood-thirsty terrorists. In 1989, still in 2nd year uni, I saw a Palestinian student at Orientation Week harassed for displaying a symbol of terrorism (the chequered kefiyyeh or head dress). At the time, I presumed his opponents from the Union of Jewish Students had a point.

The 1993 Oslo Accords changed all that. It suddenly became respectable to wear a kefiyyeh and support Palestine. The two-state solution which had been maligned for all those years became political orthodoxy.

Sadly, there are still Arabs and Muslims trying to vilify Israel and Jews trying to vilify Palestinians and Muslims. I’m sickened that major Jewish organisations could invite people like Raphael Israeli and Brigette Gabriel to speak at the functions.

Gabriel doesn't hide her pathological hatred toward anyone even marginally Muslim. It seems strange that organisations such as the JNF would provide legitimacy to someone who is really just another Nazi xenophobe. Does it not play on the conscience of Aussie Jews that some of their organisations are promoting the same kinds of hatred that sent millions of Jews to the death camps?

To get an idea of this mad woman's views, here is what Bodgy Brigette told Jason Frenkel from the Australian Jewish News ...

FRENKEL: I find it astonishing that you've never met a practising Muslim one who thinks that he's adhering perfectly to the tenets of the religion -- who doesn't espouse hatred and have extreme views of the world.

GABRIEL: Does he drink?

FRENKEL: No.

GABRIEL: That tells me everything. He can tell you whatever line he wants to tell you. I asked you earlier, do you know what the word "Taqiya" is and you said no. And you've never read the Koran so you do not know what the Koran says about Jews and Christians.

No practising Muslim looks at you as a Jew -- if he knows you are a Jew -- looks at you in any way other than you are the enemy. He can give you any line, he can tell you, he can lie…

Under the practise of Islam, Taqiya is lying under Islam in order to advance the cause of Islam. And the way you advance the cause of Islam is lying to the Jews under Dawa, and I know this is another word that you have never heard. Dawa is literally "the call" -- when Muslims must befriend the Jews in order to win them over.

FRENKEL: What are the implications then for interfaith dialogues that are happening in Australia and everywhere else?

GABRIEL: Nonsense. All the interfaith is where the Jews are running to the Muslims to offer dialogue, it's not the other way around. And it's actually welcomed by the Muslim communities because they know the Jews are so ignorant and so gullible they are willing to hang on any strings of hope that lets them know "hey, we can be friends with our enemies".

What’s the difference between what Hilaly said about Jews at a seminar at Sydney University in 1987 and what guest speakers say about Muslims under the auspices of some Jewish organisations in 2007?

I’ll tell you the difference - 20 years!

It also disturbs me that an umbrella organisation of religious congregations (as opposed to a Zionist political organisation) opposes Marrickville Council’s proposal to establish a sister-city relationship with the Council Beyt Lahm in the West Bank.

Beyt Lahm, of course, is the Aramaic name of that city we sing about in Christmas carols. Remember? The manger? The star leading the three wise men etc?

Now, a lot more is happening in this nominally Christian town. But if we believe what the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies tells us, you’d think Bethlehem has become a hotbed of suicide terrorists.

In a speech to Marrickville Council, NSW Jewish Board of Deputies CEO Vic Alhadeff effectively transformed Bethlehem’s Mayor Victor Batarseh into a HAMAS man. How? Does he hold a HAMAS membership card? Has he converted to Islam? Apparently it’s because he opposes the two-state solution. But things aren’t as simple as they seem.

Using this standard, many Israelis have also joined the HAMAS jihad against the two-state solution. Many Israelis want to expel Palestinians en masse. Many Israelis want to see Palestine wiped off the world map (or at least eliminate it before it appears).

Even if HAMAS controls 4 seats on the Council, what possible impact could they make when HAMAS activists are being hunted down across the West Bank? And more importantly, is a sister-city partnership between political parties? Or is it between cities?

Bethlehem is the birthplace of Christ. That in itself should be enough to deter some Jewish leaders from opposing the sister-city arrangement. Some Jewish leaders have alienated even the most nominal Muslims by their choice of guest speakers. Are they now intent on alienating nominal Christians?

(An edited version of this was published in the Crikey! daily alert for 18 June 2007.)

Words © 2007 Irfan Yusuf