The phosphorus cloud over Ha'aretz
Two days ago, the BBC ran with a story that the Israel Defence Force had disciplined two senior officers for firing white phosphorus shells at a UN compound in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, endangering the lives of civilians. Given the enormous traction that had been given to claims that Israel had used phosphorus shells illegally in Gaza, with accusations that it had thereby recklessly endangered civilians and injured them through burns, the story was damaging. Even though it appeared that this had been a one-off breach of the international rules – which permit the use of white phosphorus in warfare to create either smoke or illumination but not to endanger civilians – rather than the wholesale unlawful practice which had been claimed, even one such incident was clearly a political setback. Accordingly the Times in particular – which had long been running a campaign that Israel had made unlawful use of white phosphorus and tried to cover it up – ran a news storyheadlined
Israeli officers get ‘slap on wrist’ for white phosphorus use in Gaza
while a (balanced) leading article opined:
A ‘slap on the wrist’ (to quote one senior Israeli official) is an indefensibly cursory punishment for those responsible. Even so, it should be seen for what it is — a clear acknowledgment by Israel that, during the conflict, it behaved in a manner in which it should not.
Except that it hadn’t. The story, it appears, was wrong. The two officers were reprimanded not for firing phosphorus shells but artillery shells. Phosphorus shells were being fired on this occasion, but entirely lawfully -- in order to create smoke to deter Hamas from firing its anti-tank weapons. The irony was that the officers were reprimanded for not firing phosphorus but disobeying their orders by firing artillery shells which endangered life (although no-one was actually hurt by them).
So how was this story got so terribly wrong?
The fault appears to lie with a front page story in the Israeli paper Ha’aretz (no longer available on line, it seems) by Anshel Pfeffer. This said:
An Israel Defense Forces brigadier general and another officer with the rank of colonel endangered human life during last year’s military campaign in the Gaza Strip by firing white phosphorous munitions in the direction of a compound run by UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the Israeli government says.
The finding acknowledges, at least in part, allegations by international organizations. It was contained in a report that the government provided to the United Nations over the weekend in response to last September’s Goldstone Commission report.
Gaza Division Commander Brig. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg and Givati Brigade Commander Col. Ilan Malka, were the subject of disciplinary action by GOC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Yoav Gallant after headquarters staff found that the men exceeded their authority in approving the use of phosphorous shells that endangered human life, the Israeli government report said.
In fact, the Israel government report had not said that at all. As CAMERArecords, it had merely said this:
100. The special command investigations also uncovered some instances where IDF soldiers and officers violated the rules of engagement. For example, in one case, a Brigadier General and a Colonel had authorized the firing of explosive shells which landed in a populated area, in violation of IDF orders limiting the use of artillery fire near populated areas. The Commander of the Southern Command disciplined the two officers for exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others.
108. 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 Brigadier General and a Colonel for exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others [my emphasis].
And on white phosphorus, it said this:
118. The Military Advocate General reviewed the entire record of the special command investigation. With respect to exploding munitions containing white phosphorous, the Military Advocate General concluded that the use of this weapon in the operation was consistent with Israel’s obligations under international law.
119. With respect to smoke projectiles, the Military Advocate General found that international law does not prohibit use of smoke projectiles containing phosphorous. Specifically, such projectiles are not “incendiary weapons,” within the meaning of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons, because they are not primarily designed to set fire or to burn. The Military Advocate General further determined that during the Gaza Operation, the IDF used such smoke projectiles for military purposes only, for instance to camouflage IDF armor forces from Hamas’s antitank units by creating smoke screens.
120. The Military Advocate General found no grounds to take disciplinary or other measures for the IDF’s use of weapons containing phosphorous, which involved no violation of the Law of Armed Conflict. Nevertheless, the Military Advocate General’s opinion did not address a number of specific complaints that were received after the investigation concluded and which are being investigated separately.
So why did Pfeffer report that the officers were disciplined over the firing of phosphorus shells? Apparently because a footnote to paragraph 108 states:
‘IDF forces fired several artillery shells in violation of the rules of engagement prohibiting use of such artillery near populated areas.’
CAMERA goes on:
The footnote refers readers to paragraphs 431-437 of a July 2009 extensive report issued by the Israeli army about Operation Cast Lead (‘The Operation in Gaza: Factual and Legal Aspects’). Those paragraphs deal at length about the army’s use of white phosphorous close to the aforementioned UNRWA facility at the same Jan. 15, 2009 incident in Tel Al Hawa. That report’s conclusions about the use of white phosphorous at Tel Al Hawa were:
In conclusion, the incident took place during intense fighting, which involved Hamas’ deployment of anti-tank units equipped with advanced anti-tank missiles north of the UNRWA compound. Hamas thus placed the compound between themselves and the IDF forces.(266) The IDF implemented an effective smokescreen as a protective measure in response to this threat. The operational advantage of using the smokescreen was significant. The IDF anticipated that the risk to civilians and civilian objects was limited in relation to this operational advantage. Unfortunately, however, three individuals were injured and U.N. facilities were damaged.
After Pfeffer’s story appeared, the IDF apparently protested at the false assertion that the officers had been disciplined over the prohibited use of phosphorus. Subsequently, Pfeffer published an updated story on line which carried the IDF’s response – but in a way that still repeated the error in the original story:
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.
In a further story today, Pfeffer is still repeating his original false assertion about what the government report said, while providing quotes from the IDF which make the true position even clearer:
IDF officials yesterday downplayed the significance of the proceedings against Gaza Division commander Brig. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg and former Givati Brigade commander Col. Ilan Malka, conducted by GOC Southern Command Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant, saying that it would not affect their future promotions.
It was determined that the officers had exceeded their authority in authorizing artillery fire, which IDF sources said yesterday had been fired to create cover to assist in the extrication of IDF troops, some of whom were wounded, from a position where Hamas had superiority. The sources also said that while the firing of the shells did endanger human life, no injuries were actually sustained as a result.
The IDF Spokesman’s Office said yesterday that contrary to the reports provided by the government to the United Nations on Friday, which stated that Eisenberg and Malka were disciplined for using smoke shells containing white phosphorus, they were disciplined not for using the phosphorus shells but rather for giving the authorization to fire regular artillery shells.
In yet another story today about the Israel government report, however, Pfeffer now finally gets it right:
Senior reserve officers criticized the IDF yesterday for not revealing it had reprimanded two senior officers for exceeding their authority in using artillery during the operation.
Meanwhile, Ha’aretz’s respected defence correspondent Amos Harel – who in Monday’s paper wrote a commentary which reported the disciplinary proceedings accurately by referring to artillery shells and making no mention of phosphorus – today makes the position very clear:
The affair for which Eisenberg and Malka were later reprimanded was not mentioned at the briefing - the matter of the unjustified artillery fire: the use of live ammunition to help rescue a Givati Brigade platoon from a situation in which they were under anti-tank missile fire from Hamas - even though the orders allowed firing only smoke shells. The investigation found that Malka exceeded his authority, but his orders did not cause the death of any innocent civilians. Division commander Eisenberg, who was not directly involved in the decision, requested to be tried too, so as not to abandon his brigade commander [my emphasis].
The false assertion that the IDF reprimanded its offers over the illegal use of white phosphorus has now gone round the world. Will Ha’aretz come clean about its mistake? Will the BBC, the Times et al broadcast and print that this was in fact untrue? I’m afraid it’s the usual story – that a lie is half-way round the world before the truth even gets its boots on.
Posts
