Monday, February 1, 2010

IKF (K for killing) denies disciplining top officers over white phosphorous use in Gaza war

Update:
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.
Haaretz

5 comments:

  1. There is an interesting question,  why are they so swift to say they will payback the destruction caused to the UN buildings,  but will not even discuss the wanton and indiscriminate murder of civilians with phosphorous shelling?

    The answer is that people,  the Palestinians, are not as important as buildings. The Palestinians are not worth the kind treatment you might afford to dogs. This has always been the position of the Palestinians in these massacres. Of course, if you attribute worth to the Palestinians in one instance than they know that they are liable in all instances of atrocities of this nature. There was phosphorus used even when there was no troop movements in regard to the IDF, so it cannot be claimed that it was used as cover – it was used specifically to burn the tender flesh off the bodies of the Palestinians. We all knew that they were going to slap a few hands in the Israeli “investigation,” and deny that it was the aim of high command or their specific aim to burn Palestinians alive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. they did this in south lebanon too; paid the un but not the victims.

    ReplyDelete
  3. isn't it strange that even the NYT carried the initial story before the IDF denied it?  odd.

    ReplyDelete
  4. comment on facebook page:

    "It was a clear test to see what the backlash would be from the media and human rights groups. They wanted to see if they could get away with it or explain it away. Clearly it failed because they are blaming the "bad apples" which is usually an indication of institutional involvement."

    ReplyDelete
  5. That is like a car purposefully ramming into another car and killing the people,  and the response being - "poor car,  I will pay the car,  the people inside though - they are worthless."  Imagine someone trying to mount a defense like this!

    ReplyDelete