In the photos above, you see a vivid comparison of the ordinance available to the combatants in the IDF/Hamas conflict around Gaza [IDF (left), and Hamas (right)]. A United Nations team is seeking access to Gaza to investigate claims of war crimes made about the weeks-long IDF incursion/onslaught against Gaza last year that killed hundreds, even thousands, of Gazans (while Obama sat on his immaculately clean, manicured hands). Israel has said it will sit this one out,of course, claiming "bias." Truthdig presents the story:
The U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) may be forced to enter the Palestinian Territories from Egypt after Israel will likely refuse cooperation in the U.N.‘s mission to investigate potential war crimes by the Israeli military and Hamas. Citing bias, many believe Israel has been singled out unfairly—even after its proven use of white phosphorus chemical warfare and indiscriminate bombing of civilian locations (even a U.N. school).White phosphorus shells, shown above (left) being prepared by the Israeli military at the Israel-Gaza border, are illegal in warfare. Several hundred such shells--as many as a thousand, by some counts--were fired into Gaza last year by the IDF. Qassam rockets, shown above (right) being readied inside Gaza, are not. Several dozen of these have been fired into Israel in the past 5 years.
A UN inquiry into possible war crimes in Gaza will go ahead even if Israel does not co-operate, says Richard Goldstone, who leads the inquiry team.
Mr Goldstone said he was “disappointed” Israel had given no positive response, and said his team would enter Gaza via Egypt if Israel refused them visas.
The UN wants to investigate whether Israel and Hamas committed war crimes during the January conflict in Gaza.
Israel accuses the UN branch carrying out the mission of bias against it.
Speaking only for me, of course, I believe that since indiscriminately lobbing explosive white phosphorous into civilian buildings, onto civilian populations, by military forces is forbidden by international treaty obligations, doing so constitutes war crimes. But what do I know?
As a veteran, and having seen both at work, I do know that, if I had to be bombarded, I'd prefer HE to WP.
But that's probably just me...