Dirty secret of Israel’s weapons exports: They’re tested on Palestinians

U.S. officials risk complicity if Israel uses U.S. support to commit war crimes.

Despite the difficulty of reaching definitive legal conclusions about specific attacks, the Israeli military’s conduct in Gaza and the accompanying rhetoric from Israeli officials should prompt both legal and policy concerns in Washington. In the first six days of the air campaign, Israel dropped 6,000 bombs more than the U.S.-led coalition did against the Islamic State in any single month of the war against ISIS, even at the height of the operation. This rate of attack raises questions regarding Israel’s target selection, its interpretation of proportionality, and the precautions the country is taking to avoid civilian casualties.

The characterization of the military campaign by Israeli officials should also raise eyebrows in Foggy Bottom. In the early days of the conflict, an Israel Defense Forces spokesperson explained that for Israel’s bombing campaign, the “emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.” In responding to controversial strikes causing civilian casualties, the IDF has repeatedly emphasized that it had previously warned the population of Gaza to move south, as if that warning somehow absolved Israel from other legal obligations related to the protection of civilians.

BOMBS OVER GAZA
The conflict in Gaza is governed by the law of war, a body of international law also known as international humanitarian law. These rules, agreed to by states, balance considerations of military necessity with humanity and set limits on what parties to an armed conflict can and cannot do. They apply to both Israel and Hamas. The law of war requires that attacks be directed solely against military objectives (including enemy combatants), prohibits the targeting of civilians and civilian objects, and outlaws attacks not directed at specific military objectives. Hospitals, ambulances, schools, and places of worship are also ordinarily protected from attack, although their use for military purposes can potentially end that protection. These rules all reflect what lawyers call the principle of “distinction,” which is supposed to guide parties to the conflict in distinguishing civilians and civilian infrastructure from enemy fighters and military objectives. Under the principle of “proportionality,” the law prohibits attacks that could be expected to cause civilian harm that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage the attack is expected to produce. For example, this principle would permit an attack on an enemy headquarters even if it is expected to cause civilian deaths so long as that harm is not “excessive.” In addition, both the attacking and defending parties have obligations to take precautions to further mitigate harm to civilians. For example, the use of involuntary human shields to impede military operations is prohibited, but such use does not relieve the attacking party of their own legal obligations.

Another very informative article:

Is Washington Responsible for What Israel Does With American Weapons?
The IDF’s Conduct in Gaza Should Prompt Scrutiny of U.S. Arms Transfers

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/washington-responsible-what-israel-does-american-weapons?check_logged_in=1&utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=lo_flows&utm_campaign=registered_user_welcome&utm_term=email_1&utm_content=20231119

The United States is the biggest backer of the Israeli military, providing it with billions of dollars in military assistance every year. Because of this support and U.S. intelligence sharing, Israel’s brutal campaign in the Gaza Strip launched in response to Hamas’s unconscionable attack on Israeli civilians on October 7 raises serious legal and policy issues for the United States. U.S. domestic laws and standards restrict military and intelligence support that would be used to violate the law of war. Further, U.S. officials risk complicity if Israel uses U.S. support to commit war crimes. The Biden administration and the State Department in particular should therefore be taking concrete steps to monitor how Israel is using U.S. weapons and to prevent their misuse.
But promoting compliance with the law of war is not enough. Even if the military campaign was conducted in strict compliance with the law, it would bring only more suffering and destruction to Gaza and risk regional escalation that could further directly involve the U.S. military. The only way to address those risks is through de-escalation and, ultimately, finding a way out of the conflict.

The West's "leaders" obviously.

The one million dollar question.

One thing for sure though, as long as they are enabled by the West's hypocrites, they won't.

Forgot to mention that it was written by British correspondent and photojournalist Paddy Dowling.

For anyone interested I suggest reading the whole article which gives a detailed analysis.

New weapons test in Gaza 2023?

Ashraf al-Qudra, spokesperson for the Ministry of Health in Gaza, last week said in a press statement that medical teams in the enclave had “observed severe burns on the bodies of Palestinians who were killed and wounded by Israel’s bombs – whether caused by an unknown weapon or not – is something they have not seen in previous conflicts”.

Ashraf al-Qudra, spokesperson for the Ministry of Health in Gaza, last week said in a press statement that medical teams in the enclave had “observed severe burns on the bodies of Palestinians who were killed and wounded by Israel’s bombs – whether caused by an unknown weapon or not – is something they have not seen in previous conflicts”.

Dr Ahmed el-Mokhallalati from the burn and plastic surgery division at al-Shifa Hospital, in an interview with the Toronto Star, described the wounds as “very deep – third and fourth-degree burns, and the skin tissue is impregnated with black particles and most of the skin thickness and all the layers underneath are burned down to the bone”.

El-Mokhallalati said that these weren’t phosphorus burns, “but a combination of some kind of incendiary bomb wave and other components”.

The Israeli military has not commented so far on the statement made by Gaza’s Ministry. But the mystery incendiary bombs, the Iron Sting’s debut and the reported use of the new Spark drone in the current war suggest that Israel is once again testing new weapons in conflict.

“Israel’s weapons will continue to remain attractive to international buyers based on performance in the occupation,” Loewenstein said. “But Israel is not just selling weapons; they’re selling the ideology to other countries – of getting away with it.”

Battle proven on ‘human animals’

Two days after the October 7 Hamas attack, Israel’s minister of defence Yoav Gallant compared the Palestinian people with “human animals”.

To Loewenstein, the dehumanising comments were unsurprising. “It is obvious over Israel’s occupation and countless wars that Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens. Like animals,” he said.

Over the years, the Israeli army has tested rubber bullets, artificial intelligence-powered robotic guns and various forms of crowd dispersal solutions, which have inflicted severe injuries on Palestinians.

Nabeel al-Shawa, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon who has worked in Gaza since 1978, treated many Palestinians wounded by Israeli firing on the Great March of Return in 2018 – when tens of thousands of Palestinians demanded they be allowed to return to the land they were forcibly removed from in 1948.

“For Israeli snipers, this was merely target practice with humans,” he said. “Most patients had been shot in joints deliberately to cause maximum damage, but not kill.

“These new rounds the Israeli army used caused injuries I have never seen before. In some cases the limb appeared intact, however, during surgery, I could not distinguish between bone and soft tissue.”