The top story on my Yahoo news budget tonight is: "Concerns White Phosphorus Used in Afghan Battle." It's an AP story out of Afghanistan that the country's top human rights group believes the U.S. has used white phosphorous in battling the Taliban.
[R]ights groups say
its use over populated areas can indiscriminately burn civilians and
constitutes a war crime.
Afghan
doctors told The Associated Press they have treated at least 14
patients with severe burns the doctors have never seen before.
Disgraceful, yes. And an appropriate standard for journalists to enforce. But white phosphorus was used by the Israelis in densely populated Gaza, according to human rights groups; and I remember when we first covered it on this site, when the Times of London made the allegation. I don't remember the American press ever making a to-do about it. But the Arab press did, and so did the English press. My Google news search for "Israel white phosphorus" turns up tons of headlines from global and English sources, very few from the States.
The point: The American press behaves a little like the U.S. delegation to the U.N., and cuts Israel a break on international standards that it holds Americans to.
RE: "The American press… cuts Israel a break on international standards that it holds Americans to." MY COMMENT: They know better, but they are simply afraid to report anything (except on rare occasions) that might be perceived by 'The Lobby' as critical of Israel. They catch a lot more hell on the rare occasion when they are perceived as criticizing the Israeli military than they do on the less rare occasion where they criticize the U.S. military.
Interesting phenomenon from a journalistic POV, but even more worrisome from a military perspective. There was some speculation that the IDF's use of white phospherous was an "experiment" so the US could see how it could be used. Once again, the US is coarsening its standards of humanity by following Israel's example. Obama better ride roughshod on these people.
If "journalists" are afraid to report on white phosphorus over Gaza because there are repercussions for doing so, while reporting on US misuse of the same weapon, where there are not the same repercussions, then "journalism" is wholly corrupted. What, will they not get the raise they want? Will they get fired for not caving to corporate pressure? These pious reporters who hold corporations in contempt for acting in their financial interests, despite adverse effects to others, are worse, since they reek with hypocrisy. If they were journalists, they would report on the corrupting influences that they face in their daily work. Better to blog about the truth, than to get paid to be a minion in the propaganda machine. I recall Margaret Warner on NewsHour interviewing someone, the Israeli ambassador, I think, with footage of bombing in Gaza going on the background, when, fireworks display-like, a star pattern of white smoke suddenly fanned out across the city. "Oooooohhhh!" said Margaret, her voice conveying first surprise, then a sort of calculated continuation, preferring to sound like an idiot rather than asking whether that was white phosphorus. Disgusting. Afraid to ask war criminals about their crimes.
From the AP article Phil references: "The U.S. military used white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah in Iraq in November 2004. Israel's military used it in January against Hamas targets in Gaza." Would be interesting to know if the AP ever did a banner article specifically on Israel's use of white phosphorus…
Well here's an AP banner article: From AP Online 1-14-09 ICRC: Israel's use of white phosphorus not illegal http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1A1-D95MLHHG0.html If you go to that site, you can pull up other AP articles, maybe five or so, that deal specifically with Israel's use of white phosphorus in Gaza at the start of this year. Most from AP Worldwide. Look at the AP banners and judge for yourself.
From the response to Israel's activity I read around the web the US has clear indicators of when and how wp is to be used, why there are limitations and what the consequences are for misusing it. Whether that makes a difference when it is used by the US only time, and news dissemination, will tell.