After my previous message requesting further information about the Jerusalem Post report of alleged use of DU in Israel two people asked me to verify the original report, and to explain why Israel might use DU if aware of its dangers. I have checked the sources. I offer an updated analysis of apparent risks as a concerned peace observer with some experience of toxic hazard monitoring and safety precautions in the oil industry. I am using other internet and phone sources for the military,  medical and environmental information quoted.  Please reply to DU list to correct any errors of fact.

My concerns are humanitarian, not political. I joined the DU internet campaign in April 99 and have friends in the Middle East who would appreciate practical advice on how civilians can recognise DU.

1) Source(s)

A link to the quote is available on the Jerusalem Post website 19 December edition,. bottom right in Mideast Notes "Palestinian Hiroshima" at:
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/12/19/

or go direct to the report at:
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2000/12/19/Columns/Columns.17632.html
 
The report is actually a translation by Jerusalem Post staff from an Arab newspaper "Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah" in Ramallah published on 15 December (not available on line).  It indicates that Dr Yusuf Abu-Safieh is the Interior Minister (other checks indicate that he is Minister for the Environment in the Palestine National Administration).

IAC also refer to an earlier report on 26 November that a Palestinian human rights organisation had written a complaint to the Israeli Government about the use of DU munitions. I have not been able to verify this yet.

It is curious that the Jerusalem Post report this item without comment or denial. If not true they could have denied it or simply not reported it.

Perhaps one clue is a report on the same day (19 Dec, main page) that the IDF were running low on munitions due to embargoes on weapons supply by many countries during the current conflict. The final paragraph threatens use of more lethal weapons (unspecified).

2) Request for independent confirmation

The primary source for this topic was from the IAC team (International Action Centre, New York) who visited the region and reported witnessing helicopter attacks at Ramallah on 1-2 Nov. Their report indicates that they suspected the use of DU. From information about Apache weapons systems  available on the net this is a reasonable question. They have two reports on the IAC website at::
http://www.iacenter.org/israel_du.htm
They must have discussed this concern with Palestinian contacts. The shell fragments they collected were (not surprisingly) confiscated before they returned to the US.

There is a need for further independent evidence to verify IAC's suspicions.

3) Why should Israel use DU?

Several people have said that there is no obvious military reason for the IDF to use DU weapons, particularly if they are aware of the suspected hazards to communities in DU target zones.

That was my first reaction too. But the IAC report addressed some of these questions e.g. why bother using DU against non-armoured targets?

Much of the IAC assessment makes sense in the context of  reports I have read on DU websites and discussion with Doug Rokke and others with first hand experience of DU use in combat.

From my own enquiries during and since the Balkans war I see several significant factors:

a) As a psychologist I see a tendency for political and military leaders to make serious strategic errors and sanction atrocities in the high stress of military conflict. (e.g. the decision by the US President, supported by the UK Prime Minister, to use cruise missiles against what was later proved to be a civilian target in Sudan in response to the bin Lardin terrorist attacks in August 98). This seems due to the fight or flight reaction that affects most people under very high stress. (refer http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/gturmap.htm )

b) Long term considerations are irrelevant in tactical combat situations. I was advised of this by a defence analyst in 1999. The only radiation hazards that concern military planners are the immediate ones from nuclear weapons. On a scale of importance long term health threats are irrelevant compared to immediate death risks. The use of DU is justified in military and political minds by the superior tactical effectiveness (penetration) of DU munitions. (Tungsten is equally effective as a kinetic weapon material).

Though designed for armour piercing, DU shells are probably one of the most effective for penetrating stone buildings due far higher mass and kinetic energy than lead or steel for the same size shell.

The alternative metal with high mass and the same kinetic energy as DU is Tungsten. This has been substituted for DU in some Nato naval anti-aircraft machine gun systems.  I do not know whether it is also an option to DU in the Apache and A10 30mm cannon systems.

However Tungsten is far more expensive than DU.  It would only be used if there were environmental concerns about using DU penetrators. It seems unlikely that this would be the IDF's penetrator of choice in view of its cost.

c) The Alpha radiation from DU oxide is extremely difficult to measure (see below). For this reason it was not detected with conventional radiation instruments in the Gulf War until Doug Rokke's team of health physicists realised the risk and obtained specially callibrated equipment.

From various reports I understand that DU's Alpha radiation is high energy but very short range, measured in millimetres. So measurement of DU has to be taken very close to suspected contaminated samples (e.g. analysis of DU dust found in Holland after the El Al crash).

This measurement problem was the most legitimate reason for US and UK military advisers to claim that DU "is safe" and represents a minimal radiation hazard. They were warned otherwise by Doug Rokke's team after the Gulf war.  But both the US and UK Governments persist in making this claim to re-assure the public and military personnel (made again today in the UK Parliament).

As Dan Fahey says if you "dont look" (with right equipment in the right place) you "dont find".  Refer his report on the MTP website at http://www.miltoxproj.org

Presumably the UN DU teams in Kosovo do have equipment correctly calibrated for Alpha radiation.  Their reports now have higher credibility than statements by the US or UK governments.

d) Israel's main military advisers are likely to be from the US. The US DOD and UK MOD have convinced themselves that DU is safe in both metal and oxide form. To admit otherwise renders them liable to immense damage claims, potential war crimes action (e.g. for Iraq) and the  problem of disposing of 100,000's tonnes of stockpiled DU waste from nuclear fuel production.

It seems reasonable to assume that US and UK military advisers have given the same advice to the IDF and Israeli government that they have given to the US and UK governments. If so the IDF would have no concern about using the DU munitions supplied with Apache weapons systems in combat situations.

High risk of DU use in Israel

Given this context the risks of long term DU contamination to densely populated, largely agricultural communities in an arid region is likely to be given minimal attention by the Israel Government and military UNLESS there is an international warning that will reach the wider Israeli population.

Perhaps the new furore about long term effects of DU in Europe may be sufficient to send a powerful and urgent warning of the potential long term hazards to Israeli and Arab communities alike.

But today's statement by the UK Government repeating its confidence that there is no evidence that DU is hazardous indicates that neither the UK nor US are likely to warn Israel against using DU.

==l

On the reports available so far I conclude that, even if DU has not been used in Israel yet, there is a high risk that it could be used at any time. If so it could have potentially disastrous long term effects for both Arab and Israeli communities in target areas.

Yesterday Alex Kirby of the BBC contacted the Israeli embassy in London to ask if the IDF were using DU in the current conflict. They denied that it has been yet but declined to give an assurance that it will not be used.  See his report on BBC news online at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/newsid_1106000/1106531.stm

This immediate risk to communities in Israel seems to be the most urgent priority for all concerned in the campaign for a global ban on DU munitions.

Need for international warnings

Last Friday the UN refugee programme decided to warn their aid workers on Kosovo of the potential hazards of entering DU target areas (source: UK "Observer" article on Sunday 7 Jan 01).

In view of the risk of the Israel Government using DU in helicopter strikes against suspected terrorist targets I hope that all international organizations (aid, peace and media) sending staff to monitor the conflict in Israel and the West Bank will give similar warnings.

If international staff are given briefings to identify potential DU  targets and shell fragments these personnel also offer the best chance of identifying DU use quickly so that local communities can be warned.

Ideally the UN DU survey project in Kosovo could send a monitoring team to the West Bank now to test all recent areas targeted by cannon fire from Apache helicopters.  If Israel has not used DU as they say then there should be no objection to such tests. This would re-assure local communities on all sides of the conflict.

Prevention is better than cure

As in the early weeks of the Balkans war DU campaigners have a narrow window of opportunity to challenge the potential use of DU (hopefully) before it happens in Israel.  In April 1999 this led the UK government to give an undertaking that its forces would not use DU munitions in the Balkans.

Sadly the UK and other Nato governments lacked the courage or influence to stop the US government from using DU in the Balkans. They may now be regretting that decision.

If Israel uses DU weapons in densely populated areas, in an arid environment, the consequences are likely to be more severe than in either the Balkans or Iraq.  No government aware of the potential hazards of DU (especially the US and UK) can allow this to happen without sharing guilt for the consequences.  Hopefully some country will raise this issue in the UN assembly.

Need for civilian advice

Can DU list members recommend any websites with advice for civilians in suspected DU target areas please?

Yours in concern for peace in all communities.
 
Dai Williams
Woking, Surrey UK
eosuk@btinternet.com

PS
There are almost daily reports about the DU issue at BBC news online. This includes the following discussion forum and other links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/forum/newsid_1106000/1106746.stm