Israel used U.S.-supplied white phosphorus munitions in an October attack in southern Lebanon that injured at least nine civilians in what a rights group says should be investigated as a war crime, according to a Washington Post analysis of shell fragments found in a small village.
The Pentagon requires partner militaries to acknowledge obligations under international law when they accept U.S. weapons, “including that these munitions are only to be used for lawful purposes such as signaling and smoke screening,” a U.S. defense official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
It is unclear when the United States delivered the munitions to Israel. The official said no white phosphorous munitions have been provided since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack.
White phosphorus fell onto several homes and ignited fires, incinerating furniture and stripping appliances to scorched metal. Remnants of the sticky, black chemical littered the ground 40 days after the attack and combusted when residents kicked at it.
In 2013, the Israeli military pledged to stop using white phosphorus on the battlefield, saying it would transition to gas-based smoke shells.
Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati said on Dec. 2 that Israel’s use of the munition has “killed civilians and produced irreversible damage to more than 5 million square meters of forests and farmland, in addition to damaging thousands of olive trees.”
Yeah I remember hearing about Israel using white phosphorus in college and being aghast and upset and trying to tell people about how horrible it was… And that was apparently after they said they were done using it in 2013 and it’s been 8 years since I’ve been in college. Christ they love to torture people.
The only reason this is reported on and talked about specifically is because people think white phosphorous is illegal and immoral to use, which is based on a terrible understanding of the laws of war.
Amnesty has made the accusation that it’s a war crime, but Amnesty gets things wrong, and above all they’re calling for an investigation:
One attack on the town of Dhayra on 16 October must be investigated as a war crime
They then said why:
because it was an indiscriminate attack that injured at least nine civilians and damaged civilian objects, and was therefore unlawful
The IDF’s indiscriminate attacks are the ones in Gaza where they kill hundreds or thousands of Palestinians at a time, not where a couple of incendiaries land on some houses amid some fields and injured nine people. Amnesty is also wrong here (and they absolutely know the law, so I would say they are lying) - injuring civilians and damaging civilian objects is not unlawful in war; doing so deliberately or negligently is unlawful.
I am not making excuses for war crimes “my guy” and if you don’t like it when people get technical with the law then there are better complaints to make.
Article 2 Protection of civilians and civilian objects
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
Yep - it’s a warcrime… One of many currently being committed by Israel. Before you ignore the link and cast doubt about the definition of some of those terms…
For the purpose of this Protocol:
1.“Incendiary weapon” means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.
(a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
“Concentration of civilians” means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
“Military objective” means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
“Civilian objects” are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.
“Feasible precautions” are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.
There’s no ambiguity here, but let’s put the cherry on the genocide cake, shall we? Here’s an ICRC rundown on indiscriminately cutting food and water to civilian populations being a warcrime (see the fourth Geneva convention) in a way that’s descriptive of Israel’s actions. More warcrimes - they just can’t help themselves… certainly not when it would stand between Israel and genociding Palestine.
Let met first deal with your last paragraph, because it exposes a general attitude.
There’s no ambiguity here, but let’s put the cherry on the genocide cake, shall we? Here’s an ICRC rundown on indiscriminately cutting food and water to civilian populations being a warcrime (see the fourth Geneva convention) in a way that’s descriptive of Israel’s actions. More warcrimes - they just can’t help themselves… certainly not when it would stand between Israel and genociding Palestine.
Yes, cutting off water to cities is most likely a war crime. That’s not relevant to the case in the article. Are you of the opinion that any person who says “that is not a war crime” must think that the person, group or country accused of war crimes hasn’t committed other war crimes? Do you think it’s unimportant to legally defend someone who’s been accused of assault just because they have been found guilty of assault before? Do you think it’s unimportant to know the truth of such situations? Hopefully when expressed in such a stark way it’s obvious that attitude, which you seem to have, is wrong.
On to the technical details.
it is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack
For it to be a war crime under this clause, the civilians themselves or their homes or farms must have been the object of the attack. Do you have evidence it was? This is a crime with a component of intent, and Amnesty has not proven it.
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
Air-delivered weapons are bombs from an aircraft or rockets, and do not include artillery. This was an artillery shell.
It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons
I don’t know the legal arguments about what constitutes a “concentration” and whether sparsely populated farms (see the video) would constitute a concentration, but it doesn’t matter that much because you also (cynically, it seems like) skipped clause 1b of protocol III, which I already referred to, and which states:
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include: (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
White phosphorous used to make smoke or a signal is not categorised as an incendiary weapon when it is used as such. So Amnesty is (dishonestly) declining to make explicit a claim that they don’t have evidence for and which must be true for this alleged war crime to have been committed: The IDF must have used white phosphorous with the intent of using its incendiary effect and must have intended for it to fall on a civilian area. (And that area must count as a “concentration”.)
The article and Amnesty’s accusation propagates the falsehood under which you too are labouring, that use of incendiaries is a crime with a purely behavioural element: “did the soldier or commander do the thing which is prohibited”, when there is a mental component to this war crime (and many war crimes): “did the soldier or commander do the thing with the intent that it would bring about a certain prohibited circumstance?” To be clear, this could still be the case, but a few videos are insufficient to even make the argument, never mind prove it.
Given your final paragraph, I suspect that you are not reading the convention with the care required because you are of the opinion “the IDF is a bunch of war criminals anyway, I just need to find how they also broke the law this time.”
This is an excuse about as flimsy as they come - yeah, I drove my van full of fertiliser to the mosque, and it happened to catch fire, explode and level three blocks around the mosque, but I’m allowed fertiliser.
On Dec. 27, 2008, Israel launched a 22-day military operation on the Gaza Strip in response to rockets fired from the enclave. In the final days of that operation, Israel was accused of using white phosphorus weapons in proximity to civilian centers, including the UN’s agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) and a nearby hospital.
At first, Israel denied its use. In a scathing 74-page report issued in 2009, HRW disputed these denials. As reported by The Guardian in January 2009, Israel later admitted WP could, in fact, have been improperly used:
Israel has admitted – after mounting pressure – that its troops may have used white phosphorus shells in contravention of international law, during its three-week offensive in the Gaza Strip.
One of the places most seriously affected by the use of white phosphorus was the main UN compound in Gaza City, which was hit by three shells on 15 January. The same munition was used in a strike on the al-Quds hospital in Gaza City the same day.
Under review by Colonel Shai Alkalai is the use of white phosphorus by a reserve paratroop brigade in northern Israel. According to army sources the brigade fired up to 20 phosphorus shells in a heavily built-up area around the Gaza township of Beit Lahiya, one of the worst hit areas of Gaza.
In that 2009 case, as HRW documented, American-made WP shells fired from 155mm-caliber Howitzer guns burst in the air above their target, splintering, by design, into 116 solid shards of burning, white phosphorus that brought both smoke and flame to the ground below:
As Middle East Eye reported shortly after images of explosions were posted in 2023, “sources on the ground reported seeing scenes consistent with past Israeli white phosphorus use in Gaza, including during the 2008 conflict.” Indeed, a comparison of the air-blast explosions involved in the 2008-09 offensive and in October 2023 show what appear to be remarkably similar effects
Basically we did it in violation of international law (warcrime), but it wasn’t a breach of international law, and we didn’t do it, but we did do it, and promised we wouldn’t do it again because… and we didn’t do it again, except we definitely did.
Standard Israeli credibility, and definite not warcrimes.
So the relevance to this article, I take it, is that you suspect this attack was not a use of white phosphorous for smoke or signalling, because in the past, when having been accused of using white phosphorous in a city, the IDF initially denied it but then admitted it may have been used improperly, and you are therefore skeptical of their good faith this time around?
Perfectly reasonable.
Does not justify labelling this a definite war crime which is what you and Amnesty have done.
Israel has a history of doing exactly what we’re talking about, lying about it, and promising not to do it again, before repeating the cycle.
I suspect this in the same way that I suspected Russian’s “border-adjacent exercises” then “special military operation” were a*similarly thinly veiled excuse for an invasion - it’s very clear what’s happening from a clear pattern of behaviour that spans decades.
I may be more charitable if Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian population wasn’t indiscriminately hostile and deadly, and their rhetoric so genocidal. They’re also committing war crimes by cutting off food water, power, trade and movement - Palestinians are now being starved to death.
Israel is doing what they’ve said they want to, she have done in the past - I don’t understand why you’d even try to defend this.
I respect the work you’ve put in to make your post, but the problem is, despite incendiary weapons being illegal, WP gets a pass because armies claim they’re not using it for incendiary weapons but for smoke rounds and tracers.
Also, war crimes mean sweet fuck all these days. The only reason why Nazis were ever tried for war crimes was because they lost a war. Badly. And they didn’t have nuclear weapons. In modern times, any nuclear power facing a critical loss in war is likely to detonate their nuclear arsenal and bring about a worldwide nuclear holocaust which kills every single person on Earth through MAD.
In much the same way that I can take a perfectly legal kitchen knife and go on a stabbing spree, Israel are transparently using WP smoke bombs as incendiary weapons - something they’ve committed to not do several times… For definitely not warcrimes reasons… After constantly lying to say they didn’t do it… For definitely not warcrimes reasons.
Also, war crimes mean sweet fuck all these days.
This says it all.
I’m hearing so many echoes of the narcissists prayer in Israel’s defence…
It actually isn’t a war crime. Its legality is intentionally vague as it has numerous applications.
White phosphorus munitions are not banned under international law, but because of their incendiary effects, their use is supposed to be tightly regulated.[55] Because white phosphorus has legal uses, shells filled with it are not directly prohibited by international humanitarian law. Experts consider them not as incendiary, but as masking, since their main goal is to create a smoke screen.[56]
Edit: some of yall need to take an English course or something. Me explaining how WP is intentionally kept in a legal grey area is not me actively supporting its use. Get a life dweebs.
Uhh, yeah, it’s legal to use for illumination and smoke screens, not to target people. Do you think Israel was using it for a smokescreen in one of the most densely populated places in the world?
Like those hundreds of the hospital which oops was A) the Hamas themselves and B) only a handful victims as well. Don’t believe all shit that is fed to you ;)
Ah you again. Go back to your mosque, may be if you are fast enough you can still pre order a parking spot in the new parking area called Gaza. Finally that swamp land of terrorism is put to good use.
Yes, my guy - I’m the propagandised one with the super well funded Hamas media, the poor underfunded Israeli media and propaganda outfits with the full support of the US never stood a chance - listen to yourself.
Are you talking about the hospital Israel bombed that had the “Hamas” tunnels that Israel built, or all the other hospitals, schools, apartments, etc. that Israel bombed to dust?
If there’s been an acceptable handful of Palestinian civilian casualties, Israel doesn’t have a pretext for anything they’re doing - the number of Israeli deaths is a rounding error compared to the number of Palestinian children (let alone broader casualties) the IDF had killed.
Everybody can choose to ignore the truth based on own preferred perception of the world. Won’t change the reality though. Hamas is a manipulative terror organisation hiding behind civilians and as much as Israel is the baddy for not allowing that to work out, I’d do the same. The children excuse gets boring as hell ask your Imam for sth new. Even as complete unrelated person from Europe i can only cross my fingers that Israel is finally being able to eliminate that cancer of an organisation which was even indoctrinating your beloved children from kindergarten age on.
I don’t know why you need me to be Muslim, or what any of this has to do with the obvious propaganda you’ve been huffing that’s whipped you into a genocidal tantrum, but rather than get into that, I’ll ask instead:
In what way is Hamas a terrorist organisation that’s not more descriptive of Israel? It’s not the dead kids, and based on the utter nonsense you’re regurgitating, it’s not the propaganda.
Yeah unpopular opinion around fanatics here, but these are buildings not people. The plan of the war is eliminating future threats like the massacre that happened. If that means eliminating infrastructure, so be it. Hamas used buildings preciously designed for civilians in a war that makes them legitimate targets according to international right.
I see your point. Still i‘d argue after evacuation notice everybody left is a legitimate target. Free yourself if you are oppressed or die. Sad reality i know and i would be angry as hell myself but what would i expect Israel to do? Let Hamas continue? My life would be the sacrifice i can’t Israel blame to make as i was the retard allowing Hamas to operate that way in the first place.
Whew that’s a wild statement. I don’t think literally anybody on the planet believes that, and I think saying something like that would make even paid Israeli officials who deal professionally is spouting propoganda blush with shame.
I can only imagine what has gone wrong in your life that you’d be so uniformed about the situation in Gaza, and yet so compelled to shovel the most exaggerated propaganda on the Internet for strangers to downvote. I hope your a paid shill, I truly do. Because if not, then there is likely a lot of trauma behind that screen of yours and I sincerely hope you seek help. Arguing on the Internet isn’t going to fix the pain your dealing with, friend. Log off, take a deep look at yourself and your life, and maybe go find someone to talk to about it. Wishing you luck on your road to recovery from whatever got you to this sad point in your life.
I’m not going to be too concerned about a toddler trying to kick my teeth in, but Andre the giant is a different story. Both are bad, but not comparable.
Did you see the video? This strike landed on farms in Lebanon, not cities in Gaza.
Furthermore, it’s legal to target people, but not civilians and also not civilian objects or forests. It is legal to use it as a smoke screen, for signalling or for illumination regardless of where it is used.
War crime. Maybe go read the Geneva convention, dipshit.
I suppose bombing civilian farms in the wrong country is an example of that superhuman self-control, and not an indiscriminate attempt to murder and generally fuck with as many Muslims as possible.
I have. Feel free to point out the clause which states that using white phosphorous as a smoke screen is ever illegal. If you don’t think this use was as a smoke screen, then I would like to see evidence before you go around calling people “dipshit”.
the wrong country
Hezbollah has been fucking with Israel since October the 8th.
superhuman self-control, and not an indiscriminate attempt to murder and generally fuck with as many Muslims as possible.
You know, there are acts in between “superhuman self control” and “genocide”, which is the accusation you’re making here. If Israel actually wanted to murder “as many Muslims as possible” you would not be seeing tens of thousands dead. Israel could carpet bomb the Gaza Strip and kill all 2 million inhabitants. You would not be seeing a couple of smoke shells being shot into southern Lebanon; you’d be seeing Bint Jbeil and other southern towns flattened. No, the IDF is not exercising “superhuman self-control” (I never said that, so maybe consider why you mentioned it) but they are exercising some level of restraint.
Israel’s use of white phosphorous as a smoke screen is as plausible as their claim that every Palestinian man woman and child being killed is Hamas. When the Israeli military had to commit they wouldn’t use WP in populated areas to the Israeli High Court of Justice in 2013. The use of WP in this manner is widely considered a warcrime with the flimsiest of veils draped over it.
There’s a gaping chasm between superhuman control and genocide - but I’m seeing a lot of genocidal rhetoric, action and dead or displaced Palestinians, and no evidence of restraint beyond the bare minimum which will allow for continued US support.
So you’ve retreated from “War crime, dipshit” to “flimsily veiled warcrime, plus the IDF make aggressive statements”, and silence on the “wrong country”. That’s progress, given the context in which most people think any use of white phosphorous is a crime.
The thin veil is what they hastily tossed over the warcrime… after repeatedly lying about not doing it, and repeatedly promising not to do it… For definite not warcrimes reasons
Sure - I used a kitchen knife to stab up a school, but I’m allowed a kitchen knife, dummy - what’s the problem?
Terrible analogy. There is a mental component to the crime of murder, but without the mental component, the crime is manslaughter.
It’s more like the difference between “possession of a firearm” (legal, under some circumstances) and “possession of a firearm with intent to cause harm” (illegal, in the UK for example)
The mental component is there - the intent is to firebomb Palestinians, the implausibly thin veil is to preserve US support. The analogy is perfectly relevant.
I’ve got no interest in running down every warcrime of a country that’s committing them out in the open, and has a decades-long history of committing this exact warcrime, lying about it, promising not to do it again, then repeating the process while spouting genocidal rhetoric and killing thousands of children.
It is not a free state, unless you’re white Jewish.
If you’re black Jewish they sterilise you, if you’re not Jewish they lock you up, steal your native lands and bomb and murder you and your descendants for 70 years.
Add comment