That first video is not white phos. It's also incorrect in saying using white phos is a war crime. That comes from the misclassification of white phos as either an incendiary or a chemical weapon, but under the ICRC it's neither.
Israel at war
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
Please stop trolling. Israel can do what they want. It was Hamas who started the whole war on Oct 7/2023!!
It is a war crime if used on civilians.
The usage of white phosphorus is restricted under international humanitarian law. Although there can be lawful uses, it must never be fired at, or in close proximity to, a populated civilian area or civilian infrastructure, due to the high likelihood that the fires and smoke it causes spread.
Evidence of Israel's unlawful use of white phosphorus in southern Lebanon as cross-border hostilities escalate
The Israeli army fired artillery shells containing white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon, in military operations along Lebanon’s southern border between 10 and 16 October 2023.
www.amnesty.org
Human Rights Watch says Israel used white phosphorus in Gaza, Lebanon
Israel attacks Hamas, destroys targets inside Gaza’s vast tunnel network
Israel said on Tuesday its forces attacked Hamas gunmen inside the Islamists’ vast tunnel network beneath Gaza, after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed calls for a halt to fighting …
nypost.com
Israel attacks Hamas, destroys targets inside Gaza’s vast tunnel network
Israel attacked Hamas gunmen and destroyed hundreds of targets inside the terrorists’s vast tunnel network as the IDF continues its advance in northern Gaza.
“Over the last day, combined IDF combat forces struck approximately 300 targets, including anti-tank missile and rocket launch posts below shafts, as well as military compounds inside underground tunnels belonging to the Hamas terrorist organization,” the IDF said in a statement.
Although Hamas responded with anti-tank missiles and machine gunfire, the IDF said its “soldiers killed terrorists and directed air forces to real-time strikes on targets and terror infrastructure.”
The IDF also released new images of its soldiers and tanks operating in Gaza as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed calls for a ceasefire over concerns of a humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian enclave.
Several images show Israeli units walking through an empty town of rubble and nearly collapsing buildings, while another shows dozens of tanks driving through a barren field.
Hamas’ armed wing confirmed that its fighters fought with IDF forces early Tuesday, saying they fired at the Jewish soldiers with machine guns and anti-tank missiles.
Further details of the fighting and how many died on Tuesday could not be independently confirmed.
The latest fighting in northern Gaza comes after the IDF said it took out 600 Hamas targets in recent days, including dozens of terrorists on Monday inside buildings and tunnels.
The Israeli military said the destruction of Gaza’s 300-mile tunnel network was a key objective to eradicating Hamas ahead of an expected full-force ground invasion.
The IDF has recently claimed that Hamas has entries and exits to the terror tunnels beneath Gaza’s main medical center, the al-Shifa hospital.
“Hamas has turned hospitals into command and control centers and hideouts for Hamas terrorists and commanders,” Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, Israel’s chief military spokesman, said at a news conference last week.
What utter bullshit. Israel offered them a shitload, and Arafat chose terror. Read a book. In fact, read a one page pamphlet entitled "This is what the PLO and Hamas offered Israel."
Says the guy that follows a bunch of anti-semites as well as the ever so accurate and even-handed BDS.
This has been covered over and over again.
There was never a legit two state peace plan offered, the closest was Olmert, but even he refused to put it in writing.
Israel has been the military occupying power for 75 years, ending the occupation is up to them, not the victims of the occupation.
That's true of every munition, conventional or otherwise. There is no munition a military can deploy that is lawful to use on civilians.
It's not though. That's amnestry trying to invent a restriction based on the general rules that apply to every munition. White phos is not restricted at all. It's treated exactly the same as any other conventional munition and that includes giving due care and attention to avoiding civilian casualties as a result of your attacks. White phosphorus does not fit under any special category in international humanitarianism law, despite multiple groups and people claiming it does over the years. Under the ICRC and the ICC it is a conventional weapon. It's characteristics give it an area of effect that must be considered in its deployment, yes, but almost all weapons have an area of effect that must be considered. That doesn't make it special or "restrict" its use. The use of white phosphorus does not by itself constitute a war crime and the tweet you quoted, which purported to show white phos but did not, claimed it did.
You can take issue with the facts if you want to, but that doesn't change them: that video is not white phos and the use of white phos is not restricted and does not by itself constitute a war crime.
I'm not sure why you sent this to me in big red letters. I never said they didn't. I said one of the videos you posted was not white phos and contained factually incorrect statements.
Facts and truth matter. I don't push fake propaganda when I'm trying to make a point because if I do then I lose the right to criticise others when they do. So if I accidentally do, because I don't know everything and I would hope no one would expect me to, I apologize and don't use it in future. I'm trying to point out the fake stuff so you can avoid using it. But if you want to take a different approach and argue your use of a video that doesn't show what it says it does and which contains factually incorrect information is acceptable, that's up to you. It does mean you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that other people are wrong for doing so when they disagree with you though, and I would've thought that was more important.
Anything in red is a link. The Amnesty report is a link, so is the HRW headline (which is why its a larger font). Both are directly linked to the specific reports. That's because I also try not to post propaganda or nonsense, instead link to the sources or their posts on social media.
I'll take HRW and Amnesty reports over your posts, even if you sound authoritive, this is still the internet and they are going to be more trustworthy and informed.
For instance, from the Amnesty report includes this (and this does clarify for me that its not considered chemical warfare):
International law
White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon because it operates primarily by heat and flame rather than toxicity, making it an incendiary weapon. Its use is governed by Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). Lebanon acceded to the protocol in 2017, but Israel has not.
Protocol III prohibits the use of airdropped incendiary weapons in “concentrations of civilians,” and limits the lawful use of ground-launched incendiary weapons – such as the artillery documented here – where there are concentrations of civilians. The protocol defines incendiary weapons as ones “primarily designed” to set fires and burn people, excluding uses of incendiary weapons for other purposes, including as smokescreens.
Amnesty is a propaganda in itself....you post big red fonds to force your point across...you always do that franky thinking big red fonts mean it's true....
Some people just don't know how the internet works.
Or what is a legit source.
Ok. But it doesn't have to be in 4000px font size, essentially yelling at me something that I never denied.
Yes, I read it and explained that they are trying to create a restriction out of a general rule that applies to all munitions.
i was aware but didn't read it because the text itself was not something I debated and I have better things to do with my time then read a thing that appears to argue a position I never took I ignore strawmen and usually just call them out as such.
And yet when I pointed out one of your links was fake propaganda and the video wasn't what it purported to be, your response was to argue with me on details but ignore that the video does not show what it claims to.
Go for it, but they're wrong.
The last sentence is the one I'll address. "The protocol defines incendiary weapons as ones 'primarily designed' to set fires and burn people, excluding uses of incendiary weapons for other purposes, including as smokescreens." It's a close summary, but the last bit of it is wrong. It says, "excluding uses of incendiary weapons for other purposes, including as smokescreens." When I read that, it sounds like they are saying the use in the moment determines if a weapon is restricted or not. "Yeah, I'm dropping this napalm, but I'm doing it to make a huge smokescreen". From the Amnesty summary, that seems fine. (Edit: to clarify, by "fine" I mean "not subject to CCW restrictions in incindiaries) It's "use" was not incindiary. But that's not actually what the CCW says.
Here is exactly what CCW Article III has to say, verbatim:
"(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;"
I assume you see the difference there? It's subtle, but significant. And because of that, it should give you pause to question Amnesty and HRW. Surely it a peon like me can see the glaring issue, it's been pointed out to them by others. And yet they leave it on their website and in their reports. Why? Because they have an agenda to push. And while I don't necessarily disagree with their agenda, I go back to what I said to you about pushing fake propaganda. I personally tend to give very little attention to either organization because of stuff like this.
Anyway.....
White phos is primarily an illuminant and a smoke system and only has incidental incindiary effects. Militaires have deployed it as an incindiary, but they used weapons designed for smoke and illumination to do so only relying on this incidental effect. No munitions manufacturer produces a white phos munition that is explicitly an incindiary because it actually performs very poorly when compared to other incindiaries. Therefore under CCW Article III, it is not an incindiary. It doesn't matter what "use" it's employed for, it does not meet the criteria for incendiary munitions. Article I is non-detectible fragments, article II is mines and booby traps, IV is blinding lasers, V is explosive remnants of war. It falls under none of those categories either. It's also non-nuclear, so it doesn't fall under any of those treaties. You can go through the chemical weapons convention if you want, but you'll want to look at Article II paras 1, 2, and 9(c) for why white phos doesn't fit there either. If you know of other conventions regarding classifications of munitions and limiting their use, I'm all ears.
White phos is a conventional munition with no specific restrictions in the laws of war including the CCW and the CWC. It's use is governed solely by Hague, Geneva and Rome.
Last edited:
Look at all the people holding up red hands. The people of the world are with Gaza.
Correct.
And every time that Hamas resorts to violence, they get punished and they and Gazans end up in worse position. And since Oct. 7. the same thing is happening again.
That has been a poor strategy to the point where one can only assume that Hamas is stupid and/or is insane and/or don't care about Gazans. As you said above, they know what's going to happen yet keep repeating the same strategy.
So of those 3 which do you think it is? Just one or a combination of any or all of the 3?
