• Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I get that they’re angry and want to retaliate, but uh… that’s a War Crime. Right!??

    • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      White phosphorus in general is not a war crime.

      General document for covering this is the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, in this particular case Protocol III, Article I §1(b)(i).

      Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems

      Of which White Phosphorus is typically within that category. It is incendiary and can randomly burn people, homes, and fields but the intended use is usually not to set fire but to provide cover, illumination, tracing, or signalling. There just happens to be a burning side effect that the UN usually shrugs off.

      How it’s used however can become a war crime. Article II of the same Protocol § 2 and 3

      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.

      and

      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 … and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective…

      So basically, you cannot deliver via aircraft, which video indicates that these were ground launched 155mm white phosphorus artillery projectiles, so check on (2), BUT it’s debatable that Israel followed (3) and took all precautions to minimize civilians getting in the way. But I mean, does anyone really believe the UN holds anyone to any kind of scrutiny?

      So… I hope that answers your question.

    • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Using it against infantry targets is, but WP use by itself does not necessarily indicate a war crime

      It’s commonly used by nations around the world to produce smoke for the purposes of concealment or signaling/marking

      I’m inclined to believe their intended use here are as artillery spotting rounds to guage whether fire is accurate or not, it’s not like Israel doesn’t have plenty of more effective conventional ways to kill people if that was their goal with these WP rounds

      I would probably call its usage in such a densely populated urban area reckless and callous at best but that’s the name of the game in war unfortunately

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m pretty sure the reckless and callous use of it in a densely populated urban area is exactly what escalates it to war crime

        • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well if they’re dead set on destroying whatever the target is, it’s either that or run a higher risk of your artillery missing and destroying some other random building, so it’s kinda lose-lose for everyone involved

          War sucks and picking between different ways to accidentally kill civilians tends to be the reality

          • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Forgive me, but I find it hard to believe that our 2 billion budget for Israel, combined with modern range detectors cannot produce a result that doesn’t require us to boil/roast civilians alive. But that just might be the optimistic side of me.

            I am not saying you are not right, just that if we really wanted to put our heads together to find a solution, I think we could have come up with something that doesn’t border the literal definition of a war crime.

            • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s maybe one way you can perfectly calculate a ballistic trajectory that will pinpoint land an artillery shell on a position: if you’re in a vacuum

              When you start adding environmental factors like wind and temperature differences you start getting into needing in-flight course correcting shells, which do indeed exist (they guide themselves via GPS), but even America with its $1.8 trillion military budget doesn’t exclusively use them because they’re so expensive (in the realm of $70,000 per shell vs $800 for an unguided one)

              • fiat_lux@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I know nothing of spotting round best practices, but surely there are other appropriate smoke screen chemicals that are less incendiary? Do all countries typically use WP for this purpose?

                • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  After a cursory glance, it seems like your options for smoke generation are primarily either WP, or various ways of making literal clouds of hydrochloric acid

      • livus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        @trafficnab

        it’s not like Israel doesn’t have plenty of more effective conventional ways to kill people

        All modern militaries have other effective ways to kill people.

        However, killing civillians on purpose and maiming them with deep open wounds that are resource-intensive to treat is normally seen as a war crime, and a weapon that is openly designed for that would raise even more international condemnation.

        This is probably the reason we repeatedly see white phosphorus used against civilians in conflicts where permanent territorial occupation is a goal (other examples by Russia in Ukraine, by Indonesia in West Papua). It has a terrifying, catastrophic effect on members of the population, and there is (im)plausible deniability.

        The excuse of using it as a “smokescreen” really does act as, well, a smokescreen.

        • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          As far as I understand it the war crime part of it is generally considered to be the secondary effect of fires started by its incendiary nature going on to indiscriminately kill people, not the WP itself as a munition that directly kills (although this too is obviously inhumane)

          If they were blanketing entire neighborhoods with large WP bombs (like Russia in Ukraine) I’d be more inclined to believe indiscriminate civilian death and property damage was their goal rather than the more obvious answer of “making artillery more accurate, hopefully resulting in less collateral damage”

          Not trying to justify the invasion in general, I just think that the idea that Israel using a few WP artillery rounds is clearly with the intent of causing grievous bodily harm to civilians is unfounded at best, you can get into “they know they can’t be too obvious about it so they can only use it a little bit” conspiracies rather quickly

          • livus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            @trafficnab You are right, using incendiaries and ground-launched incendiaries in areas full of civilians is in itself a war crime under international law.

            But white phosphorus sticks to human flesh, cannot be extinguished, and burns right through to the bone. (This is one of the main reasons human rights organizations often call for it to be much more highly circumscribed).

            Doing this to civilians (whether few or many) on purpose would be a war crime whether it was an incendiary or not.

            I don’t think it’s a conspiracy to characterize the use of this substance in a built up area as reckless disregard for civilians.

            I’ve obviously taken it one step further in my statement above because I do think that the pattern of reckless disregard for human life that has been demonstrated in this conflict amounts to a deliberate inclusion of civilian targets. To me that doesn’t seem like an unreasonable inference; YMMV.

      • ZeroEcks@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Remember when they would intentionally shoot Palestinians in the knees instead of the body? I assume it’s something like that.

  • ink@r.nf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    it’s funny how double standards are in play when it comes to US and its propaganda guzzlers:

    • Some Uyghurs perform a terrorist act, China uses re-education camps

    “China is genociding innocent people, China is our enemy #1 and i’ll not so subtly hate anyone looking east asians”

    • Hamas performs terrorist act, Israel blocks aid and supply to the area of civilians that are literally in open prison

    “They deserve it, please support them”

    I mean extremely horrible are bad but you see the double standards.

  • livus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I would encourage anyone who is wondering whether it is a war crime to use white phosphorus in a densely populated civillian area to:

    • run a quick [search engine] image search for “white phosphorus injury”.
  • Zellith@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well this is unlocking some imagery from Spec Ops: The Line that I had wish stayed buried.

  • skozzii@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    It was obvious to anyone the unprovoked attack of this nature would be met with massive retaliation. Hamas has cancelled all democratic elections and are holding the Palestinian people hostage. They then decided to make a decision that would cause mass suffering to its own citizens.

    Isreal is definetely evil, but Hamas is wickedly evil. Hamas is fully responsible for this current crisis.

    • dmonzel
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unprovoked? Did world history just start a week ago?

      • CaptFeather
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        israel… they’re not good people but they also didnt unleash a rocket/mortar attack on innocents either. I wouldnt go as far as calling them evil though.

        What they’re doing to the innocent civilians in Gaza isn’t evil? I’m no fan of Hamas but that doesn’t excuse the war crimes Israel is commiting.

      • dmonzel
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right. The Israelis just snipe old women and children for no reason. Or shut off access to food, water and power. Or unleash rocket and mortar attacks on innocents (yeah, they do that).