4 ms·
White Phosphorus is not a banned substance, nor is there anything obviously illegal about Israel's use of it in this conflict. It's certainly not a chemical wea
by Maktab 18y ago
White Phosphorus is not a banned substance, nor is there anything obviously illegal about Israel's use of it in this conflict. It's certainly not a chemical weapon or any other sort of WMD, despite what some of the more breathless reporting would imply.
The only international convention which may regulate the use of White Phosphorus is Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, however as WP is designed primarily to be used as a smoke-generating agent it falls under Section 1(b)(i) of the Protocol for most uses, which states:
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants,
tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
If used as an incendiary weapon, other restrictions in the Protocol might apply. These include a prohibition on using WP as an incendiary weapon directly against civilians or by air-dropped shells against military targets in heavily civilian areas. But again, this does not apply when WP is used as a smoke-generating agent and it's perfectly legal to use WP as either a smoke-generating agent or an incendiary weapon against military targets if they are not located within heavy concentrations of civilians, such as in an open field.
Israel (along with the US) is not a signatory to Protocol III of the CCW and so it's not subject to its restrictions in any case, but the IDF's military manuals instruct its soldiers to abide by its restrictions voluntarily. Thus far, there hasn't been any evidence that Israel has used it as anything other than a smoke-generating agent, which is absolutely necessary in this kind of urban fighting, or that it has intentionally been used as an incendiary weapon against civilians. In fact, the particular shell Israel uses (the US-made M825A1) is remarkable for having a much slower fall-time through the air than WP weapons of old like those used heavily in WWII, so it provides sufficient time for people to get out of its way and makes it a lot less effective as a weapon.
So all indications are that Israel's use of White Phosphorus is well within the accepted and legally-permissible bounds that govern its use. That does not mean that groups like HRW should not keep a strict eye on the IDF's use of it in case there are transgressions and targeted attacks on civilians, but it does mean that we need to stop this ridiculous tendency to regard any use of WP as an illegal and barbaric action. It's a legitimate weapon with legitimate uses and NGOs and the media should recognise that.
As an aside, the International Solidarity Movement used as a source by the Guardian is hardly an impartial source, having long been linked to Hamas and supportive of that organisation. Any video, witness interviews and photographs released by the ISM should be regarded as immediately suspect unless corroborated by other sources.
- chaostheory 18y agoand to think that swombat thought "There can be no useful and constructive dialogue on this topic"
- swombat 18y agoThat wasn't constructive, it was destructive (i.e. it destroyed the premise of the entire article), and it wasn't dialogue, it was a monologue.
- Maktab 18y agoIt was intended a constructive addition to the debate; whether it's constructive or destructive to this particular article's premise is neither here nor there. And I disagree with your interpretation of my post as a monologue, obviously. A monologue implies a one-sided stream of writing or speech to which any other views are given little to no opportunity to respond. Many blogs are an example of this sort of thing. But this is HN: There's no restriction or limitation on anybody writing a response to my post that's equal in status, relevance and visibility. That makes it a dialogue. To be honest, I also have reservations about these kinds of stories appearing on HN, but since this one's already here and still active I wanted to enhance the dialogue by providing more information about the legal background surrounding WP's use. If you're unhappy with the submission then flag it as unsuitable, but don't try suppress actual discussion on the subject if it gets underway.
- swombat 18y agoOver-analyzing smart-ass comments leads nowhere... I wasn't putting down your comment, I was putting down the equally smart-ass "look, there's useful discussion here" comment that was addressed directly to me.
- chaostheory 18y ago"Sweet, let's start discussing whether white phosphorous could be a good basis for an online start-up." O give me a break - so it's perfectly fine when you make a smart-ass comment, but there's something wrong when I do? Fine, if this type of article elicits that much emotion from certain members of hacker news, then I'll try not to upmod / participate in the discussion in the future. Personally since I can detach myself from, obj analyze & discuss controversial topics (rampant piracy, totalitarianism, torture, the conduction of 'reverse-genocide') regarding my country of origin; I just thought the overwhelming maj people here can do the same. I'm beginning to feel I'm somewhat wrong