• Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    All war harms people and the ecosystem. The bigger issue with Israel’s white phosphorous attacks is that they’re war crimes.

    • TxzK@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s not a war crime if it’s done by Israel apparently

      • Carmakazi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        The US used the same weapons in Fallujah and likely elsewhere. They called it “shake and bake” when they first fired WP artillery to draw enemy fighters out, then followed up with conventional artillery to kill them.

        Nobody can hold the US accountable, so they’re not going to hold their rabid dog accountable either.

        • circuscritic
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          WP artillery is legal illumination round, and it’s use in war is not this automatic war crime that people often believe.

          You just described a legal application of WP:

          Illumination of battle space to enable artillery spotters to coordinate indirect fire missions using standard munitions e.g. 155mm, mortars, etc.

          However, intentional use of WP as an incendiary munition is where it does become a war crime.

          I’m not saying US Forces in Iraq did, or didn’t, illegally use WP, but I am saying you described it’s intended and legal application.

          Legal doesn’t mean moral, justified, or right, it just means it’s not a criminal act under the legal frameworks we currently use to manage warfare.

          • Carmakazi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            6 months ago

            No, they absolutely used it as a ground-attack incendiary and have admitted as such. They were not flushed out by being illuminated, they were flushed out with choking smoke and burning shit raining down on their positions.

            Even if they did only use illumination flares, there are considerations against using them in civilian areas in ways that can start fires or otherwise cause injury to civilians.

            The legal issue is moot because the US was not an adherent to these laws until 2009.

  • count_dongulus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is the standard component in smoke rounds to actually produce the smoke. This is what Israel is using white phosphorus for, but the article is biased and never mentions it. The US and many other countries use white phosphorus based smoke munitions too, and it is not a war crime. The militant areas of Gaza are all densely populated, and smoke is often necessary during combat.

    ¯_(ツ)_/¯

    • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      >This is what Israel is using white phosphorus for, but the article is biased and never mentions it

      <After rights groups accused Israel of war crimes for its use of white phosphorus in its 2008-09 Gaza offensive, the Israeli military said it would stop using it as smokescreen munitions in built-up areas, with unspecified exceptions.

      The US and many other countries use white phosphorus based smoke munitions too, and it is not a war crime

      That is true, but using it as an incendiary weapon in civilian areas is.

      If you don’t like Al Jazeera, here’s another source.