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…
You’re wrong, and you’re now denying war crimes - if you doubt Amnesty, here’s the relevant section of the fucking Geneva convention.
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…
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.
Edit: Linking the ICRC doc.
Let met first deal with your last paragraph, because it exposes a general attitude.
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.
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.
Air-delivered weapons are bombs from an aircraft or rockets, and do not include artillery. This was an artillery shell.
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:
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.”
Wierd hill to die on bro.
The truth is not a weird hill.
Why do you care what hill I die on? Being pedantic on the internet is my hobby.
Because it’s cool to be aloof.
I mean, he’s right. The idf can just say they didn’t mean to and be fine, both legally and in terms of international response.
Aloof would not involve caring about whether and why I care.
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.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/10/13/idf-white-phosphorus-oct-2023/
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.
This says it all.
I’m hearing so many echoes of the narcissists prayer in Israel’s defence…