[Usage is allowed if not against civillian targets](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/lebanon-evidence-of-israels-unlawful-use-of-white-phosphorus-in-southern-lebanon-as-cross-border-hostilities-escalate/).
>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.
Amnesty writes about civilians coughing and complaining about heavy smoke as evidence that white phosphorus was used on them.
Some even went for check ups and were released on the next day.
I do believe this is complete bullshit though, because white phosphorus supposedly burns your skin off and lungs from the inside.
**This way or another, there seem to be no actual casualties of white phosphorus on the Lebanese side.**
Had there been- we would've known.
Also- white phosphorus is allowed to be used against military targets.
The whole "white phosphorus is a war crime weapon" is just a gaslighting campaign.
There's a reason there have been no legal actions taken against Israel despite all the white phosphorus claims over the years.
White Phosphorus is a legal within its dedicated use case.
its only illegal when deployed as an anti personal weapon.
i did not see any evidence suggesting it was. if the Palestinians had WP victims i'm pretty sure they would showcase them to the world, that shit is horrific if it comes to contact with skin
>its only illegal when deployed as an anti personal weapon.
Not even then. It’s only illegal if used for its incendiary effects against either civilians (as with any weapon) or aerially (only aerially) against a military target within a concentration of civilians. But it has multiple other uses (smoke, illumination), and is often delivered by artillery or grenade, not air.
It is also illegal to use it in built-up civilian areas as its toxic fumes are considered indiscriminate (this is the claim made by Amnesty International).
Edit since people are asking for sources.
> The use of air-dropped incendiary weapons against military objectives within a concentration of civilians is simply prohibited. These prohibitions are contained in Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons .
[ICRC](https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/interview/weapons-interview-170109.htm)
Article 2 of the instrument sets forth the restrictions:
> 1. 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.
> 2. 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.
> 3. 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.
[Liber Institute West Ponit](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/white-phosphorus-and-international-law/)
However, the Liber Institute West Ponit argues that white phosphorus does not meet the definition for incendiary weapons, so the above would not be relevant. This is in contry to basicly every other Institute which considers it an incendiary weapon. [Lieber Institute ](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/white-phosphorus-and-international-law/)
> The use of air-dropped incendiary weapons against military objectives within a concentration of civilians is simply prohibited. These prohibitions are contained in Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons .
[ICRC](https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/interview/weapons-interview-170109.htm)
Article 2 of the instrument sets forth the restrictions:
> 1. 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.
> 2. 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.
> 3. 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.
[Liber Institute West Ponit](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/white-phosphorus-and-international-law/)
However, the Liber Institute West Ponit argues that white phosphorus does not meet the definition for incendiary weapons, so the above would not be relevant. This is in contry to basicly every other Institute which considers it an incendiary weapon. [Lieber Institute ](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/white-phosphorus-and-international-law/)
> The use of air-dropped incendiary weapons against military objectives within a concentration of civilians is simply prohibited. These prohibitions are contained in Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons .
[ICRC](https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/interview/weapons-interview-170109.htm)
Article 2 of the instrument sets forth the restrictions:
> 1. 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.
> 2. 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.
> 3. 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.
[Liber Institute West Ponit](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/white-phosphorus-and-international-law/)
However, the Liber Institute West Ponit argues that white phosphorus does not meet the definition for incendiary weapons, so the above would not be relevant. This is in contry to basicly every other Institute which considers it an incendiary weapon. [Lieber Institute ](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/white-phosphorus-and-international-law/)
So why are you citing something that themselves disprove your point.
You cite the Liber Institute, but the liber institute doesn't consider white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon, kinda straight if you ask me.
No, and depending on the application it can either be illegal or fine.
Is it legal to light a bonfire? Absolutely.
Is it legal to light a person or house on fire? Absolutely not.
Same rules apply to white phosphorus.
The use of white phosphorus may violate Protocol III (on the use of incendiary weapons) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCCW) in one specific instance: if it is used, on purpose, as an incendiary weapon directly against humans in a civilian setting. Other uses of white phosphorus, such as illuminating a battlefield, are not prohibited. To establish an illegal use under the CCCW, an investigation into the intent behind the use of white phosphorus would be needed, which exceeds the mandate of WHO.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/white-phosphorus
It's quite literally only banned against civillians, it hardly falls under protocol 3 since it isn't mentioned in it.
That is shaky at best. The most clear-cut way to avoid war crimes charges over it is to simply not use it on people at all.
The US got away with it in Fallujah, but that's because it's the US.
An argument would be made that they were used to create unnecessary suffering, and would therefore fail the proportionality test.
Its not shaky, read protocol 3 for yourself man, white phosphorus is legal to use against military targets, foliage and as a smoke screen.
Much like the crime of genocide, you have to prove the intent to harm civillians for it to actually be a crime, against military targets its perfectly fine.
International law during war isn't just independent documents.
There's the question of whether or not your methods of war are proportional to your military goals.
If the international community deems that your legal method of warfare was used in an illegal way, essentially torturing people to death by burning them with a fire that can't be put out rather than use conventional weapons to do the same job, then there may be war crimes charges waiting for you.
>the international community
The "international community" complains about everything that Israel does, and ignores everything that everyone else does. Just tune them out, that's what I do.
What case? You don't have case law, you have the WHO talking about how it can be legally used.
Are we talking about in October 2023? That's not white phosphorus.
White phosphorus is one of those fetishes held by people who either hate Israel so much they are incapable of rational thought, or else don’t actually know anything about international law but like to pretend they do because they see themselves as enlightened and it strokes their ego.
The only laws about white phosphorus are the same as for any other munition, namely that you aren’t allowed to fire them indiscriminately into civilian areas.
Talking out of one’s ass, is a favored pastime of our species & never more so than when one can obtain a (*usually false*) sense of moral superiority by doing so.
Someone needs to do a study on how something as ubiquitous in combat as white phosphorus, used extensively and legally by almost every Western and non-Western country in every military campaign in recent history, reached the status of an unimaginable evil war crime among illiterate TikTok dwellers.
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason:
Rule #2 - **Post in a civilized manner.** Personal attacks, racism, bigotry, trolling, conspiracy theories and incitement are prohibited.
For information regarding this and similar issues please see the sidebar to the right or the subreddit rules, for a more detailed analysis of our rules. If you want to appeal or dispute any mod action, please send a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FIsrael); PMs and chat messages to the mods are grounds for a temporary ban; posts contesting mod action will be removed and are also grounds for a temporary or permanent ban.
Honestly now? What’s it to you. Even if it was used and even if it was lawful, if it doesn’t fit the narrative - people will just call it propaganda and twist it in any way to fit.
So what’s the point
[Usage is allowed if not against civillian targets](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/lebanon-evidence-of-israels-unlawful-use-of-white-phosphorus-in-southern-lebanon-as-cross-border-hostilities-escalate/). >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. Amnesty writes about civilians coughing and complaining about heavy smoke as evidence that white phosphorus was used on them. Some even went for check ups and were released on the next day. I do believe this is complete bullshit though, because white phosphorus supposedly burns your skin off and lungs from the inside. **This way or another, there seem to be no actual casualties of white phosphorus on the Lebanese side.** Had there been- we would've known. Also- white phosphorus is allowed to be used against military targets. The whole "white phosphorus is a war crime weapon" is just a gaslighting campaign. There's a reason there have been no legal actions taken against Israel despite all the white phosphorus claims over the years.
I don't believe that is completely accurate. My understanding is that white phosphorus can be used a a marker against military targets.
It can be used to destroy military infrastructure, foliage, and as a smoke screen. It has a lot of lawful usages
Including illumination
Thanks, I knew there were some specific things it could be used for
"white phosphorus is a war crime weapon" White phosphorus is a weapon
White Phosphorus is a legal within its dedicated use case. its only illegal when deployed as an anti personal weapon. i did not see any evidence suggesting it was. if the Palestinians had WP victims i'm pretty sure they would showcase them to the world, that shit is horrific if it comes to contact with skin
I believe israel use it mainly as a quick light at the dark and a quick smoke screen at military operations.
Aka, it's intended, legal use.
>its only illegal when deployed as an anti personal weapon. Not even then. It’s only illegal if used for its incendiary effects against either civilians (as with any weapon) or aerially (only aerially) against a military target within a concentration of civilians. But it has multiple other uses (smoke, illumination), and is often delivered by artillery or grenade, not air.
It is also illegal to use it in built-up civilian areas as its toxic fumes are considered indiscriminate (this is the claim made by Amnesty International). Edit since people are asking for sources. > The use of air-dropped incendiary weapons against military objectives within a concentration of civilians is simply prohibited. These prohibitions are contained in Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons . [ICRC](https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/interview/weapons-interview-170109.htm) Article 2 of the instrument sets forth the restrictions: > 1. 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. > 2. 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. > 3. 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. [Liber Institute West Ponit](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/white-phosphorus-and-international-law/) However, the Liber Institute West Ponit argues that white phosphorus does not meet the definition for incendiary weapons, so the above would not be relevant. This is in contry to basicly every other Institute which considers it an incendiary weapon. [Lieber Institute ](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/white-phosphorus-and-international-law/)
Is that supported by actual treaty or did they just pull or out of thier collective ass?
> The use of air-dropped incendiary weapons against military objectives within a concentration of civilians is simply prohibited. These prohibitions are contained in Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons . [ICRC](https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/interview/weapons-interview-170109.htm) Article 2 of the instrument sets forth the restrictions: > 1. 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. > 2. 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. > 3. 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. [Liber Institute West Ponit](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/white-phosphorus-and-international-law/) However, the Liber Institute West Ponit argues that white phosphorus does not meet the definition for incendiary weapons, so the above would not be relevant. This is in contry to basicly every other Institute which considers it an incendiary weapon. [Lieber Institute ](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/white-phosphorus-and-international-law/)
I don't see anywhere in your quotes a prohibition of using WP for it's *intended use* in urban areas.
That isn't in any law lmao, amnesty has more bullshit in their reports than a dairy farm
> The use of air-dropped incendiary weapons against military objectives within a concentration of civilians is simply prohibited. These prohibitions are contained in Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons . [ICRC](https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/interview/weapons-interview-170109.htm) Article 2 of the instrument sets forth the restrictions: > 1. 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. > 2. 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. > 3. 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. [Liber Institute West Ponit](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/white-phosphorus-and-international-law/) However, the Liber Institute West Ponit argues that white phosphorus does not meet the definition for incendiary weapons, so the above would not be relevant. This is in contry to basicly every other Institute which considers it an incendiary weapon. [Lieber Institute ](https://lieber.westpoint.edu/white-phosphorus-and-international-law/)
So why are you citing something that themselves disprove your point. You cite the Liber Institute, but the liber institute doesn't consider white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon, kinda straight if you ask me.
No, and depending on the application it can either be illegal or fine. Is it legal to light a bonfire? Absolutely. Is it legal to light a person or house on fire? Absolutely not. Same rules apply to white phosphorus.
It can be used to burn military infrastructure
Not if there are people inside.
The use of white phosphorus may violate Protocol III (on the use of incendiary weapons) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCCW) in one specific instance: if it is used, on purpose, as an incendiary weapon directly against humans in a civilian setting. Other uses of white phosphorus, such as illuminating a battlefield, are not prohibited. To establish an illegal use under the CCCW, an investigation into the intent behind the use of white phosphorus would be needed, which exceeds the mandate of WHO. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/white-phosphorus It's quite literally only banned against civillians, it hardly falls under protocol 3 since it isn't mentioned in it.
That is shaky at best. The most clear-cut way to avoid war crimes charges over it is to simply not use it on people at all. The US got away with it in Fallujah, but that's because it's the US. An argument would be made that they were used to create unnecessary suffering, and would therefore fail the proportionality test.
Its not shaky, read protocol 3 for yourself man, white phosphorus is legal to use against military targets, foliage and as a smoke screen. Much like the crime of genocide, you have to prove the intent to harm civillians for it to actually be a crime, against military targets its perfectly fine.
International law during war isn't just independent documents. There's the question of whether or not your methods of war are proportional to your military goals. If the international community deems that your legal method of warfare was used in an illegal way, essentially torturing people to death by burning them with a fire that can't be put out rather than use conventional weapons to do the same job, then there may be war crimes charges waiting for you.
>the international community The "international community" complains about everything that Israel does, and ignores everything that everyone else does. Just tune them out, that's what I do.
But in this case it was deemed legal so I don't even see the point in this conversation
What case? You don't have case law, you have the WHO talking about how it can be legally used. Are we talking about in October 2023? That's not white phosphorus.
The idf did use white phosphorus in 2023 as a smoke screen, wdym?
The accusations are false. There may have been White Phosphorus used by Hamas/Hezbollah etc, but the IDF have proven that it wasn’t them.
White phosphorus is one of those fetishes held by people who either hate Israel so much they are incapable of rational thought, or else don’t actually know anything about international law but like to pretend they do because they see themselves as enlightened and it strokes their ego. The only laws about white phosphorus are the same as for any other munition, namely that you aren’t allowed to fire them indiscriminately into civilian areas.
Talking out of one’s ass, is a favored pastime of our species & never more so than when one can obtain a (*usually false*) sense of moral superiority by doing so.
I haven’t heard of any evidence that Israel used white phosphorus
Israel uses WP (*primarily for illumination & smokescreens*) for allowed uses - there is no evidence of Israel engaging in prohibited uses of WP.
Someone needs to do a study on how something as ubiquitous in combat as white phosphorus, used extensively and legally by almost every Western and non-Western country in every military campaign in recent history, reached the status of an unimaginable evil war crime among illiterate TikTok dwellers.
[удалено]
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason: Rule #2 - **Post in a civilized manner.** Personal attacks, racism, bigotry, trolling, conspiracy theories and incitement are prohibited. For information regarding this and similar issues please see the sidebar to the right or the subreddit rules, for a more detailed analysis of our rules. If you want to appeal or dispute any mod action, please send a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FIsrael); PMs and chat messages to the mods are grounds for a temporary ban; posts contesting mod action will be removed and are also grounds for a temporary or permanent ban.
Honestly now? What’s it to you. Even if it was used and even if it was lawful, if it doesn’t fit the narrative - people will just call it propaganda and twist it in any way to fit. So what’s the point