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.
You would have an excellent point if the practice of using phosphorus flares was what was being reported. Unfortunately, the issue that's most heavily reported on is use of phosphorus-based artillery. I invite you to explain to me how reports from UN staff that WP-based artillery shells where used on several warehouses of aid supplies in the midst of a UN compound doesn't constitute use of WP as an incendiary against heavy concentrations of civilians. While you're at it feel free to discuss how WP artillery shells can be deployed in an urban environment without affecting "heavy concentrations of civilians".
> WP as an incendiary against heavy concentrations of civilians. While you're at it feel free to discuss how WP artillery shells can be deployed in an urban environment without affecting "heavy concentrations of civilians".
The rule isn't against the use of WP where there are heavy concentrations of civilians, it's against using WP as an incendiary where there are heavy concentrations of civilians. Using it as a smoke-generating agent where there are heavy concentrations of civilians is perfectly okay.
FWIW, the "laws of war" (and this isn't one as far as Israel is concerned) are a tit-for-tat thing. Unless Hamas has agreed to them as well, they're not relevant.
And, it's kind of hard to argue that the concern is about "bad acts" when comparable acts by Hamas don't rate a mention.
And yes, I'm looking forward to the discussion of proportionality.
"The rule isn't against the use of WP where there are heavy concentrations of civilians, it's against using WP as an incendiary where there are heavy concentrations of civilians."
Classic military-industrial double-talk. WP doesn't come equipped with a non-incendiary mode.
If you're going to claim a violation of law, surely the actual law matters. Then again, we seem to be ignoring whether said law applies to Israel and we're ignoring whether the other side bothers with such things. (Those laws also ban certain uses of civilians that Hamas does regularly.)
FWIW, I note that folks who rant about the "military-industrial" from Eisenhower's speech never seem to be concerned about the stronger warnings that he gave about "scientific-technological elite".
> WP doesn't come equipped with a non-incendiary mode.
That's like saying that metal doesn't come with a "non-hammer" mode. WP is a component. How it is packaged and what it is combined with significantly affect its effects on impact.
It 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.
Over-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.
"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
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.