
Evidence emerges of Israeli use of phosphorus weapons in Gaza - crocus
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/17/israel-gaza-phosphorus-civilians
======
palish
Okay, sorry, no. This story is ridiculously Reddit.

 _"This sort of story is important; I don't care if we call this 'Hacker News'
or not."_

pg once linked to a Reddit comment by a passionate Redditor who refused to
follow the rules. The gist of the comment was, "I refuse to post this Ron Paul
story to the Politics subreddit because I feel _it's just too important_."

And now here we are about a year later and Ron Paul hype turned out not to be
even remotely important, and so yes, maybe Israel is using phosphorous, or
maybe the whole thing is staged to make Israel look bad, or maybe....! My
point is, you can't know the whole truth, so please post this to some other
community that values _importance_ over _intelligence_!

~~~
pg
I don't think this post is a violation of "the rules." HN is not supposed to
be just about hacking, but about anything interesting to hackers-- anything
interesting to the intellectually curious. There is not necessarily zero
overlap between that and Reddit. E.g. Reddit users probably started posting
earlier about the present recession, but when the matter became serious enough
we started to have some stories about it here too.

As for the claim that this should be killed because it's a crap link, it
definitely seems over the threshold for that. It's not just a bunch of random,
biased bystanders who are making this accusation, but the UN
(<http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/yesterday-david.html>). So it is at
least something that has to be taken seriously.

~~~
ntoshev
This is politics, and it is not even news. Israel has been accused of using
such weapons a couple of years ago:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus#2006_Israel-
Le...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus#2006_Israel-
Lebanon_conflict)

Clearly it is not more important now than it was then. I am all for a broad
spectrum of topics covered here on HN, but this is just a controversial topic
that is useless to discuss here.

~~~
chaostheory
HN has had plenty of political posts in the past without complaint regarding
issues such as privacy and net-neutrality.

------
d0mine
_If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic._ </quote>
<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

~~~
swombat
It's probably worth noting, now that this story has been on here for a few
hours, that it has produced very little worthwhile discussion - just one
mention of some interesting facts about white phosphorous weapons, and a bunch
of flame wars about whether this topic is appropriate for HN. Imho that's a
good indication that this topic was in fact not appropriate.

~~~
qw
Perhaps the users value their karma points too much. A lot of votes are based
on whether the user agrees with the post, and not based on the value it brings
to the discussion.

~~~
unalone
Do people really value karma on this site?

I'd think that the lack of discussion is more because there's not much to be
had. There's the anti-Israeli bigotry and the pro-Israeli bigotry, and beyond
that there's not much else. You can't debate if it's right of them because
most of the end results will be the same (Geneva-convention, no-they-
didn't-sign-that-part-of-the-convention, I-still-think-it's-wrong, then the
conversation ends). There's nothing much that civilians can discuss here,
because none of us are in positions of big know.

That's why I'd prefer the discussion focus on other things. Not because these
things aren't important, but because the userbase is more interesting
discussing other topics.

------
axiom
Fantastic.

I'll start posting stories about Hamas storing weapons in mosques, schools and
hospitals. And firing rockets at civilian centres in Israel.

Then we'll have ourselves an old fashioned reddit party! first one to invoke
godwin's law wins!!

~~~
ksvs
When Hamas kills 1100 people you can.

~~~
axiom
It's all so simple and one sided isn't it?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hamas_suicide_attacks>

Seriously let's have a debate on this. This being a hacker forum is the
perfect place to do it isn't it?

~~~
qw
I'm not supporting Hamas and am not supporting any attacks against civilians
from either side. But you also have to look at what has happened the last 60
years. Israel is not without blood on their hands either.

Let's face it. The last 60 years have been a disaster for the Middle East, and
any action from either side can be "justified" with pointing at something the
other side has done.

There have been attempts to make peace, but there have been too many demands
that the other side can't accept. This can only be solved by one of the sides
letting history be history and try to make a real attempt at peace. I think
Israel, as the dominant party, should withdraw to the borders of 1967 and that
the Palestinians should accept a multi-national peace keeping force that would
stabilize the region and prevent further attacks on Israel.

It might take a couple of generations for the two sides to forgive each other,
but it is worth a try.

~~~
axiom
Look, my point is not one way of the other (although I do have strong opinions
on the matter.) My point is that when you mix politics and controversy in an
anonymous public forum, you get a lot more heat than light.

I'm amazed that this story hasn't been killed yet (it really seems to go
against a lot of previous editorial decisions here, which I thought were a
really good idea.) Can you imagine a story about Hamas using human shields on
the front page? it would be nuts, whether you think it's an important issue or
not. These kinds of stories are a _magnet_ for trolls.

~~~
homme
_These kinds of stories are a magnet for trolls._

And yet...

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=438654>

So why can't the discussion continue? Why aren't Israel and Hamas's actions
viable targets of inquiry?

~~~
axiom
Just as you can run across a busy highway once, twice, or ten times and come
out fine, doesn't mean that's it's a good idea, so allowing one story like
this won't cause much damage, but as an editorial policy is a disaster.

------
johnyzee
I think the fact that this thread has 70+ comments, yet has not turned into a
political flamefest, but rather an intelligent discussion on whether it
belongs, is an almost unbelievably strong testament to the quality of the HN
community.

I say this as someone who has very strong views on the topic, yet hope and
pray that issues this divisive will not be allowed to sow seeds of disunity in
an otherwise harmonic and well functioning community.

~~~
tlrobinson
Except most of the comments are debating whether or not this sort of thing
should be on Hacker News in the first place.

------
Maktab
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.

~~~
knieveltech
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".

~~~
anamax
> 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.

~~~
knieveltech
"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.

~~~
anamax
> Classic military-industrial double-talk.

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.

------
Rod
_"A woman described how on Tuesday Israeli forces "started to fire phosphorus
bombs against the people"_

Please. Since when is a civilian woman a reliable source of information on
weaponry? Gimme a break! Bad journalism. What else could one expect from the
Guardian?

~~~
gaius
Quite. WP weapons are very distinctive; the explosion they make doesn't look
like anything else and they leave chemical traces. It would be easy for any
investigator to bring back conclusive evidence if there were any.

Incidentally _we_ used WP (grenades) during GW1.

~~~
Rod
I have seen photos of WP being used against enemy soldiers in Vietnam. It's
quite a unique explosion, indeed. Interesting that WP was used in GW1. Hadn't
WP and Napalm been banned before 1991?

I will believe in newspapers when they produce photos of WP being used against
civilians in Gaza. Until then, it's nothing but fog of war, bad journalism and
propaganda to me.

~~~
gaius
Indeed. Note that I am not making a comment either way on whether WP was used;
my problem is the sloppy journalism. Esp. from the Guardian, which has a
reputation for anti-Israel bias - they need to be meticulous in their
reporting from there to escape those accusations, and they're not being at
all.

------
malkia
Face it! Lots of people would just blindly support Israel, as much as
Palestine... Problem is their distribution

------
endtime
HN is better than reddit because it doesn't have politics, plain and simple.
Let's please keep it that way.

------
known
Everything is fair in love, war and business.

------
known
Governments must step-in and give incentives to Inter-Faith marriages between
Jews and Arabs.

This will prevent terrorism.

------
santacruz
:) it's so lame

------
rw
This sort of story is important; I don't care if we call this "Hacker News" or
not.

[edit]: If you disagree, _reply_.

~~~
timcederman
There are lots of important stories in the world, and each has its place
depending on the news stream.

~~~
pg
Sometimes stories become big enough that they spill out of their ordinary
stream. For example, there is a stream of news about Ebola fever that under
normal circumstances is read mainly by infectious disease specialists. But if
there is a really big Ebola outbreak somewhere, that starts to be relevant to
everyone. What's happening in Gaza now seems pretty serious.

~~~
davidw
> What's happening in Gaza now seems pretty serious.

Serious things have been happening in that part of the world for more than
2000 years, and will continue to happen long after we're all dead. I think
they are given ample coverage on other sites, and there are plenty of other
forums to discuss them on the internet.

Or, put another way, say this site had some hawkish Israeli users and some
Hamas-oriented Palistinians. Wouldn't it be nice if here, they could just
stick to peacefully discussing the things this site is about, rather than
getting sucked into an endless, fruitless discussion, which is what 99% of
discussions about that area are?

~~~
azharcs
_Serious things have been happening in that part of the world for more than
2000 years, and will continue to happen long after we're all dead._

Your argument seems like "This is not my problem, Why do i care" kind of
thing. It is very important for smart people to bring out a solution to this
serious conflict which has continued for almost 60 years. We can clearly write
it off as an conflict which cannot be solved and it will continue forever. I
am pretty much sure there is a solution to this conflict and it has to come
from a bunch of smart people who want to change world in a good way, HN
community looks like that group.

 _I think they are given ample coverage on other sites, and there are plenty
of other forums to discuss them on the internet._

There are tons of sites to discuss Ruby, Python, Erlang etc and there are
bunch of other sites to discuss Google, Yahoo or the current Economic
Situation. Why should that news even be discussed here? The answer is in HN,
we get a different and rational perspective to certain news stories unlike
other places. I would pretty much like to say, any news which is serious and
impacts lot of people or a region should be discussed here for finding
peaceful solutions.

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing' -
Edmund Burke

~~~
palish
Okay guys, listen up. I think azharcs is on to something.

SwellJoe, you're in charge of making contact with the Palestinian leadership.
unalone, you'll be writing excellent-yet-slightly-sensational articles that
will shake the belief system of the zealots perpetuating this conflict.
stcredzero's job is to apply Buddhist techniques to invoke a general aura of
well-being and connectedness. pg, you're going to set up an Arc-powered
community for Israelis and Palestinians to have constructive dialogs about the
pros and cons of calling a truce. And if you rename Arc to Ark then we can use
the tag line "drowning hate, one comment at a time".

By our powers combined, we can end this conflict _once and for all!_ Let's do
it, people!

~~~
azharcs
ouch!!!

When i said we can bring a solution, I certainly didn't keep in mind Power
Rangers or Captain Planet. It was more like, why be a pessimist, when you can
be optimist about things around which are not right.

~~~
davidw
Yes, but you didn't say "be an optimist" - you argued that I don't care,
because I don't want to discuss it on this site, which is a bad argument.
There are plenty of issues that I care deeply about for which this site is not
an appropriate forum.

> 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing'
> - Edmund Burke

Discussing the issue on internet forums is so close to "doing nothing" as to
be virtually indistinguishable.

~~~
pg
_Discussing the issue on internet forums is so close to "doing nothing" as to
be virtually indistinguishable._

I don't think that's true. People are very much influenced by things other
people say, and there is nothing magic about the web that makes this stop
working online. I've often been influenced by things I read in forums.

And in this specific case, you're particularly mistaken, because the situation
is so much influenced by public opinion. If everyone in the world was talking
now about what's happening in Gaza, the Israelis would have to stop.

~~~
homme
At the very least, rational U.S. taxpayers may start looking askance at why
their money is being conscripted to support this slaughter.

I know some here may take exception to my description of what going on here as
slaughter, but all I see is the abridgment of human rights and respect of life
on the basis of tribalism,mythology, and a past criminal genocide that the
victims being attacked here played no part in. This should not be interpreted
as hate or anti-semitism, as it is grounded in the basic respect for all human
life. I don't wish to start a flame war here, but feel free to post responses.

~~~
anamax
> At the very least, rational U.S. taxpayers may start looking askance at why
> their money is being conscripted to support this slaughter.

Slaughter? If any European country (or the US) had been on the receiving end
of the Hamas rocket attacks, Gaza and the surrounding areas would have been
smoking piles of rubble years ago. And yes, Israel has the capability.

As to Israel's sins, they pale in comparison and they don't have a history of
doing everything that they can to wipe out the Palestinians, something that is
within their power. Meanwhile, Hamas' "kill all Jews" charter appears to be
representative.

Interestingly enough, it's not just Jews. The reason why Arab countries don't
allow significant numbers of political Palestinians has nothing to do with
Israel.

The "plight of the Palestinians" is almost entirely self-inflicted. Israel was
able to "make the desert bloom" without local help so it's absurd to claim
that Israel is keeping the Palestinians down.

