Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[Mike Smalling]

Europe is taking a hard turn to the far-right with the muslims being the main target.

They don't need religious fundamentalism, 9/11 and the terrorist attacks on european soil radically changed the game. Aside from guilt tripping and cultural affinities, Europe also views the support for Israel through the War on Terror lense. To make it worse, in many right-wing and far-right discourses, islamo-leftism has replaced what was once called judeo-bolchevism, as the root of all evil. European far-right parties with notorious anti-semites among them ostensibly display their support for Israel for very obvious reasons and they're welcomed.

I personally think that the most disastrous consequence of the Trump election in 2016 is that it worldwide broke the last shackles of the far-right and completely normalized (ultra-)nationalist, racist and extremist discourses. The seeds were already there of course, but the so-called champion of freedom and democracy electing that racist lunatic (and might do it again) basically anointed every far-right movement in the world and gave them a fair shot at the highest positions in a government.

In my opinion, a second Trump mandate will not only be the ruin of the US, but all western democracies, but I also utterly despise his alternative. I do not believe the charade about Biden's hands being tied about Gaza, that ship has sailed long ago. Joe Biden is a true of believer of Zionism, stuck in a vision of the world that is completely obsolete, which will bring its own share of problems with the other major players if/when he's re-elected.

Yep, I agree with pretty much all of this. The support for Israel is just thinly veiled Islamophobia in many cases.

It's up to all of us to reject far-right rhetoric and politicians in any way we can. Unfortunately they often have the upper hand, because they are generally linked to right-wing economic policies as well and these are very well funded. The right wing has been very successful in shifting focus from valid concerns about modern capitalism, the wealth gap, etc. to concerns about immigration. And sadly people often prefer a scapegoat that looks a bit different and doesn't speak the language, even though they should be on the same team from a class perspective.

 

[Red in STL]

It is horrible. Sufferings of other people. Stories told by people, children, etc, who have had horrible experiences, are heartbreaking. Will bring tears to your eyes. It is important to know what happens in a war. In Gaza and to the Palestinians. The cost of this war and the suffering it brings will be too much, as in all wars.

But, to judge who is in the “right”, intentions matter. What you do in the now will inform everyone watching on what you will likely do in the future. Hamas has shown, and told us, what their intentions are. They don’t care about life. Their own, their people, and least of all the Israelis. They want to kill as many Israelis as they can. They will do October 7, again, and again, and again, till there are no more Israel. This is their expressed intention, backed up by action and by using their own children as human shields.

Israel, for all its faults, do not seek to destroy the Palestinians. They do more than anyone before them in war, to spare the lives of noncombatants. Their intentions are clear. They seek to defend themselves against Hamas and other entities who try to kill them. If Hamas stopped, laid down their arms, there would be peace. If Israel did the same, there would be a bloodbath.

Horrible things will happen in a war. Hopefully those who have committed crimes will be held accountable in the end.

What planet did you just arrive from? The bolded is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read in this thread

 

[JPRouve]

What planet did you just arrive from? The bolded is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read in this thread

You could swear that we aren't talking about an army that has had a widespread use of antipersonnel landmines or not known for the use of white phospherous. Or that didn't bomb entire neighborhoods.

 

[Kaos]

It is horrible. Sufferings of other people. Stories told by people, children, etc, who have had horrible experiences, are heartbreaking. Will bring tears to your eyes. It is important to know what happens in a war. In Gaza and to the Palestinians. The cost of this war and the suffering it brings will be too much, as in all wars.

But, to judge who is in the “right”, intentions matter. What you do in the now will inform everyone watching on what you will likely do in the future. Hamas has shown, and told us, what their intentions are. They don’t care about life. Their own, their people, and least of all the Israelis. They want to kill as many Israelis as they can. They will do October 7, again, and again, and again, till there are no more Israel. This is their expressed intention, backed up by action and by using their own children as human shields.

Israel, for all its faults, do not seek to destroy the Palestinians. They do more than anyone before them in war, to spare the lives of noncombatants. Their intentions are clear. They seek to defend themselves against Hamas and other entities who try to kill them. If Hamas stopped, laid down their arms, there would be peace. If Israel did the same, there would be a bloodbath.

Horrible things will happen in a war. Hopefully those who have committed crimes will be held accountable in the end.

You may not realise it, but in the second paragraph you've also perfectly described Israel, not just since October 7th, but also since 1948.

I also noticed you've regurgitated the nonsense about how there'd be peace if Hamas dropped their arms. Explain to me the West Bank situation then where Hamas have zero presence. Is it because of Hamas that Israel have sponsored the murder, land grabs and subjugation of Palestinians there?

 

[4bars]

They never were and never had it. Anyone believing this fairy tale either drank too much kool-aid or is badly informed.

The West, especially the US, has a long history of siding with the worst dictators, overthrowing democratically elected governments, and invading countries that don't play ball and more importantly, can't defend themselves. It still does it to this day. The international rules only apply when it suits them, and the West in many ways is just like, if not worse than China and Russia.

Gaza is just another example of its duplicity. It might've opened some eyes in western countries, but the rest of the world has always seen the West essentially for what it is, a two-faced bully.

Internationally, the US had been the biggest source of evil since WWII. If they would not police the world some other country would do worse? Maybe. We will never know. But reality is no one bombed more, caused more destruction, misery, direct and indirect deaths and didn't allow many countries to develope and to choose their democratic path. As you said, Israel is just another one that is being broadcast and people can't believe that this is happening.

 

[Idxomer]

Spoiler

 

[Idxomer]

"Famine is worsening in the north".

 

[AfonsoAlves]

You could swear that we aren't talking about an army that has had a widespread use of antipersonnel landmines or not known for the use of white phospherous. Or that didn't bomb entire neighborhoods.

I pretty much agree with everything you and most others have said here - but there is one point of contention and that is white phospherous.

What is the issue with it? All militaries use it, it's part of standard practice, we train soldiers to attack through it or to retreat into it. Many armored vehicles have their own ejection of white phospherous systems.

 

[maniak]

I pretty much agree with everything you and most others have said here - but there is one point of contention and that is white phospherous.

What is the issue with it? All militaries use it, it's part of standard practice, we train soldiers to attack through it or to retreat into it. Many armored vehicles have their own ejection of white phospherous systems.

It's a war crime to use it against civilians.

 

[e.cantona]

Mate you can't truly believe that. I probably more than anyone on here supported their right to retaliate post October 7th but this has now gone well beyond any attempts to remove Hamas. They know they can't do that so they want to turn the whole place into a wasteland.

Nothing is black and white. There's a lot of grey and nuance in between. Based off what we do know aout Hamas, I agree they need to be removed. Israel can not be expected to tolerate Hamas. Then the question is what to do and how. Hamas strategy is what it is, see my previous posts on what I think about them and how they use the population as human shields. What is happening now, is what Hamas want. They may even have expected and hoped for worse. But because Israel actually cares about not killing civilians and activly aims to minimize civilian casualties, the death toll is not worse than what it is. Could they do better? Sure..

... nonsense...

This is nonsense, like many other of the replies I won't bother with

 

[JPRouve]

I pretty much agree with everything you and most others have said here - but there is one point of contention and that is white phospherous.

What is the issue with it? All militaries use it, it's part of standard practice, we train soldiers to attack through it or to retreat into it. Many armored vehicles have their own ejection of white phospherous systems.

It is a crime to use white phosphorus in densely populated areas.

 

[RedTiger]

I pretty much agree with everything you and most others have said here - but there is one point of contention and that is white phospherous.

What is the issue with it? All militaries use it, it's part of standard practice, we train soldiers to attack through it or to retreat into it. Many armored vehicles have their own ejection of white phospherous systems.

You can use it for illumination and smoke screens but it can't be used directly against civilians.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

It's a war crime to use it against civilians.

This is not true.

There is no provision against White Phosphorus' usage against civilians.

There are provisions against "Incendiary weapons" against civilians, which certain kind of WP munitions fall under, but those specific munitions have not been in production for decades now, as better incendiary weapons have been developed.

https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/incendiary-weapons

There was a specific exemption for White Phosphorus munitions in the modern context that it does not classify itself as an incendiary weapon.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

It is a crime to use white phosphorus in densely populated areas.

That is not true, please read the citation i've provided above.

You can use it for illumination and smoke screens but it can't be used directly against civilians.

You cannot use WP Incendiaries against civilians.

There was a specific provision made to exclude WP weapons that have a secondary use of incendiary properties but have a primary function of something else.

 

[JPRouve]

This is not true.

There is no provision against White Phosphorus' usage against civilians.

There are provisions against "Incendiary weapons" against civilians, which certain kind of WP munitions fall under, but those specific munitions have not been in production for decades now, as better incendiary weapons have been developed.

https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/incendiary-weapons

There was a specific exemption for White Phosphorus munitions in the modern context that it does not classify itself as an incendiary weapon.

https://disarmament.unoda.org/convarms/incendiary-weapons/

Incendiary weapons are weapons or munitions designed to set fire to objects or cause burn or respiratory injury to people through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, resulting from a chemical reaction of a flammable substance such as napalm or white phosphorus.

The Protocol on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons (Protocol III) aims at protecting civilians and civilian objects from the use of this type of weapons. It prohibits targeting civilians and restricts targeting military objects located within populated areas. The Protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons on forest or other plants unless the vegetation is used to conceal military objects.”

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.

 

[JPRouve]

Also even if it was legal, it goes against the idea that IDF does everything to protect civilians. That's literally the opposite.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

https://disarmament.unoda.org/convarms/incendiary-weapons/

Yes, everything you say there I agree with.

But the provision was specifically made that discounted practically any modern shell/dumb bomb that contained WP as an "Incendiary weapon".

The argument was made after some incidents during the GWOT where US soldiers used 155mm WP shells that ended up burning civilians. The argument was put forward that these munitions were not "Incendiary" (smoke shells, in essence) and therefore they should be exempt from any ruling.

Munitions with a primary role that has a side effect of "Incendiary" are all exempt as non-incendiary weaponry, as seen in the citation above.

The relevant agencies agreed in the UN and therefore a provision was added to accomodate for this.

 

[RedTiger]

That is not true, please read the citation i've provided above.


You cannot use WP Incendiaries against civilians.

There was a specific provision made to exclude WP weapons that have a secondary use of incendiary properties but have a primary function of something else.

Whether or not WP has a primary function as something else doesn't matter, WP by default is an incendiary material.

Perhaps it's like sugar and pasta for Palestinians, primary usage is as a food stuff but secondary usage could be as a combustible for rockets....

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Also even if it was legal, it goes against the idea that IDF does everything to protect civilians. That's literally the opposite.

I mean yes, i totally agree with you, like I said.

I'm just trying to make sure that narratives stick to pure facts lest they be used against for ulterior agendas

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Whether or not WP has a primary function as something else doesn't matter, WP by default is an incendiary material.

Perhaps it's like sugar and pasta for Palestinians, primary usage is as a food stuff but secondary usage could be as a combustible for rockets....

I'm speaking explicitly about legality terms here.

There is a specific accomodation in the Geneva convention that clarifies what counts as an incendiary munition and what does not. Weapons that have a primary purpose and are also incendiary, do not classify as an incendiary weapon.

Sorry if this is sidepicking a little bit, it's just I've had this conversation on repeat with people in every conflict where it's caught on camera that white smoke is rising above a civilian building from every side of the argument.

What ends up happening is some RussiaBot pops along and tries to claim Ukraine is conducting war crimes against its own people etc.

 

[Kaos]

This is nonsense, like many other of the replies I won't bother with

Right, you've quoted my response as 'nonsense' instead of responding to my points in good faith. Think you've outed yourself as not wanting to debate sincerely and looking to derail and troll this thread.

 

[Bebe]

@AfonsoAlves is correct on the technicalities regarding white phosphorus. It is not banned per se, and it is not considered an incendiary weapon for the purposes of Article 2 (the prohibition against using air-delivered incendiary weapons in a civilian center).

That being said, Israel's attacks on Gaza are almost de facto attacks on a civilian population in general, and part of a war of collective punishment, etc, so Israel's use of WP in their current genocidal campaign are likely illegal under international law for those reasons. They are not illegal specifically and solely because WP is being used.

 

[JPRouve]

I mean yes, i totally agree with you, like I said.

I'm just trying to make sure that narratives stick to pure facts lest they be used against for ulterior agendas

I pretty much agree with everything you and most others have said here - but there is one point of contention and that is white phospherous.

What is the issue with it? All militaries use it, it's part of standard practice, we train soldiers to attack through it or to retreat into it. Many armored vehicles have their own ejection of white phospherous systems.

That's not what you were trying to do.

 

[Bebe]

Go on then, humour me. What are these obvious reasons?

with all due respect I really think he should be left to bleat into the wind at this point. There's no sense speaking with someone who has no interest in good faith discussion.

 

[JPRouve]

@AfonsoAlves is correct on the technicalities regarding white phosphorus. It is not banned per se, and it is not considered an incendiary weapon for the purposes of Article 2 (the prohibition against using air-delivered incendiary weapons in a civilian center).

That being said, Israel's attacks on Gaza are almost de facto attacks on a civilian population in general, and part of a war of collective punishment, etc, so Israel's use of WP in their current genocidal campaign are likely illegal under international law for those reasons. They are not illegal specifically and solely because WP is being used.

The point wasn't strictly about the recent war but the general use by IDF. They absolutely use it against civilians and try circumvent international law and it's not a new thing.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/03/25/rain-fire/israels-unlawful-use-white-phosphorus-gaza

 

[maniak]

This is not true.

There is no provision against White Phosphorus' usage against civilians.

There are provisions against "Incendiary weapons" against civilians, which certain kind of WP munitions fall under, but those specific munitions have not been in production for decades now, as better incendiary weapons have been developed.

https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/incendiary-weapons

There was a specific exemption for White Phosphorus munitions in the modern context that it does not classify itself as an incendiary weapon.

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. Such attacks, which fail to distinguish between civilians and civilian objects and fighters and military objectives, are indiscriminate and thus prohibited.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/n...lebanon-as-cross-border-hostilities-escalate/

Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as "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". Article 2 of the same protocol prohibits the deliberate use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions), the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets in civilian areas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions#International_law

First, it restricts some but not all use of ground-launched incendiary weapons where there are concentrations of civilians, which would encompass white phosphorus artillery strikes in Gaza. Second, the protocol’s definition of incendiary weapons covers weapons that are “primarily designed” to set fires and burn people and thus arguably excludes multipurpose munitions, such as those containing white phosphorus if they are being used as smokescreens

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12...ls-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-and-lebanon#four

 

[AfonsoAlves]

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/n...lebanon-as-cross-border-hostilities-escalate/



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions#International_law



https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12...ls-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-and-lebanon#four

amnesty is wrong

I’ve cited the actual Geneva convention wording

the third link is correct

 

[maniak]

amnesty is wrong

I’ve cited the actual Geneva convention wording

the third link is correct

Your link says this, so it's saying it's illegal.

Incendiary weapons can take the form of flamethrowers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines bombs and other containers of incendiary substances (e.g., napalm, phosphorous). It is prohibited in all circumstances to use incendiary weapons against the civilian population, civilian objects, forests or other kinds of plant cover.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

To be fair i wouldn’t put it past the IDF to actually be using 1970s WP incendiary munitions.

it makes no logical sense, they’re more expensive, less effective and hard to maintain.

it just seems very petty for them if they did and would be only be done as a feck you middle finger to the world.
On the flip side that describes the idf quite succinctly so who knows

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Your link says this, so it's saying it's illegal.

read the bit underneath it which discusses what doesn’t count as incendiary

 

[Bebe]

The point wasn't strictly about the recent war but the general use by IDF. They absolutely use it against civilians and try circumvent international law and it's not a new thing.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/03/25/rain-fire/israels-unlawful-use-white-phosphorus-gaza

We are entirely in agreement - my only point is that, as far as I can tell, the use of WP even in a civilian centre is not in and of itself a violation of international law.

We can talk about why Western countries wanted an exception like this in the law, but for the moment it does exist.

Attacks on citizens, disproportionate harm to civilians in pursuit of military objectives, and a hundred other things that Israel has done on a near daily basis for the entirety of my lifetime are all violations of international law, so Israel's use of WP is likely illegal for several reasons. The manner of use is of significantly more interest to international law than the properties of the thing used, and Israel's manner of use is quite blatantly aimed at creating suffering and death among a civilian population.

 

[JPRouve]

I should add that IDF has also been known for using cluster munitions around 2008-2009.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Your link says this, so it's saying it's illegal.

1. munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracer, smoke or signalling systems;
2. munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons but to be used against military objectives such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities (e.g., anti-tank missiles)

 

[AfonsoAlves]

We are entirely in agreement - my only point is that, as far as I can tell, the use of WP even in a civilian centre is not in and of itself a violation of international law.

We can talk about why Western countries wanted an exception like this in the law, but for the moment it does exist.

Attacks on citizens, disproportionate harm to civilians in pursuit of military objectives, and a hundred other things that Israel has done on a near daily basis for the entirety of my lifetime are all violations of international law, so Israel's use of WP is likely illegal for several reasons. The manner of use is of significantly more interest to international law than the properties of the thing used, and Israel's manner of use is quite blatantly aimed at creating suffering and death among a civilian population.

The reason it was added was due to some incidents during GWOT and the use of 155mm smoke shells that raised the alarm to US regional commanders who escalated up the chain.

There was a consultation with the UN, preemptively as a “uh we’re not committing war crimes by doing this are we?” Which led to some debate followed by that provision

 

[JPRouve]

We are entirely in agreement - my only point is that, as far as I can tell, the use of WP even in a civilian centre is not in and of itself a violation of international law.

We can talk about why Western countries wanted an exception like this in the law, but for the moment it does exist.

Attacks on citizens, disproportionate harm to civilians in pursuit of military objectives, and a hundred other things that Israel has done on a near daily basis for the entirety of my lifetime are all violations of international law, so Israel's use of WP is likely illegal for several reasons. The manner of use is of significantly more interest to international law than the properties of the thing used, and Israel's manner of use is quite blatantly aimed at creating suffering and death among a civilian population.

But that was my point the manner of use, I didn't state that white phosphorus was illegal, I said that it was illegal in and should have added against densely populated civilians areas because that's how they used it. The other thing is that IDF should never be given the benefit of doubts because they somehow use every single munition that is deemed immoral, they even went as far as to start a propaganda campaign to justify the potential usage of dirty bombs.

 

[maniak]

1. munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracer, smoke or signalling systems;
2. munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons but to be used against military objectives such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities (e.g., anti-tank missiles)

The videos I saw don't seem to match that definition. They were dropping it over neighborhoods.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

The videos I saw don't seem to match that definition. They were dropping it over neighborhoods.

can you describe what you saw?
Was it giant fiery explosions or huge plumes of white smoke?

 

[Idxomer]

 

[Bebe]

But that was my point the manner of use, I didn't state that white phosphorus was illegal, I said that it was illegal in and should have added against densely populated civilians areas because that's how they used it. The other thing is that IDF should never be given the benefit of doubts because they somehow use every single munition that is deemed immoral, they even went as far as to start a propaganda campaign to justify the potential usage of dirty bombs.

Yeah we're effectively saying the same thing - underlying point is that Israel are quite obviously committing war crimes.

The notion of Israel getting any benefit of the doubt whatsoever should be repugnant to any human being with a functioning nervous system. I don't think it's possible to find an entity that propagates blatant and immediately obvious lies in the world today so shamelessly. A few months ago the Israel apologists were saying that Palestinians dying should have followed the guidance to flee to the south and Rafah in particular. Israel insisted that it didn't bomb Al-Shifa in October and today has proceeded to reduce that hospital along with all others to either complete rubble or IOF command centres. The lying would be hilarious if it weren't so horrific.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Yeah we're effectively saying the same thing - underlying point is that Israel are quite obviously committing war crimes.

The notion of Israel getting any benefit of the doubt whatsoever should be repugnant to any human being with a functioning nervous system. I don't think it's possible to find an entity that propagates blatant and immediately obvious lies in the world today so shamelessly. A few months ago the Israel apologists were saying that Palestinians dying should have followed the guidance to flee to the south and Rafah in particular. Israel insisted that it didn't bomb Al-Shifa in October and today has proceeded to reduce that hospital along with all others to either complete rubble or IOF command centres. The lying would be hilarious if it weren't so horrific.

I don't think they've reached cumulative Russian levels yet but its in the same ballpark of how absurd its getting.