Israel

[BoniO]

EDIT: I have researched this, and it appears White Phosporus isnt banned, as I thought, so its quite alright now, for Israel to continue to reign it down on Palestinian civilians

If this is true then it's terrible and needs to be condemned and consequences felt. Can you confirm the source for Israel using it on Palestinian civilians?

Well they appear to be using it on Lebanese civilians so it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think they’re using it on Palestinians as well.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... s%20spread

[Dunners]

EDIT: I have researched this, and it appears White Phosporus isnt banned, as I thought, so its quite alright now, for Israel to continue to reign it down on Palestinian civilians

If this is true then it's terrible and needs to be condemned and consequences felt. Can you confirm the source for Israel using it on Palestinian civilians?

Well they appear to be using it on Lebanese civilians so it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think they’re using it on Palestinians as well.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... s%20spread

Thanks. That article is dated 31 October, and it states (with my edits):

"The Israeli army fired artillery shells containing white phosphorus... in military operations... between 10 and 16 October 2023... One attack... on 16 October must be investigated as a war crime because it was an indiscriminate attack that injured at least nine civilians and damaged civilian objects, and was therefore unlawful..."

The scarring caused by White Phosphorous is distinctive. It's proper horrible stuff. I cannot seem to find anything independent published since this Amnesty article that corroborates that nine civilians were confirmed with these injuries. I can find a few online articles, but they all seems to be just regurgitating the Amnesty article (i.e. The Washington Post one).

We're almost two months on now from the alleged incident, so I'd have expected there to be something as it would be quite a big deal. Even if you go full-on Zionist-conspiracy loon and claim that the mainstream media wouldn't dare cover it, there's plenty of media outlets around the world that would be only too eager to pounce on it.

The article is also a tad contradictory. In one breath it states "in military operations" and in another "an indiscriminate attack". Which is it, as it cannot be both? It's entirely possible that civilians were injured in a military operation (collateral damage). I'm not defending that but, if that is the case, then I could foresee that being used as justification for how the alleged incident was still compliant with international law.

Amnesty can call for the incident to be investigated as a war crime. That's fair enough. But the article then goes on to state that whatever happened "was therefore unlawful". It's not for Amnesty to determine whether or not something is unlawful as that require the investigation (which they themselves have called for) to have been carried out and a determination issued by an appropriate international court (which Amnesty is not). Making statements like this without due process just undermines their credibility.

This is the thing with Amnesty. They cannot be completely relied upon. I still recall when they blamed Ukraine for using weapons to defend its own populated areas. This whole situation is bad enough without unconfirmed reports becoming fact, as uncorroborated or misleading information could even end up being used to cast doubt over more legitimate claims.

[BoniO]

If this is true then it's terrible and needs to be condemned and consequences felt. Can you confirm the source for Israel using it on Palestinian civilians?

Well they appear to be using it on Lebanese civilians so it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think they’re using it on Palestinians as well.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/ ... s%20spread

Thanks. That article is dated 31 October, and it states (with my edits):

"The Israeli army fired artillery shells containing white phosphorus... in military operations... between 10 and 16 October 2023... One attack... on 16 October must be investigated as a war crime because it was an indiscriminate attack that injured at least nine civilians and damaged civilian objects, and was therefore unlawful..."

The scarring caused by White Phosphorous is distinctive. It's proper horrible stuff. I cannot seem to find anything independent published since this Amnesty article that corroborates that nine civilians were confirmed with these injuries. I can find a few online articles, but they all seems to be just regurgitating the Amnesty article (i.e. The Washington Post one).

We're almost two months on now from the alleged incident, so I'd have expected there to be something as it would be quite a big deal. Even if you go full-on Zionist-conspiracy loon and claim that the mainstream media wouldn't dare cover it, there's plenty of media outlets around the world that would be only too eager to pounce on it.

The article is also a tad contradictory. In one breath it states "in military operations" and in another "an indiscriminate attack". Which is it, as it cannot be both? It's entirely possible that civilians were injured in a military operation (collateral damage). I'm not defending that but, if that is the case, then I could foresee that being used as justification for how the alleged incident was still compliant with international law.

Amnesty can call for the incident to be investigated as a war crime. That's fair enough. But the article then goes on to state that whatever happened "was therefore unlawful". It's not for Amnesty to determine whether or not something is unlawful as that require the investigation (which they themselves have called for) to have been carried out and a determination issued by an appropriate international court (which Amnesty is not). Making statements like this without due process just undermines their credibility.

This is the thing with Amnesty. They cannot be completely relied upon. I still recall when they blamed Ukraine for using weapons to defend its own populated areas. This whole situation is bad enough without unconfirmed reports becoming fact, as uncorroborated or misleading information could even end up being used to cast doubt over more legitimate claims.

Yeah, I saw the date on it but that's irrelevant. If they were using phosphorus illegally then why would they worry about International law in Palestine?

I expected you to rubbish Amnesty. It's the easy way isn't it. I'd be interested in knowing what organisations/media outlets you believe are trustworthy. As to your statement that Amnesty saying what happened was illegal undermines their credibility - that doesn't make sense. If I saw someone murder another person I wouldn't need to wait for the court case to tell me it was illegal. Your argument has no logical basis.

[ComeOnYouOs]

Im not a betting man, I lost a fair amount over 50 years ago, and vowed I'd never bet again, and i never have, but if i did, Id bet my mortgage Israel has used White Phosphorus in Gaza during the last 8 weeks.
I wouldnt trust anyone in the Israeli government as far as i could throw them
Just my opinion

[Dunners]

Yeah, I saw the date on it but that's irrelevant. If they were using phosphorus illegally then why would they worry about International law in Palestine?

I expected you to rubbish Amnesty. It's the easy way isn't it. I'd be interested in knowing what organisations/media outlets you believe are trustworthy. As to your statement that Amnesty saying what happened was illegal undermines their credibility - that doesn't make sense. If I saw someone murder another person I wouldn't need to wait for the court case to tell me it was illegal. Your argument has no logical basis.

Okay, you're not getting what I'm trying to say.

I'm not rubbishing Amnesty. I'm just saying that they're not infallible and that they have limits and their information should therefore be treated accordingly.

Nor is it the easy way. The easy way is just to accept anything as fact without corroboration.

As for what organisations/media outlets are trustworthy, I'd suggest that if there is any group of others that have also independently (not just regurgitated the Amnesty article) corroborated this report, then that would be something. It's a bit like how Owen Jones has pointed this out with regards to the controlled screenings of the film of the Hamas attacks on 7th October.

If me pointing out that Amnesty is not judge and jury doesn't make sense to you, then I'm not sure what else anyone can say.

If you personally witnessed somebody being murdered, I could quite understand why you may not feel compelled to wait for a Court decision to confirm it was murder. But you didn't witness this alleged incident. Nor did Amnesty for that matter. So yes, a proper investigation and Court determination would appear to be appropriate in this situation.

This argument is logical. It's just that it's not what you want to hear.

[Dunners]

Im not a betting man, I lost a fair amount over 50 years ago, and vowed I'd never bet again, and i never have, but if i did, Id bet my mortgage Israel has used White Phosphorus in Gaza during the last 8 weeks.
I wouldnt trust anyone in the Israeli government as far as i could throw them
Just my opinion

I'd fancy a bet that Israel has used White Phosphorous too. Either in Gaza or Lebanon, or possibly both. It seems probable.

But have they used it whilst purposely targeting civilians? There's no suggestion of this that I'm aware of.

Have any civilians been injured by it's use in a military operation? There's at least a suggestion of this, but no evidence or corroborative information presented so far. After two months.

In which case, why is it getting people so heated up right now? I recall Russian forces were alleged to have used it in Ukraine, but for some reason I do not recall it being of similar interest to certain people.

[BoniO]

Im not a betting man, I lost a fair amount over 50 years ago, and vowed I'd never bet again, and i never have, but if i did, Id bet my mortgage Israel has used White Phosphorus in Gaza during the last 8 weeks.
I wouldnt trust anyone in the Israeli government as far as i could throw them
Just my opinion

I'd fancy a bet that Israel has used White Phosphorous too. Either in Gaza or Lebanon, or possibly both. It seems probable.

But have they used it whilst purposely targeting civilians? There's no suggestion of this that I'm aware of. Really - what about the Amnesty and Human Rights watch reports? - Bonio

Have any civilians been injured by it's use in a military operation? There's at least a suggestion of this, but no evidence or corroborative information presented so far. After two months. No evidence other than the reports from the above 2 organisations but enough to have the UN and US openly investigating. And what is the job of the 2 organisations mentioned if it isn't to bring the attention of the World to such events. - Bonio

In which case, why is it getting people so heated up right now? I recall Russian forces were alleged to have used it in Ukraine, but for some reason I do not recall it being of similar interest to certain people. Stretching mate. Trying to imply some lack of impartiality in the response to Israel's "probable" use of Phosphorus and Russia's "alleged" use (by the way, was it ever proved that the Russians used it). - Bonio

[Long slender neck]

Any idea if the gang rape and beheading of civilians is against international law?

[BoniO]

Any idea if the gang rape and beheading of civilians is against international law?

I don't know anyone who is questioning that. Why do you ask?

[Hoover Attack]

Any idea if the gang rape and beheading of civilians is against international law?

What has this What About Terry got to do with anything?

[Proposition Joe]

Any idea if the gang rape and beheading of civilians is against international law?

What a strange question.

[Hoover Attack]

It appears that some people are using the illegal acts committed by Hamas, designated a terrorist organisation by the US and UK Governments, as some sort of justification for Israel committing illegal acts on innocent Palestinian civillians.

[Dunners]

It appears that some people are using the illegal acts committed by Hamas, designated a terrorist organisation by the US and UK Governments, as some sort of justification for Israel committing illegal acts on innocent Palestinian civillians.

Equals pequals?

[Dunners]

This is good. But my fear is that, without Starmer calling for an unequivocal, immediate and permanent ceasefire, Israel and Hamas won't take the UN resolution seriously.

[Hoover Attack]

Captain Hindsight might be brave enough to do so now.

[Daily Express bot]

Captain Hindsight might be brave enough to do so now.

I doubt it but as you say, ‘Capt. Hindsight’. He is more like Blair every day, realising that left wing politics will never get him elected.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

This is good. But my fear is that, without Starmer calling for an unequivocal, immediate and permanent ceasefire, Israel and Hamas won't take the UN resolution seriously.

Hold on. I thought asking for ceasefires was unrealistic?

[Hoover Attack]

Aah, but that was last week. Things move quickly in the world of big-boy Geo-politics. You wouldn't understand.

[Dunners]

This is good. But my fear is that, without Starmer calling for an unequivocal, immediate and permanent ceasefire, Israel and Hamas won't take the UN resolution seriously.

Hold on. I thought asking for ceasefires was unrealistic?

Do you really think this will result in a permanent ceasefire? Come on.

[Dunners]

However, playing along, expecting a proper ceasefire from a starting point of all-out war in the immediate aftermath of the 7th October attacks (think about Israeli domestic politics) is unrealistic. Playing for time, whilst pausing hostilities, up until the concept of a proper ceasefire is more normalised is more realistic, yes.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

However, playing along, expecting a proper ceasefire from a starting point of all-out war in the immediate aftermath of the 7th October attacks (think about Israeli domestic politics) is unrealistic. Playing for time, whilst pausing hostilities, up until the concept of a proper ceasefire is more normalised is more realistic, yes.

Why are you ignoring that there was a ceasefire?

[Dunners]

However, playing along, expecting a proper ceasefire from a starting point of all-out war in the immediate aftermath of the 7th October attacks (think about Israeli domestic politics) is unrealistic. Playing for time, whilst pausing hostilities, up until the concept of a proper ceasefire is more normalised is more realistic, yes.

Why are you ignoring that there was a ceasefire?

I'm not. I guess it depends on how you define it. For me (and this may just be my opinion) a ceasefire is a sustained (i.e. more than a few days) period of time where neither side engages in hostile action and with the intention of trying to achieve a more permanent agreement.

My interpretation is that the seven day period previously was just a pause. And everybody knew it was only a pause, and that hostilities would resume. Nobody expected it to become more sustained than that.

If others disagree, then fine.

[Hoover Attack]

However, playing along, expecting a proper ceasefire from a starting point of all-out war in the immediate aftermath of the 7th October attacks (think about Israeli domestic politics) is unrealistic. Playing for time, whilst pausing hostilities, up until the concept of a proper ceasefire is more normalised is more realistic, yes.

Why are you ignoring that there was a ceasefire?

There wasn't. It was purely a 'humanitarian pause'.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Ok why are we pretending we shouldn’t be encouraging a humanitarian cause, even if it doesn’t resolve the conflict?

[Dunners]

Eh? Who is doing that?

It's worth recalling that this whole topic was initially in the context of certain people frothing at the mouth because the official Labour position wasn't for calling for an immediate ceasefire. At that time the Labour position was for a pause in hostilities to allow humanitarian aid. Which was perfectly reasonable and realistic (albeit not very inspirational). And is what happened. And will hopefully happen again, for longer.