"International Law" is the funniest concept in the world, because a "law" only has the strength of its enforcement, and who's going to actually make Israel follow a rule?
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
247 points (94.0% liked)
World News
32075 readers
949 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Isn't that what sanctions are for?
You would think so. But this is Israel we’re talking about. They don’t get sanctioned. If this was Iran, or Russia, then sure. But Israel? They were only defending themselves. Or whatever excuse is used to justify anything they do against international law.
America will never allow it.
USA and NATO will never sanction an ally. Almost all superpowers did horrible things but the west never got sanctioned.
International law is applied on non-west allies only.
You bomb us? You’re criminal organization killing innocent people.
We bomb you? You’re criminal organization and must be eliminated.
For downvoters: Please enlighten me if facts says otherwise.
For those wondering. This substance is regulated by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), third protocol.
One attack on the town of Dhayra 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
The highlight is mine but points out their legal objection here. One may refer to Article II of Protocol III, sections 2 and 3.
- 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.
- 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.
Per Article II section 3, it would be illegal for an indiscriminate attack that did not take all feasible precautions to limit the incendiary effect to military objectives.
As for anyone wondering, the use of white phosphorus is not a violation per Article I (1)(b)(i).
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems
Of which white phosphorus falls into when it is not used solely for it's incendiary effects. Again, that is if Israel was justifiably using the substance.
So all of this is to say, that while Amnesty International does indeed bring up a valid point. The international law gives enough wiggle room for Israel to avoid consequences.
I wonder why they used it instead of regular bombs or missiles?
because it's absolutely terrifying. and no one stops them.
To what end? To terrify?
there is a reason why it is banned