The Israeli army fired artillery shells containing white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon, in military operations along Lebanon’s southern border between 10 and 16 October 2023.

        • Stanard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Idk about OP but I’ve been ashamed of my country since at least 2016 2001 1990 August 6, 1945 the 17th century when “we” decided that land settled by Native Americans somehow belonged to us. I wasn’t alive for most of that time but I guarantee my country has done shameful things for muuuch longer than 24 days.

          • Afghaniscran@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You get it. It’s scary that some people seem to think you can only be upset at one thing at a time.

            I will say I’m British so the dates are slightly different but we’re not far off the same bullshit pulled by the same ego stroking cunts.

          • SirToxicAvenger@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            little clarification here - humanity isnt native to anywhere other than Africa. the people that were in the American continents prior to the arrival of Europeans might not have taken boats to get there - though some clearly did as there were multiple waves of settlement over a few thousand years.

            if their ancestors walked over the land bridge during the ice age and that somehow qualifies them as natives, then what about the ones whose ancestors took a boat across where the land bridge used to be and sailed down the coast? if they qualify, then why dont the people whose European ancestors took boats qualify as native? is it because the last round of people had vastly superior technology? because we speak the same languages they did? because we’re the same ethnicity they were? is this a racism argument? I didnt get that memo.

            is this a branch of the “noble savage” theory? there was a lot of war between various tribes in North America - generational warfare usually, where one tribe would traditionally raid another for resources or for women. this is well documented and had been occurring for as long as anyone could remember - long, long before the reintroduction of the horse into North America.

            • Afghaniscran@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’d say you’re native if when you arrive, there’s not already people living there. They walked the land bridge, found no other humans and then settled. Europeans sailed across the sea and found the native Americans and then continued to slaughter and pillage them for their own gain.

              I’m not even sure how you’re comparing the 2 events.

              • probablyaCat@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                But these groups and people weren’t the same people as the ones that walked across the land bridge. The cultures had long since diverged and were different. Wars had been fought. Whole groups died or merged. And if you go back a little further, they are all closely related. I don’t think the point is that the slaughtering and pillaging was OK. It is that you cannot have a good faith argument on fixing current problems by trying to focus only on arbitrary time periods to claim certain privileges. I am very much in favor of doing more to make the lives of the native americans better, but I also will not make the argument that descendants of Europeans or Africans have no claim to the land there either. Because to do so is not in good faith and just ignores reality. Any time period you pick to decide who has a claim to a place is arbitrary. We cannot change the past. We can only change the future (but we are limited by the confines of the present).

            • steven@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think it’s mostly the uther lack of consideration for the locals at the time. Europeans went there with the explicit aim to “conquer” and loot a continent that was inhabited by dozens if not hundreds of societies. They went there, killed, raped and enslaved hundreds of thousands of people. Can’t imagine to hear anyone defend that kind of behavior.

    • galloog1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      39
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you believe the reports coming out of the Hamas aligned side, Israel has not once hit a legitimate military target. They were all civilians. Do you remember that refugee camp they hit yesterday? You know, the one with all the apartment buildings where Hamas leadership suspiciously died at the exact same time. That was all civilians.

      Arab states in the immediate vicinity cannot fathom that Israel could be any more trustworthy than their own governments despite consistency on the Israeli side. To be honest, after having seen how it works myself, I don’t believe anything coming out of that region but those channels coming out of the Israeli state itself. I do not understand why people take any of the reports of the Hamas or aligned organizations at face value but they do.

      State or no state, Hamas was legitimately elected by the people of Palestine. They committed a horrendous attack against Israel justifying a defensive war. War is fucking ugly. There’s no way around it without risking your own forces. This is not genocide as they are targeting military targets despite the narrative. Collateral damage is not inherently a war crime and people should learn what that means. Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime. White phosphorous is only a war crime if they are signatory to the treaty banning its use which they are not nor are the United States or Russia.

      The is a massive information war going on right now trying to pull public opinion to one side or the other and almost nothing can truly be trusted unless it comes from a primary source and even then they should be assessed for trustworthiness based on evidence and past performance.

      This is also intended to take our attention away from Russia and Ukraine; just saying.

        • galloog1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          They did not say they would not strike in the South and if you look at the spread of the strokes it is several orders of magnitude in the North. Nowhere in that article does it say where they were told to go in the south because they weren’t told a specific location and they have been significantly removed from the bloodshed. Additionally, they gave been removed from any ability to actually validate independently that what was struck was in fact not civilians so you are again taking Hamas at their word.

        • galloog1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          25
          ·
          1 year ago

          Define genocide then detail with trustworthy sources why this meets it.

          I’m tired of people pontificating that this is genocide who cannot even define what genocide is. The other side are those that can define genocide but fully trust Hamas sources while distrusting Western sources.

          … You dolt

          • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            From the UN:

            The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

            There’s a few from Al Jazeera but to prevent collective screeching i left it out.

            • Quokka@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Wow you can’t just bring up some made up noname nonsense like the UN, they’re antisemitic terrorists!

              I only trust real sources like Israeli newspapers.

              • galloog1@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                1 year ago

                There UN source simply defines them at war, not genocide. Name a war that did not produce suffering. The UN source does not show that they are intentionally targeting a people, just that they are suffering as they target the elected Hamas government.

                • grte@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Elected how many years ago? What was the average age in Gaza, again?

                  If we want to talk about elected governments, the genocidal Israeli government has much more legitimacy in claiming it represents it’s constituents.

            • SirToxicAvenger@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              isnt that’s hamas’s goal though? they want to drive Israeli into the sea and create a new arab caliphate. not going to get there without massive genocide.

            • galloog1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Based on those definitions, what Israel went through is considered genocide against them and multiple times including the recent attacks as they absolutely targeted Israeli civilians.

              This is an overly broad definition and includes literally every war ever. Air strikes against seemingly military targets that end up not being military targets does not constitute genocide. Not by a long shot.

              Your UN article simply states that there is suffering. Name a single war where that wasn’t the case. Is all war genocide? Your other articles simply define that they are at war in response to a massive terrorist attack. That is not genocide by this definition as it does not define the difference between a justified defensive war and a genocide.

              Israel was at war the second they were attacked. War is not pretty. It is not genocide. You would be far better off scoping your argument outside of the confines of the current conflict as they were attacked by an elected organization by Palestine.

              • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                Based on those definitions, what Israel went through is considered genocide against them and multiple times including the recent attacks as they absolutely targeted Israeli civilians.

                Yes.

                This is an overly broad definition and includes literally every war ever.

                Yes, that’s literally what the Geneva Conventions is about.

                Air strikes against seemingly military targets that end up not being military targets does not constitute genocide. Not by a long shot.

                One casualty, no. Twenty casualty, no, but that might be a war crime. Eight thousands casualty and rising, including hostages, that is a large group. It include targeting refugee camp, place of worship that house refugees, hospital, evacuation route, that is genocide.

                Your UN article simply states that there is suffering. Name a single war where that wasn’t the case. Is all war genocide?

                Terrible argument because that’s not how genocide is defined, 0 point for the mental gymnastic. Genocide is a motive, not all war is genocide. But yes, a lot of war tend to consist the element of genocide because of one stronger group trying to eliminate a weaker group, including Israel - Palestine conflict, where Israel has been oppressing Palestine for decades.

                Your other articles simply define that they are at war in response to a massive terrorist attack.

                Apply the context of the article to the definition of genocide.

                That is not genocide by this definition as it does not define the difference between a justified defensive war and a genocide.

                Genocide did not define whether it’s defensive nor offensive, nor the Geneva Conventions give a shit about how you think it should be. As it stand, being the defensive party does not give them any right to commit the atrocity they’re currently doing.

                Israel was at war the second they were attacked. War is not pretty. It is not genocide.

                Using your line of thinking, Hamas is not genocidal group because war is not pretty.

                You would be far better off scoping your argument outside of the confines of the current conflict as they were attacked by an elected organization by Palestine.

                And in return, they murdered 8000 non-combatant of the people that they successfully dehumanised, just like all the conflict they have with Palestine for decades.

                Holocaust Denial Trope also detailed on what people do to deny the holocaust, but lets swap some letter:

                • Details of the Holocaust Palestinian Genocide Have Been Exaggerated
                • Witness Testimony is Fabricated or Inaccurate
                • Jews Hamas Invented the Holocaust Palestinian Genocide for Financial and Political Gain
                • The Holocaust Palestinian Genocide is a Zionist Hamas Political Tool
                • Jews Palestinian are Responsible for Their Own Persecution

                Wouldn’t be too far off from what is happening today.

          • BassTurd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

            See the blown up hospital, the blown up camp, the thousands of dead Palestinian civilians, the refugees bombed while trying to use the designated route out, or maybe just the leaked report with details of Israel’s plan to ethically cleanse Palestinians in Gaza.

            Or, idk, just open your fucking eyes. You have to either be a fucking moron or intentionally ignorant, to both be aware of what’s happening over there and still think it’s not genocide.

            Keep your head in the sand if you want. Fucking moron.

            Edit: I’ll concede on the hospital. Anyone care to refute my other points, or maybe touch on today’s (11/1) bombing of the refugee camp?

            • mwguy@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              See the blown up hospital

              The one Palestinian forced blew up? That’s still standing?

            • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              See the blown up hospital

              This is exactly the shit people are talking about. Palestine blew up a gathering of people at that hospital, then everyone just takes Palestine’s word for it and yells at Israel for something Palestine did.

              • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                This is exactly the shit people are talking about. Palestine The terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad blew up a gathering of people at that hospital, then everyone just takes Palestine’s Hamas’ word for it and yells at Israel for something Palestine Palestinian Islamic Jihad did.

                ftfy

                • galloog1@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The elected government of Palestine, Hamas. Yes, that organization. Yet they still are targeting Hamas instead of intentionally enacting collective punishment.

            • galloog1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              See everyone else’s comments on how inaccurate your statements are. We are not the ones with our heads in the sand. Stop trusting Palestinian government sources. It’s literally Hamas. There’s a reason that they beat the Israelis to the narrative. They do not validate their information. They say whatever makes Israel look bad, no matter what the truth is.

      • Machinist3359@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hope you remember in 20 years you were posting genocide denial rhetoric in your free time and feel ashamed. Same points used un many other genocides.

      • Stanard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Do you believe UN reports about the “Hamas aligned side”? Or is that just some big conspiracy?

        And by your own words: “Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime.” “Do you remember that refugee camp they hit yesterday?” I’ll even concede and say sure, let’s assume there were Hamas terrorists hiding in the refugee camp. Let’s also assume there was terrorist-supporting infrastructure in the refugee camp. Guess what though. IT WAS STILL A FUCKING REFUGEE CAMP!

        Let that sink in extra slow through your thick skull. Read through several times if you must. They knew there were innocent civilians in a refugee camp. They also suspected terrorists in said refugee camp. If you think the best and only option was to bomb that refugee camp, you’re wrong and a monster. Or is it that you’re simply a racist that thinks that every Palestinian is a terrorist simply for existing on the wrong “side”?

        Let’s say we find out that there’s some terrorists hiding out in your city. Is the only solution to bomb the city? Yourself, your family, and your friends included? Let’s say we narrow it down to terrorists hiding on your block. What’s your solution? How much “collateral damage” (innocent civilian deaths) is acceptable to root out the terrorism that exists in your home town?

        Edit: I would like to add that yes, this is distracting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would also like to add that I recognize that I do not know nearly enough about this conflict to speak with authority on the subject. What I do know enough about though is that not every Palestinian is involved with nor supports Hamas. And not every Israeli is involved with nor supports the IDF. There are many Innocent people that have died, and are continuing to die from both sides of this conflict. And every one of those deaths is a tragedy. I wholeheartedly condemn Hamas’ killings of innocent civilians, and I wholeheartedly condemn Israel’s killings of innocent civilians. Both sides fucking suck and the people that are truly paying the price are the innocent people dying and losing loved ones. I don’t know what the answer is, or even if there is a “right answer”. Maybe a special ground operation would have minimized loss of life? I don’t know. What I definitely do know is that I will never be okay with the deaths of innocent people.

      • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No matter how many people my comments may annoy, at least I never typed up multiple paragraphs defending genocide.

      • Lodespawn@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bombing a building filled with civilians just because some arsehole who help do (or did) a terrible thing is hiding in there certainly sounds like collective punishment …

        • galloog1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hiding amongst your own civilians when you just killed a bunch of Jewish civilians could also be considered collective punishment. They are targeting the enemy. The enemy is commiting a war crime. If Israel intentionally targeted civilians not around the enemy because they elected Hamas as their government this enabling state sponsors terrorism, it would be considered collective punishment.

          • jorge@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            If Israel intentionally targeted civilians not around the enemy because they elected Hamas as their government this enabling state sponsors terrorism, it would be considered collective punishment.

            https://www.npr.org/2023/10/30/1209308436/west-bank-israel-jenin-palestinians-killed-raids-airstrike-mosque

            Israel is also attacking the West Bank, where there is no Hamas.

            Hiding amongst your own civilians

            I have never understood this argument of terrorists “hiding” amongst civilians. Terrorists are people, that live in residential buildings, that pray in temples, and that go to hospitals when they are injured or ill.

            My country, Spain, had a huge problem between the 1970s and the 2010s with the terrorist group ETA. But nobody was ever so fucking psycho as to suggest bombing the places in the Basque country were the terrorists lived. There are other ways of fighting against terrorism that don’t include the killing of civilians.

            They are targeting the enemy.

            No. They are targeting civilian areas where there are maybe some enemies.

          • Lodespawn@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            “The other guy is doing it” isn’t a justification for committing war crimes. You are also considered a war criminal regardless.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think it also depends on how it’s used. Like if it’s used to create a smokescreen or to light up a battle field, it’s not a war crime. If it’s used as an offensive weapon, especially in an area with civilians, it almost certainly is a war crime since, regardless of whether it’s a chemical weapon, there’s no real way to aim it at military targets without it raining down on civilians. At that point, it becomes a Geneva Conventions violation and every country has ratified the core of the Geneva Conventions.

    • Silverseren@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Indeed. And per the above article,

      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, and was therefore unlawful

      It does sounds like they just fired it at civilian locations to bolster their military actions.

      • mwguy@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        9 casualties does not scream indiscriminate. Additionally the other example has 48 Hezbolla members and 4 civilians listed as casualties which also doesn’t scream indiscriminate.

          • MycoBro@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Sometimes, especially after a long day, a few beers, and a joint, I start to think about all the people dying in Ukrainian and Palestine. I spent a year in Iraq so it’s not hard to imagine what the physical sensation of being in one of those foxholes are hiding in one of the blown outbuildings(I can quite honestly even smell the dust and mold in the hair. Kind of taste it. I spent a lot of time in J-dam’ed buildings)but what I can’t fucking imagine is the feeling of hopelessness the Palestinians must feel. Or any realistic Ukrainian. My point is, there is absolutely no one for those 9 people’s family to turn to and that’s horrifying

          • mwguy@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m sure they don’t and they have that right. But that being said “indiscriminate” sort of has a meaning and connotation.

            And it’s not that these bombings absolutely couldn’t have been indiscriminate, however they either have to be the most incompetent military force on the planet to bomb a town of 4,000 people and kill 9 or truly God’s chosen army to indiscriminately bombing a place and kill 10x military casualties for every civilian one.

  • DarkGamer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Israeli authorities denied that they used white phosphorus in their military operations in Gaza and Lebanon.

    Seems like they’re lying. All of that taken together seems like pretty damning evidence that they do use white phosphorous shells.

    White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon because it operates primarily by heat and flame rather than toxicity, making it an incendiary weapon. Its use is governed by Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). Lebanon acceded to the protocol in 2017, but Israel has not.

    Oh. So they’re not bound by the treaty not to use it.

        • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even better since Lebanon isn’t involved here. It’s the terrorist organization Hezbollah that is. Since they’re terrorists rather than a country, they’re not signed on to this either.

          • UrbonMaximus@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hezbollah have 15 ministers in parliament and are literally in the caretaker government coalition.

  • badhops@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    yeah … but if we place all of the brown people in a open air prison… cut off their water and electricity maybe a bomb or 10000… that will fix the problem

    • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you can’t tell the difference between middle eastern locations, maybe you shouldn’t be talking about it.

    • InternationalBastard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The fuck you talking about? The article is about Lebanon. You don’t even distinguish between countries because they are all the same to you? That’s ignorant if not racist.

    • orphiebaby@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why the fuck do you have a net positive on upvotes vs. downvotes? Wow people here are racist assholes.

    • rdri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah no. If we are being held in prison and we know we are getting bombed anyway, we gotta use pipes to build defenses rockets. That will fix the problem.

  • kapx132@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    isnt WP against the geneva convention? (they dont give a shit about that convention either way)

    • merthyr1831@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Short answer yes, long answer is technically allowed against military targets when absolutely certain there are no civilians around.

      Considering its Israel, they’d be MORE likely to use it if there were civilians around.

          • Stuka@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I didn’t provide an opinion to be agreed with. White phosphorous is not covered by the Geneva Convention.

            It is mentioned in the convention on certain conventional weapons, but that really only says it can’t be used deliberately against civilians, which would already be illegal by the Geneva Convention, regardless of what the weapon is.

  • merthyr1831@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hezbollah, despite being massively outgunned, is already holding back over 100,000 IDF troops at the border far too north of Gaza to be of any use against the Gaza resistance.

    They’re being very effective, even without stepping foot into Israel - which is a real fear for the IDF as it’s the most well armed force that’s actively fighting them.

  • Hrrz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Bullshit. They just used ordinary smoke shells. There’s no evidence of anything in this post. Amnesty is deep in Russian microdicks pocket.