23

According to this graphic from the Facebook group zionistlies,

List of three possibly banned weapons

The Israeli army uses 3 internationally banned weapons in its military aggression against the unarmed civilian population of Palestine.

Israel used Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME). DIME weapons spread inert metal atoms that penetrate the human body and are difficult to get out of human tissue.

The second internationally banned weapon used by Israel is armor piercing bombs.

The third internationally prohibited weapon used by Israel is white phosphorous, which mixes with oxygen to form a transparent wax and causes fires and thick, white smoke. When the human body is exposed to white phosphorus it burns the skin and the flesh; only the bones remain.

The use of such banned weapons against humans is a flagrant violation of international law, especially the fourth Geneva convention.

Has Israel used these weapons in Palestine,

  • Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME)
  • armor piercing bombs
  • white phosphorous

And are these weapons banned by international law?

CGCampbell
  • 117
  • 7
Evan Carroll
  • 28,401
  • 42
  • 129
  • 239
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/126077/discussion-on-question-by-user157251-has-israel-used-banned-weapons-against-the). –  Jun 04 '21 at 14:35

1 Answers1

54

This graphics is a mess, but is partially correct.

Wikipedia says about DIME

has a relatively small but effective blast radius

It is intended to limit the distance at which the explosion causes damage

And brings Palestinian claims about its usage, but I couldn't find any other hard proofs besides those few claims.

The Israeli Army related forum Fresh mentions the theoretical ability to launch DIME using GBU-39 smart bombs.

globalsecurity.org brings more technical details.

There seems to be concerns about the materials being carcinogenic and about hard to treat wounds, but they are not banned

It's no more illegal than normal blast-and-shrapnel weapons, but it is a mystery.

The results of using this bomb are horrible, but this is a weapon meant to kill but on the other side tries to minimize collateral damage.

I suppose that by "armor piercing bombs" they meant depleted uranium armor piercing shells, those are using the high mass of uranium as a better way to penetrate armored vehicles. There is no explosion (and certainly no nuclear explosion) but the material itself might (is?) have health hazards but mainly to the people operating it and less to people being hit, again this is a shell designed to kill and any health issues are related to third parties.

There are Palestinian claims about depleted uranium shell usage in Gaza. The UN didn't find evidence for usage even in Lebanon where it makes more sense to use armor piercing shells, while in Gaza the fighting is against "soft targets".

Depleted Uranium weapons are not banned although there are intentions to have treaties against their usage.

White phosphorous can have multiple uses, it can be used directly against people, as an incendiary weapon, as a smoke bomb but also as long lasting illumination or marking. Israel used the latter two during operation Cast-Lead in 2009. Translation from the Hebrew article

Cast Lead | The IDF investigates why a reserve force fired 20 phosphorus bombs at a residential neighborhood in the Gaza Strip

But due to criticism the IDF stopped using it. Translation from the Hebrew article

During Operation Cast Lead, international criticism of Israel intensified due to its use of phosphorus bombs in populated areas. Contact of a person with white phosphorus causes severe burns. The IDF did not deny that they used bombs containing phosphorus in cast lead, but said that they did so in accordance with the law and not in populated areas, but in open areas. However, in light of the criticism, during the operation, senior military officials ordered to stop the use of these bombs.

The status of the weapon is complex, it's existence is not banned but it shouldn't be used against people.

Community
  • 1
Rsf
  • 2,844
  • 1
  • 12
  • 20
  • 1
    Thank you for the research you have done. Does this mean that the claims like "[they] spread inert metal atoms", and "only the bones remain" are unsubstantiated? – Jordy Jun 03 '21 at 13:03
  • 3
    "[they] spread inert metal atoms" like shrapnel? Similarly bullets, although I wouldn't call lead "inert" – Caleth Jun 03 '21 at 13:58
  • 24
    I couldn't find any sources about that, but does it matter? a normal, "standard", legal, bomb won't leave much of you either – Rsf Jun 03 '21 at 16:34
  • 15
    depleted uranium is toxic and harmful if you breathe the dust. But it is also so insanely dense that it doesn't really form "dust". If you are in a situation where you are getting shot at, the uranium toxicity is little concern. I'd be more worried about its momentum. – Stian Jun 03 '21 at 21:42
  • 2
    The claim of DIMEs being banned may originate from this note by the Al-Haq organization: https://www.alhaq.org/advocacy/6622.html According to this, DIME are banned under Protocol 1 of the "Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons", which prohibits the use of fragments which "escape detection by X-Rays" and has been signed by Israel. Whether the fragments of DIMEs actually escape X-Ray detection, and whether they are being used by Israel, I don't know. But this might be the origin of the claim. – EpicBroccoli Jun 04 '21 at 12:24
  • Conversation about uranium [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/126078/discussion-on-answer-by-rsf-has-israel-used-banned-weapons-against-the-populatio). –  Jun 04 '21 at 14:48
  • 1
    And of course, there is no such thing as a "banned weapon". There are treaties that state signatory states aren't supposed to use certain weapons, but those are only valid if the country is a signatory and has ratified that treaty. – jwenting Jun 04 '21 at 15:50
  • @jwenting: I guess a criterion might be whether a state or an individual can be prosecuted in one of the international courts for use of / ordering the use of such weapons, provided that the accuser/plaintiff has standing to put such a procedure in motion. In which case it would not matter that much whether the state user of those weapons made them illegal under its own law or not. – einpoklum Jun 04 '21 at 17:17
  • @jwenting I've also tried to move that conversation to Law.StackExchange since there seems to be a gigantic disagreement about how International Law works, and we're talking past each other on it. https://law.stackexchange.com/q/66527/218 – Evan Carroll Jun 04 '21 at 20:23
  • 8
    -1. This answer is referencing things done in 2009 and which the IDF has said it no longer uses - why? Furthermore, this answer refutes the main points of the graphic with respect to the legality and use of these weapons in its text and then concludes "the graphic is partially correct." – NoseKnowsAll Jun 05 '21 at 00:19
  • @Rsf: you shouldn't restrict the category "armor piercing" bombs to those using depleted uranium. Many such bombs - tank killer - types use shaped charges, which accelerate metals - often copper - in jets of extremely high velocity, which can penetrate many inches of armor. In the latest Gaza massacre, we saw bombs like we never saw before, taking down entire buildings. This is new technology, and some tech bystanders are wondering if these bombs are effective because they use shaped charges. – ttonon Jun 05 '21 at 00:45
  • 4
    @ttonon Shaped charges are 100% legal with no issues whatsoever. Depleted uranium is at least *controversial* in some quarters; shaped charges are not. (And shaped charges aren't at all necessary to take down a building. Bombs capable of leveling a high-rise have existed for many decades.) – cpast Jun 05 '21 at 03:25
  • 13
    Based on the represented evidence, the conclusion that the graphic is "partially correct" seems generous. 1) There is no proof of usage of DIME, and it's not banned 2) There are claims, but no evidence, for usage of uranium armor piercing shells, and it's not banned 3) Only specific usage of white phosphor is banned, it's not clear if it was (intentionally) used in the banned way, and it's not used anymore. Given that 2 of the claims are completely wrong, and one is at least misleading, I think a more accurate summary would be that the graphic is mostly wrong. – tim Jun 05 '21 at 06:33
  • One implication that seems to be made here is "it ain't banned even if there are horrific effects because it's meant to, you know, kill", which isn't the case. Hollow-point for example, *specifically* used by law enforcement, illegal in war. – obscurans Jun 05 '21 at 10:19
  • @NoseKnowsAll: You can't really trust what IDF says about IDF using banned weapons, though, can you? They already tried to claim that they didn't use white phosphorous in 2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions#Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict). – Eric Duminil Jun 05 '21 at 11:55
  • 1
    The linked page about Depleted Uranium Health hazard is not correct. It is the usual red herring used by the US Military. It concentrates the attention on radioactivity and overlooks chemical toxicity. DU is a heavy metal and like other heavy metals when it is absorbed in micro particles is toxic. It is something analogous to Lead poisoning (and Lead which is not radioactive). – FluidCode Jun 05 '21 at 15:14
  • 1
    @FluidCode you might be right, but i don't see any reason for using DU shells in Gaza, so the whole point is meaningless. There is no proof for using them beyond some vague claims – Rsf Jun 05 '21 at 17:07
  • @NoseKnowsAll there is no date on the graphics nor reference to certain operation, as for WP 2009 is when it was stopped being in use, something the Palestinians don't argue about – Rsf Jun 05 '21 at 17:46
  • 3
    So it seems the answer is no. – AbraCadaver Jun 05 '21 at 21:06
  • @einpoklum of course that only has any standing if all parties involved recognise that court, which is yet other international treaties that need to be ratified. – jwenting Jun 07 '21 at 07:28
  • @FluidCode the radioactivity is the usual BS argument against DU rounds, hence the US military correctly addressing that one in their counterarguments. It's a moot point of course, as if you're hit by one you're not going to care about what killed you, heavy metal toxicity, fire, or the toxins in your own tank that get released when it burns. – jwenting Jun 07 '21 at 07:30
  • @jwenting The US Military address the adioactivity argument because they want to turn a blind eye on the toxicity argument and the problem is not how people are killed in battle. In Italy after they tested the rounds in a firing range in Sardinia there was a spike of cancer cases among sheep herders who entered the area when there were no ongoing tests. In Bosnia was reported a spike in the cancer cases among the soldiers who cleaned up what was left by US bombing. – FluidCode Jun 09 '21 at 10:48