David 🦁📟 🇮🇱

EPA retired. Environmental Systems Analyst. Cornell. Union Shop Steward. Opinions are my own. Trolls are tasty. Zionist. I'm not Hotu

[David 🦁📟 🇮🇱 @InvisibleTL]

I love twitter. It's a safe quiet space where I can forget my ivy league environmental systems degree, 30 years EPA experience, time on the national hydrofracking workgroup and be lectured to by someone who just watched a YouTube video.

[GnasherJew®גנאשר @GnasherJew]

Added context about @melanie_ward a Scottish @UKLabour member of parliament.

She is highly biased as the former CEO @MedicalAidPal

“Medical Aid” for Palestinians was founded by a woman who was caught sharing KKK Neo Nazi propaganda entitled “CNN Goldman Sachs & the Zio matrix”

@MedicalAidPal also caught funding terrorist org the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. (PFLP)

Why is this woman a sitting MP and why is she allowed to terrorise Jews? @Keir_Starmer ?

[John Spencer @SpencerGuard]

It was either a disingenuous question or a grossly ignorant one. @SecWar It is NOT a war crime to target bridges, power infrastructure, telecommunications networks, or other infrastructure if they constitute lawful military objectives. The law of armed conflict does not prohibit attacks simply because an object is also used by civilians. The legal question is whether the object makes an effective contribution to military action and whether the attack complies with military necessity, distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions.

Bridges, electrical infrastructure, telecommunications systems, transportation networks, and other infrastructure have been targeted in many modern wars, including Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, and others. The U.S. military has long recognized that such infrastructure can constitute lawful military objectives when it contributes to an enemy's military operations or warfighting capacity.

That does not mean every strike against infrastructure is lawful. Each attack must be assessed based on the facts and the requirements of the law of armed conflict.

But to suggest that targeting bridges, electrical infrastructure, or telecommunications assets is inherently a war crime reflects either a gross misunderstanding of the law of war or an unprofessional misrepresentation of it.

[David 🦁📟 🇮🇱 @InvisibleTL]

@AJLooZ @itssvetbaby Sorry. UK can have an opinion when they develop anything edible. Beans on toast? Seriously 🤣

[Josh @_j0sh_a_]

Jews lived in their homeland - the land of Israel nonstop for over 3,000 years. However, they used many different calendars throughout the years.

One of the oldest Hebrew texts ever found is the Gazer Calendar - an agricultural calendar dated to around the 10th century BCE. During the second temple period, a common calendar was the Seleucid era calendar (מניין השטרות), which was used long after the Seleucid empire collapsed.

Yet, after the destruction of the temple, the Jews in the land of Israel began counting the years since the destruction of the temple - as shown in this lintel of the synagogue in Nabratein which is now displayed in the Israel Museum.

It is only since the 5th/6th century CE that we start seeing Jews counting the years since the creation of the world - the Hebrew calendar we use today.

[Nicole Lampert @nicolelampert]

Excellent from @LordIanAustin on yet ANOTHER debate on the evils of Israel:

As he says: ‘Over the last few years, Parliament has discussed Israel more than any other issue, not just any international issue, more than any domestic issue: more than the economy, unemployment, crime, the NHS.
‘The public out there look at Parliament and think this is utterly mad, utterly, utterly mad.’

Lord Ian blames Parliament for helping fuel antisemitism adding:

‘Does Parliament not understand that singling out the world's only Jewish state, holding its standards not applied to anywhere else, falsely accusing Israel of committing these terrible crimes? ‘This is bound to drive hostility towards people who are identified with Israel, which is the vast majority of the Jewish community, and I have to say this is why I believe Parliament is playing a large role in driving the explosion of anti-Semitism that we've seen on the streets of Britain.’

[Josh @_j0sh_a_]

🤦‍♂️ The BDS movement is a pathetic joke 😂

They published a PDF list of companies that should be boycotted.

Google is listed there as a “Pressure Target” - a company that should be boycotted when reasonable alternatives exist.

The tool they used to create this PDF?
Google Docs 😭😅

[Haviv Rettig Gur @havivrettiggur]

Amar'e's answer demonstrates that he does actually read those books. He's exactly right. You don't "read" the Jewish bookshelf. You sit with it, study it, test your abilities against it across the years. It's a mental landscape you can live a life in, immense and intimate at the same time. It's a textual world that believes in you, and so you believe in it. A simple humanizing pleasure away from the strobe lights and rage-baiting of our age.

[Claire @Claire_V0ltaire]

Nadav Lapid called for sanctions on Israel. He said we earned the hate. Well, Nadav, you can run to France, but they’ll catch you too.

How many times do we need to say this: you’ll never be good enough!

[GnasherJew®גנאשר @GnasherJew]

Steven Brown (username: Veritas17159263 and display name: Veritas) is an antisemitic troll. He seems to prefer targeting Jewish women.

[Mark Goldfeder @MarkGoldfeder]

The @nytimes has published many one-sided pieces on Israel since October 7, but this ridiculous piece by @Megankstack buries the central fact so completely that you have to excavate the article to find it:
Israel did not start any of this. Hope that helps.
Now let me explain:

[GnasherJew®גנאשר @GnasherJew]

Yesterday, we exposed Nesrin Zeaiter from the Global Sumud Flotilla, you know, the ones who are apparently trying to reach Gaza on boats to bring non-existent aid. We correctly called her a modern-day Nazi. She did not take it too well, as you can see from this screenshot (Nesrin, if the shoe fits, wear it Cindfuckingrella), and she has since doubled down by stating that Hitler (Yimakh shemo) was right about Jews. Please report her to the police in Hannover (@Polizei_H), or to the police in Lehrte, where she apparently lives. She is clearly a danger to Jews and needs to be investigated for hate speech.

[Haviv Rettig Gur @havivrettiggur]

Act surprised.

Massie knows exactly what he's doing. Everyone pretending that it's something else -- also know what they're doing.

[David 🦁📟 🇮🇱 @InvisibleTL]

@4thesakeofpeace @nicolelampert Good luck with that

[John Spencer @SpencerGuard]

ICYMI, my interview with Yossi Cohen (Director of Mossad 2016-2021) detailing the 2018 raid in Tehran that secured Iran's secret nuclear archive which showed that despite JCPOA they were develop a weapon.
https://t.co/cjXyoVfKo3

[Haviv Rettig Gur @havivrettiggur]

Peter Beinart, who apologized publicly for speaking in Tel Aviv and doesn't think the Jews should have a state, is lecturing Sam Harris about self-righteous certainty.

The irony: Beinart does in that piece exactly what Sam says they always do. He ignores the great big thing.

[John Spencer @SpencerGuard]

The lack of common sense shared standards when dealing with Israel never ceases to amaze me. Iran-backed Hezbollah, a terror army inside Lebanon, has fired over 1,000 rockets at northern Israel despite the April 2026 ceasefire. This again forced tens of thousands of Israeli citizens to evacuate their homes or live daily running to shelters. This is not Lebanon confronting Israel. It is a terror group that Lebanon, despite repeated promises and UN resolutions, does not control and cannot control. No other nation would accept this or be told to just take it. Israel responded by striking the terror organization. Then Iran launched 11 ballistic missiles directly at Israel, massively violating the ceasefire with the U.S. and Israel. Yet somehow Israel is the one constantly told to show restraint.

[David 🦁📟 🇮🇱 @InvisibleTL]

@mark_slapinski It's not ok to be a fucking moron. Try reading facts instead of propaganda https://t.co/YSMn6CU3VX

[Dr. Brian L. Cox @BrianCox_RLTW]

EVERYTHING you (actually) need to know about the use of white phosphorus pursuant to the law of armed conflict.

Spoiler alert: This claim by @MarioNawfal here that "international law bans this near civilians" is ... false.

Willy Pete is trending yet again because @Israel stands accused of utilizing it in armed conflict, this time (again) in southern #Lebanon.

A "visual investigation" published @nytimes on the weekend by Sanjana Varghese (@sanjanamv) says in the headline: What Visual Evidence Tells Us About Israel’s Use of White Phosphorus in Lebanon (https://t.co/F4ZfBNDCVu).

Then a story @NPR by Stephan Bisaha (@SteveBisaha) essentially reiterates the NYT article while attempting to provide a bit of additional context (https://t.co/uTlGsq1Pk9).

Both news articles present some form of the false claim articulated by Nawfal that "international law bans" the use of WP "near civilians." Let's correct the record & counter rampant #legaldisinformation related to the use of white phosphorus once & for all by having a look at what international law actually says, shall we?

1. White phosphorus (WP) munitions do NOT meet the definition for "incendiary weapons" pursuant to Protocol III (P III) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). This is important to clarify because it relates directly to the "banned near civilians" falsehood.

If you look up P III, CCW, you'll notice Article 1 quite helpfully establishes definitions. That provision defines incendiary weapons 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" (pic 1).

Bold font is added to "primarily designed" because this is the operative text that excludes WP from this definition. Yes WP does set fire to objects and cause burn injury to persons, but it is not primarily designed to do so. Therefore, it does not qualify as an incendiary weapon for purposes of P III, CCW.

And in case of doubt, Article 1 also helpfully continues by clarifying what this definition does not include: "Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems" (also pic 1). Just to be clear, then, WP is excluded because it is a smoke munition with incidental incendiary effects. Fwiw, the DoD Law of War Manual explicitly (and correctly) names WP as an exclusion for this reason (pic 2).

So, the first thing you need to know about the use of WP pursuant to #LOAC is that it does not qualify as an "incendiary weapon", despite its incidental incendiary effects. That leads us to the next main point.

2. International law does not ban the use of WP "near civilians." This widespread misperception is actually a misinterpretation of P III, CCW (see point #1, above).

If we continue reading in that CCW protocol, we see that Article 2 establishes, "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" (pic 3). It also continues by permitting such an attack "by means of incendiary weapons other than aerial-delivered munitions" if certain (redundant) precautions are taken.

Still, let's focus on the outright prohibition against using incendiary weapons a military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons component since this doesn't have an exception and it closely resembles the popular "banned near civilians" (mis)perception.

This "ban" doesn't apply to the current context for two very specific reasons.

First, 🇮🇱 hasn't ratified P III, CCW so this agreement doesn't apply as a matter of conventional law. And it's been ratified by 115 countries, which does not constitute extensive & virtually uniform state practice (with an accompanying opinio juris) - so an assertion that P III, CCW is customary isn't exactly convincing.

Second, and most important of all ... WHITE PHOSPHORUS MUNITIONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFITION OF INCENDIARY WEAPONS. If there's any confusion about this fact, see point # 1 above.

Ok. If the prohibition against making "any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons" only applies to incendiary weapons, and WP doesn't qualify as an incendiary weapon, then as a matter of logic (and law) the "ban" doesn't apply to WP.

So, there is nothing special about WP that prohibits its use "near civilians". If it's going to be used "near civilians," standard LOAC rules apply. That's it.

Ah, but there are a few other misperceptions regarding WP it's helpful to clear up while we're at it ... so let's do that as well.

3. WP does not qualify as a chemical weapon pursuant to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). This misperception comes up from time to time, so we may as well go ahead & address it now.

See, the NPR story is correct to note that WP "is a solid, waxy chemical that ignites instantly when combined with oxygen." Yes, it's a chemical, and it is used as a weapon - but that doesn't make it a "chemical weapon."

That NPR story goes on to claim the CWC "designates white phosphorus an incendiary agent rather than a chemical weapon." This isn't accurate, as the CWC doesn't designate any agent as "incendiary."

What CWC does do is it defines what a "chemical weapon" is for purposes of this treaty. In relevant part, Article II(1)(b) defines chemical weapons as, "Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified" in the preceding provision (art. II(1)(a) (not pictured).

Similar to the definition for incendiary weapons, WP is excluded from the definition for chemical weapons because of the "specifically designed" provision ("primarily designed" for P III, CCW). WP is a "chemical" and it can cause death or other harm, but it is not specifically designed to do so through the toxic properties of specified toxic chemicals.

It seems Bisaha (NPR journo) gets P III, CCW & CWC mixed up by claiming CWC "designates white phosphorus an incendiary agent rather than a chemical weapon." Actually, CWC doesn't designate anything as an "incendiary agent" - it merely defines "chemical weapons" for purposes of that treaty and then it's up to the reader to exclude everything else that doesn't so qualify. Even so, P III, CCW does NOT designate WP as an "incendiary agent" to begin with for reasons addressed above.

That confusion is compounded when the NPR news article goes on to claim that the "Chemical Weapons Convention does prohibit such incendiary agents from being used in civilian areas, and that is what" @hrw & @amnesty "have accused Israel of doing."

Actually, CWC bans the use of all (actual) chemical weapons - regardless of proximity to civilians. P III, CCW prohibits the use of incendiary agents when directed against military objectives "located within a concentration of civilians" ... but WP doesn't qualify as an incendiary weapon for those purposes anyway.

Alright, that takes care of the "chemical weapon" nonsense. Let's address 2 more points rather briefly while we're at it.

4. The use of explosive weapons in populated areas is not prohibited as a matter of international law. WP qualifies as an explosive weapon, and there was a political declaration signed by a number of countries (wisely, not 🇮🇱) that was finalized in June 2022 that addresses the use of explosive weapons in populated areas (#EWIPA).

But this political declaration is not a binding legal instrument and it doesn't prohibit the use of explosive weapons in populated areas to begin with.

The EWIPA political declaration warrants mentioning because a number of civil society actors seem to delude themselves & everyone else by pretending EWIPA is binding and it does severely restrict the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

It isn't, and it does not. EWIPA is essentially a non-factor - and it certainly doesn't prohibit @IDF from utilizing WP even in populated areas.

5. WP isn't even prohibited against enemy personnel. Yes, it is primarily used as a signal, smoke, or obscuring agent. But that doesn't mean it can't be used against the enemy as well.

Fwiw yet again, the DoD Law of War Manual presents in a footnote a description of what is sometimes colloquially referred to as a "shake and bake mission" (pic 4). This tactic essentially involves firing WP munitions at enemy troops behind cover to "flush them out" and then utilizing high explosive weapons to "take them out" (also pic 4).

This is useful to keep in mind because you'll often hear a claim that using WP is "lawful" only if it is used for signal, smoke, or obscuring purposes but not if it's used against enemy personnel or near civilians. Both claims are false - WP can be used against enemy personnel and in/near areas populated with civilians.

In practice, we just apply standard LOAC rules unless we're advising a country with a more restrictive interpretation for the use of WP. Enhanced restrictions are fine, of course, but they are not required as a matter of international law.

So, if we return to the NYT story, here is one major claim presented therein in relation to WP & LOAC: "Often deployed by militaries to create fires and smoke screens during combat, white phosphorus is not illegal in itself, but deploying it deliberately against civilians or in an area populated by civilians violates the international laws of war."

Turns out, the bold text is accurate - but the italicized text is not. Unfortunately, it is the italicized part that features prominently in public discourse - including a variation thereof presented in the QTd post.

Returning to the NYT story, it also presents "expert" commentary from Wim Zwijnenburg (@wammezz) claiming: "These munitions are not precision weapons, and they can’t make a distinction between civilians and the military," Mr. Zwijnenburg said. "It might not be a banned weapon, but we know that militaries don’t always use it as intended."

The only accurate component of this commentary is that WP isn't a banned weapon. That is, WP can be employed as a precision-guided munition, it can be used in a way that distinguishes between civilians & belligerents, and there is no prohibition regarding the "intended" use of WP.

Once again, we just apply standard LOAC rules in practice - WP isn't inherently special or restricted.

Alright, that's pretty much EVERYTHING you need to know regarding the use of WP pursuant to LOAC.

And that leaves the question: why Israel? Why is it we only really hear about the use of WP when some NGO publishes a report regarding the IDF using it or a media report determines the IDF utilized WP?

I mean, both news stories (NYT & NPR) acknowledge @DeptofWar is known to have used WP before. The NYT story indicates both 🇷🇺 & 🇺🇦 likely have as well. When it was reported 🇺🇸 used WP in the counter-ISIL campaign, it made news for a minute - but for the most part it was a nothingburger. There was certainly no impassioned speech in Congress by the likes of @RepRashida demanding that 🇺🇸 "must end its complicity in these war crimes" (https://t.co/T3zlaw1MGn).

So, I ask again. Why Israel?

Of course, by now we all know the answer. No Jews, no news.

The use of WP on the battlefield isn't actually news at all, no matter who uses it. But if there's yet another excuse to paint the Joooos as criminals, even if it involves fundamentally misrepresenting international law to do so, doctrine & reality become irrelevant.

The anti-Israel, anti-West, pro-terrorist crowd is always on the hunt for a reason to blame Israel. The purported use of white phosphorus "near civilians" is merely one of the most recent excuses for doing so.

[UN Watch @UNWatch]

The UN’s permanent inquiry targeting Israel just released its latest report. It equates Israeli civilians with Hamas terrorists, relies on flawed data, and applies double standards throughout.

Full legal analysis: https://t.co/fqBMdgkPPd

See below 🧵 for 14 detailed flaws.

[Hillel Neuer @HillelNeuer]

BREAKING: The UN’s permanent inquiry targeting Israel just released its new report, tainted by selective evidence, double standards, disregard for due process, and conclusions that appear predetermined from the outset.

Our detailed legal analysis: https://t.co/CWd8NEqGXK

[Haviv Rettig Gur @havivrettiggur]

This is true. But it doesn't matter.

No one is actually trying to convince anyone here. It's a vocabulary for organizing hatred as a substitute for accountability and responsibility.

Massie isn't really commemorating the death of US servicemembers. He's trying to make all politics -- every problem and dysfunction and discomfort in American public life -- about the Jews. Sorry, about Israel. Which is completely different for as long as it needs to be to spread its tentacles in the culture.

This happened before. In the Arab world as it awakened from the fall of empire.

After centuries of corrupt and debilitating Ottoman rule and decades under European imperial rule, the Arabs had finally emerged from the shackles of foreign government. Decolonization and the retreat of empire was an opportunity to build something new and grand and beautiful.

But they never seized the opportunity. They instead fell back on a politics of grievance, of tyrannical secular nationalists competing with tyrannical religious extremists for who could blame everyone else for every problem -- and chief among them, of course, the Jews.

Incidentally, the early Arab governments also insisted they weren't against Jews, only against Israel and Zionism...right up until every last Jew was made to flee.

In Iraq, Jews faced violence and discriminatory laws. In Morocco pogroms. In place after place, regimes told their populations that the problem was the Jews -- sorry, Zionists -- with their conspiratorial and nefarious ways.

And once all politics had organized around one target of blame, there was no space left for accountability, for responsibility, for anything better than the Nassers, Qaddafis, Imam Yahyas, Assads and even the Ben Bellas and Boumedienes -- the heroes of Algerian liberation who subsequently turned Algeria into a corrupt and impoverished dictatorship.

It's not a new trick. It's the oldest trick in the book. It's always, always a grift, and always a harbinger of decline and failure.

Massie's obsession with ahistorical lies about Israel, like Nasser's and Qaddafi's and all the rest, isn't a war on Israel. It's a war on America.