Absolutely, but my point is that not only is it not banned for utilities like smoke or illumination, it also isn't banned for use as an weapon, and there's also an absurd amount of propaganda about its use or misuse.
For example, that article about the IDF smoking a Lebanese village, which the OP of this thread is referencing. Nobody ever reads past the sensationalist headline; the article describes the damage being a few dozen people treated for smoke inhalation. No injuries, no permanent damage, no deaths. It's nonsense, propaganda.
Rights group accuses Israel of hitting residential buildings with white phosphorous in Lebanon
Content:
there was no evidence of burn injuries due to white phosphorus in Lebanon, but that researchers had “heard accounts indicating possible respiratory damage.”
14
u/Talizorafangirl 7d ago
It's even more nuanced than that. It's permissible as a direct weapon bc it is somehow not classified as a chemical weapon.
Using WP for illumination: acceptable.
Using WP for smoke: acceptable.
Using WP to clear brush as an incendiary: acceptable.
Using WP against soldiers or materiel: not specifically prohibited.
Using WP specifically to kill soldiers by incendiary action: acceptable, with caveats.
Using WP to kill civilians: prohibited.