I don't think armour piercing bombs are banned. They are in frequent use.

I can't find a reference for DIME being banned either. Banned by whom?

As for the white phosphorus--it's routinely used in smoke rounds because it produces multi-spectral smoke.

@DJClayworth using AP rounds on soldiers are, but that is a moot point, since there are no palestinian soldiers, per se. They are all either civilians (illegal in any case to shoot) or unlawful combatants (not as well protected by the geneva convention) - it gets hard to argue the fine points on legality of munition use. What is banned is the level of civilian casualities - but it is the U.N: It's laws are advisory, at best.

@StianYttervik Thank you. You make exactly my point. It's not the weapons that are banned, but use of weapons (any weapons) on civilians disproportionately.

@DJClayworth "Banned by whom?" This was my first question. My second question was, "Why do so many people think that there are international laws?"

@RonJohn That the USA can "veto" resolutions for enforcement on the security council doesn't mean the law doesn't exist. You wouldn't argue that there is no criminal law, because the governor can pardon you -- right?

"That the USA can "veto" resolutions for enforcement on the security council doesn't mean the law doesn't exist." What international laws? By residing in a county, one tacitly agrees (unless you're a rebel) to obey codified laws which say, "if you do X, the State will do Y to you, by force of arms if necessary." Where are those international laws?

In the treaties and conventions acknowledged by the ratifying party.

@RonJohn You don't have to ratify International Law to be subject to it. The way it's supposed to work, is that the ratifying states keep you in line. Whether or not a literal criminal that breaks the law agrees with it is aside from the fact. For example, you can be found guilty of a grave violation to the Geneva Convention for taking hostages. Signatories are obligated to penalize you for that.

"the ratifying states keep you in line." If the treaty is written that way, and if the ratifying states are motivated.

OP, you've used the tag Law, which, by its description, you should also add the country or organizations whose laws are being broken. When you ask "are these weapons banned by international law" you've limited it (by tag) to Palestine and Israel. Do you mean the UN, or "some unspecified random group of countries"?

@CGCampbell I've moved this discussion to law.stackexchange.com, because the argument you're making -- while I personally don't find it valid -- should have a home on the StackExchange network.

@RonJohn Same for you.

this was done in good faith, please feel free to provide a researched answer on it or to continue the conversation there. I honestly don't know. I have a strong feeling you're wrong from what I've read. But this is not my forte. law.stackexchange.com/q/66527/218

Also if you want the citation removed from the quote feel free to strip it out.