Security

Israeli Chemical 'Atrocities' in Gaza? Not So Fast

Reporters and bloggers are fiercely engaged in discussions over Israel’s alleged use of white phosphorus artillery shells in Gaza. "Atrocities!" the usual suspects shout — with little-to-no-evidence to back up their cries. The fact is, there are both legitimate and illegitimate uses for white phosphorous rounds. And right now, we don’t know what the Israelis […]

6a00d83451b39369e2010536b65784970c8Reporters and bloggers are fiercely engaged in discussions over Israel's alleged use of white phosphorus artillery shells in Gaza. "Atrocities!" the usual suspects shout -- with little-to-no-evidence to back up their cries. The fact is, there are both legitimate and illegitimate uses for white phosphorous rounds. And right now, we don't know what the Israelis did with those munitions.

Smart money is that this is an American-designed M825A1 White Phosphorus 155-mm artillery round, designed to place quick or immediate smoke on a target for either screening enemy forces or for marking a target for further artillery bombardments. It can also be used (incorrectly) as a device to flush combatants or noncombatants out of an urban area, as the white phosphorus fumes are noxious and slightly toxic. During the Fallujah campaign in 2005, U.S. artillery units did this -- and wrote about it afterward. The question being debated is, are the Israelis (and the U.S. troops) deliberately using incendiary chemical weapons to indiscriminately burn and maim civilians? I think it's unlikely.

As I noted during the Fallujah fight, the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons outlines what is and what is not an incendiary device.

*"Incendiary weapon" means 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. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.

(

*__b) Incendiary weapons do not include: __
*__
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signaling systems;__(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

  • [emphasis mine]It's a fine line, but pretty clear that WP munitions are not, primarily, incendiary weapons; they do have "incidental incendiary effects."

With the media blackout over Gaza, detailed knowledge of what the Israelis are doing is in short supply. Maybe they're targeting Hamas fighters with WP; maybe they're putting up a quick screen of smoke between Hamas snipers/anti-tank gunners and their forces; maybe they're marking targets for further artillery strikes. Based on the evidence available and lacking any formal statement from the Israeli government, it appears likely that the use of WP munitions in Gaza is legitimate. However, the use of WP munitions in an urban setting continues to be a controversial tactic, given the potential impact on civilians and their homes. As one of my more learned colleagues noted, the repulsion here is not that noncombatants become casualties during war, it's that nations make war on each other for the wrong reasons.

[Photo: Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty Images]

ALSO: