Mads Gilbert and Fosse:
We enjoyed our celebrity while it lasted!
Many thanks to the Baron from the Gates of Vienna for sending this extensive analysis report on the use of phospherus munitions during Operation Cast Lead, in last year’s fighting between Hamas and Israel. The Jewish state has been smeared and raked over the coals by many of the so called “human rights” organizations and by other pro-Palestinian NGO’s for supposedly targeting the civilian population in Gaza.
If anyone understands Israeli ethics they know automatically that that couldn’t have been the case, and surprise, (not that the TT is itself surprised) another in depth university driven study finds that the charges leveled at Israel for “illegal” phosphorus munition use, were made up entirely from whole cloth. Israel strictly adhered to the international rule of law that governs the use of such munitions.
The Tundra Tabloids reported extensively on this pair of Norwegian doctors who were flown to Gaza on the Norwegian government’s own expense, whose primary purpose, according to the TT’s own analysis of the situation, was to disseminate Palestinian propaganda while offering medical assistance to needy people caught in the cross fire.
Remember folks, these are two radical lefty westerners who worked out of the Shiffa hospital, in during which time the Hamas had built its command center in its basement. They NEVER once mentioned that fact, nor of the other multiple instances where Hamas created the very damage they were accusing Israel of. These two Norwegian doctors stink like the rotten corpses they blamed Israel for. KGS
NOTE: While this study does not approve of the use of white phospherus projectiles, it finds Israel’s use of them however, to be in full accordance with international law.
ISRAEL AND WHITE PHOSPHORUS DURING OPERATION CAST LEAD: A CASE STUDY IN ADHERENCE TO INADEQUATE HUMANITARIAN LAWS
Gaza has been embroiled in countless conflicts over thousands of years. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been continuous for over a century, alternating between occasional periods of tense calm and far more frequent periods of violence and war. At the end of December 2008, after years of Israeli attacks targeting Gaza-based members of Hamas and Hamas attacks targeting Israel’s military and civilian population, the Israeli military entered Gaza for a large scale operation aimed at removing Hamas as a threat to Israel. First as speculation, and then as a fact admitted by Israel, it was shown that Israel used white phosphorus as a part of its operations in Gaza. 
White phosphorus is a chemical that was first produced in 1669. It has been used for numerous purposes since at least the early 20th century, White phosphorus’s dual nature, as both a tactically useful and relatively safe obscurant and illuminant, and as a deadly and destructive incendiary, has made it a controversial substance.
including as an anti-personnel weapon, an incendiary, a smoke-producing obscurant, and a light-producing illuminant.
The Hamas organization in Gaza and numerous non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) and media outlets have announced their conclusion that Israel’s use of white phosphorus in Gaza was a war crime in violation of multiple international humanitarian laws aimed at reducing human suffering and civilian casualties. The Israeli government and military have adamantly insisted that Israel’s use of white phosphorus was wholly consistent with international humanitarian law.
However, there has not been an objective non-biased systematic analysis of the implicated international humanitarian laws and their relevance to Israel’s use of white phosphorus in Gaza. Without this type of analysis, any useful conclusion about the legality of Israel’s use of white phosphorus in Gaza is problematic. But more importantly, Israel’s use of white phosphorus in Gaza provides a useful case study of the inadequacy of international humanitarian law and the consequences of this inadequacy. This article aims to systematically analyze Israel’s adherence to the international humanitarian laws relevant to the use of white phosphorus in war.
Section II lays out a brief factual background of the properties of white phosphorus, the history of military uses of white phosphorus, and the history of the recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict leading up to Israel’s operations in Gaza from late December 2008 to mid January 2009 (the “Gaza Conflict”). Section III analyzes the international humanitarian law relevant to Israel’s use of white phosphorus in Gaza. It applies that law to the evidence of Israel’s white phosphorus use during the Gaza Conflict and concludes that Israel made a realistic and earnest attempt to follow international humanitarian law relevant to the use of white phosphorus.
Section IV sets forth the position that an international law ban on all uses of white phosphorus munitions is needed. This section will conclude that because the use of white phosphorus has two major consequences not compatible with humanitarian morals, a White Phosphorus Convention Conference should be immediately convened, and a multilateral treaty prohibiting all military uses of white phosphorus should be drafted.
Israel’s use of white phosphorus in its Gaza offensive from December 2008 to January 2009 was not illegal under international humanitarian law. Israel’s use of white phosphorus was legal under the Geneva Gas Protocol, the CWC, Protocol III of the CCW, and the fundamental international humanitarian rules as found in the GCIV and customary international humanitarian law norms. Although not a signatory to many of the above treaties, Israel followed the rules listed therein. All of the evidence of civilian casualties and injuries caused by Israel’s white phosphorus use is consistent with casualties resulting from errant, mistaken, and incidental harm caused by white phosphorus used legally as an obscurant.
However, while the world has been focused on Israel’s failure to further limit civilian casualties during the Gaza Conflict, the failure of the international legal community to address the dangers of white phosphorus has been largely ignored. Although Israel cannot be faulted for not following laws that should exist, but do not, the international legal community can be faulted for not having already recognized this serious gap in international humanitarian law and taken immediate remedial measures. White phosphorus has many uses, some of them quite benign, but the possibility of conflict escalation from a conventional war to an unconventional war, and the lingering effects of white phosphorus even when white phosphorus is used wholly within the bounds of existing international humanitarian law, shows the international legal community has not yet properly addressed this serious issue.
The failure of international humanitarian laws to prohibit behavior that is incompatible with international humanitarian principles, morals, and goals is a major flaw in a typically comprehensive system. Hopefully, a White Phosphorus Convention Conference will be convened in the near future. A White Phosphorus Convention, completely banning the use of white phosphorus in military conflicts would be a necessary, and welcome, step towards the goal of eliminating, as much as possible, incidental pain and suffering of civilian populations during wartime.