Israel, white phosphorus, and the war in Gaza

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I haven't written anything, or much, on Israel's military action in Gaza, but my quick view is this: While Israel does indeed have a right to defend itself, and while there is often good reason to defend itself, not least against enemies who want it wiped off the face of the earth, I'm just not sure that a heavy-handed military operation including both air strikes and a ground campaign is the best way to achieve its objectives.

Back in 2006, I wrote extensively about Israel's brief war against Hezbollah, initially supporting Israel. My views, which were actually quite nuanced, put me at odds with some of my liberal/progressive friends and aroused some opposition from readers. I ended up wondering at the tragedy of it all and thinking that Israel had simply gone too far and that the solution was to be found in diplomacy, not violence.

I continue to be a supporter of Israel, if a conditional one, but it has seemed to me that the current war in Gaza is, once more, too much. Israel pulled its remaining ground forces out today, but the fighting continues and, needless to say, the death toll has been disturbingly asymmetrical: 13 Israelis, more than 1,300 Palestinians.

How does this advance Israel's interests? How does it bring Israel any closer to its objectives? How does it bring peace, lasting peace, any closer? Surely there is some better way for Israel to isolate and disempower its enemies in Hamas. Instead of acting militarily, which, as here, is bound to alienate moderate Palestinians still further, and to lead to massive civilian casualties, why not more aggressively use the levers of soft power to promote progress in the region and with respect to Israeli security? I understand the desire to fight back, with vengeance, against those who want you wiped off the face of the earth, but, as ironic as it may be, the best way to fight back is not to fight back in the conventional way.

It does not help matters at all that the Israeli military may have "used white phosphorous weapons illegally during the Gaza war," as some "some non-governmental organizations" are suggesting:

A military spokesman in Tel Aviv said such weapons were not prohibited under international law if they were used to create smoke-screens or for marking battlefield areas. The spokesman said Israel only used legal weapons.

Human rights groups are concerned about the Israeli use of white phosphorous, illegal if used against civilians, because it can burn flesh like a kind of napalm.

Despite the military's denials, an investigation is underway:

The Israeli spokesman said: “in response to the claims of non-governmental organizations and claims in the foreign press relating to the use of phosphorous weapons, and in order to remove any ambiguity, an investigative team has been established in the Southern Command to look into the issue.”

The spokesman said the investigation was first announced on Jan. 16 and was repeated on Wednesday after the newspaper Haaretz reported that the military was “investigating whether a reserve paratroops brigade made improper use of phosphorus shells during the fighting in Gaza.”

I wrote extensively about white phosphorus back in 2005, when reports broke that the U.S. military had used it in Fallujah (against insurgents, but not civilians, it claimed, after initial denials):

• Has the U.S. used chemical weapons in Iraq?
• Phosphorus in Fallujah
• Pentagon calls white phosphorus a chemical weapon
• What is white phosphorus?

These posts aroused a good deal of indignation from some readers who were critical not of the U.S. military but of me for writing about it. But I stand by my conclusion:

So legally, yes, there might not be a problem. And, indeed, WP may be a useful and legitimate "weapon" when used indirectly on enemy targets -- whether as a smoke-screening agent or as a psychological weapon. But what if WP is used so that the "incendiary effect" becomes primary? Is it then still useful? Perhaps. Legitimate? Maybe (since the U.S. isn't a signatory to Protocol III). But oral? There's the big question.

Pentagon spokesman Col. Barry Venable has admitted that the U.S. used WP as "an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," according to the BBC. He stressed that it isn't a chemical weapon, that it's merely a conventional weapon, and that it's not "outlawed or illegal".

Again, fair enough. But is that where the story ends? For some, yes. The U.S. used it, but it's not a chemical weapon, its use is not prohibited by treaty, and it may be a useful agent on the battlefield -- where, let us not forget, our troops' lives are at risk.

But I come back to this: What message does the use of WP send to those whose hearts and minds the U.S. is trying to win over? After all, they're not interested in whether or not WP is a chemical weapon by definition or whether or not the U.S. is a signatory to this or that convention or protocol or whatever. They're not interested in the chemistry of WP or its deployment on the battlefield as a smoke-screening agent. Rather, they're interested in how the U.S. conducts itself in a war of its own making as it attempts to spread freedom and democracy around the world, in speech if not always in deed.

And does the same not apply to Israel's use of WP in Gaza? Whether it was done "legally" or not, what message does its use send? How does it help win over Palestinian hearts and minds? How does it weaken Hamas' hold on the region? How does it prevent Hamas from winning the PR war against Israel?

For more on this, including Israel's use of WP, see Capt. Fogg's excellent post from earlier this month:

Hamas' strategy is to provoke Israel into vicious insanity -- and it works. As they haven't the manpower or the weapons for anything but barbaric terrorism against innocent civilians, they depend on getting sympathy through the sacrifice of their own innocent citizens -- and it works and as long as it works, they're not going to fix it.

I certainly do not defend Hamas, or Hezbollah, and my conditional support for Israel, my view that it has a right to defend itself, remains. But Israel is also partly responsible for the "vicious insanity" in the region, and its use of WP only contributes to the problem.