ON THE 10th of January 2009, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a press release demanding the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) "stop using white phosphorus (WP) in military operations in densely populated areas of Gaza".

The organisation explained that white phosphorous had a significant incendiary effect that could burn civilians and set structures on fire. 

"The potential for harm to civilians is magnified by Gaza's high population density, among the highest in the world. HRW believes that the use of white phosphorus in densely populated areas of Gaza violates the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life."  

However, HRW also acknowledged that Israeli forces appeared to be deploying the element as an "obscurant" (a chemical used to conceal military operations), which is permissible under humanitarian law, or the rules of war.

"We have no evidence that WP was used by the IDF other than as an obscurant to cover, for example troop movements," Tom Porteous, the HRW's London director, told The News. "However, we believe that given its incendiary affects and the harm it can do to civilians we believe that its use - even as an obscurant - in highly and densely populated areas (eg Gaza City) violates the laws of war."

Peter Herby, the head of the ICRC's arms unit (International Committee of the Red Cross), expressed similiar sentiments. According to Herby, it was not unusual to deploy phosphorous for the purpose of creating smoke or illuminating a target.   

"We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way," Herby told the Associated Press.

Herby later published an updated statement on the ICRC website, warning the IDF to differentiate between military objectives and innocent civilians.

"The law also requires that they take all feasible precautions to prevent harm to civilians and civilian objects that can result from military operations," said Herby. 

Nevertheless, Herby was careful to refrain from commenting on unsubstantiated allegations that Israel may have engaged in the illegal use of white phosphorous. 

"If ICRC delegates in the field gather credible and precise evidence of violations, or if ICRC medical personnel corroborate reports by others, the ICRC would begin by discussing this with the party concerned – rather than speaking publicly – in keeping with our standard practices."

Dan Kosky, the communications director for Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor, responded to HRW's accusations by noting that the organisation appeared to be relying on unverified researchers and photographs.    

"Even by the admission of the ICRC, which cannot be accused of a pro-Israel bias, white phosphorous is not outlawed and is a conventional weapon," Kosky told the News. "HRW's claims that Israel was using white phosphorous in an illegal or immoral way are based on innuendo and hearsay. Their evidence so far consists of unverified researchers and unidentifiable photographs."

Kosky added that HRW had leveled "false" charges against Israel during previous conflicts, including the Second Lebanon War. "They (HRW) claimed almost double the number of actual fatalities at Qana, only to later acknowledge the real figure. HRW's claims must be treated with great skepticism," said Kosky. 

The IDF has insisted it deploys weapons that comply with international law "while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics." Yet, the Israeli military recently initiated an investigation to probe the possible improper use of 81mm or GPS-guided 120mm phosphorous shells by a reserve paratroops brigade. 20 such shells were reportedly fired in a built-up area of Beit Lahiya and could have been responsible for killing 42 Palestinians in an UNRWA school. However, the brigade's officers claimed the shells had been launched at areas that had been positively identified as sources of enemy fire. 

Global Security, an American-based think tank, has also weighed in on the controversy. The organisation confirmed that Israel used white phosphorus against Hamas targets during Operation Cast Lead, but noted the deployment had not violated international laws or conventions - as the element is permitted under Protocol III of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC). 

Weaponised white phosphorous can be traced back to WWII, where it was used for smoke screens, marker shells, incendiaries, hand grenades, smoke markers, coloured flares and tracer bullets. A more recent account of WP in wartime can be found during the Battle of Fallujah, when the US army fired the element in an effort to illuminate enemy positions at night. 

"The munitions we brought to this fight were 155-mm high explosive (HE) M107 (short-range) and M795 (long-range) rounds, illumination and white phosphorous (WP, M110 and M825), with point-detonating (PD), delay, time and variable-time (VT) fuzes," wrote three US officials in their account  of the operation. 

It is worth noting that the use of WP in Fallujah prompted a slew of unsubstatiated reports from British newspapers alleging that US troops had fielded outlawed weapons. 

In response, the US State Department issued the following clarification: "There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about US forces allegedly using 'outlawed' weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that US forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq. Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."