UNDERSTANDING
THE GOLDSTONE REPORT

If the prominent, page-one headline and lead article in Ha'aretz today are to be believed, Human Rights Watch's March 2009 report accusing Israel of the indiscriminate use of white phosphorous against the civilian population during the Gaza Strip fighting last winter — a war crime — got a slight boost.

Israel's response to the Goldstone Report, which came out in January, had the following response to the claims about Israel's use of white phosphorous:

(v) The use of weaponry containing phosphorous

117. This investigation dealt with the use of weapons containing phosphorous by IDF forces

during the Gaza Operation. The investigation focused on the different types and number

of weapons containing phosphorous used during the Operation, the purposes for which

they were used, the applicable professional instructions and rules of engagement, and the

extent of compliance with those instructions and rules. Some of the findings of the special

command investigation are detailed in The Operation in Gaza.107

During the Goldstone hearings, Prof. Michael Newton gave testimony on a number of things.  Here we extract his remarks on the use of white phosphorous.  His remarks can be viewed at the Goldstone hearing site, and the summary below comes from UN Watch.

Regarding the mission’s question on the legality of Israel’s use of white phosphorous, Professor Newton said there are a duality of considerations: 1- Is it an illegal weapon and 2- Even if it is legal, can it be used in an unlawful manner?

He went on to discuss the effectiveness of white phosphorus. The material could be used to mark targets for an air-strike. Second, “if you’re trying to vector in forces across large distances, there’s no better way to do it than quick white phosphorous round.” It is very effective as illumination and a smoke screen.

In urban areas booby-trapped with snipers, explosive devices, and trip-wires, white phosphorus could be used to mask troop movements. It would be less damaging than leveling the area with explosives, destroying civilian properties, he said. But if the purpose of masking troops is to move from one area to the next, a commander must consider how damage could be minimized by following a different route. Also, one must be sure to assess how many civilians are in the area before using the weapon. He said that even if a commander has warned civilians to leave, experience may dictate that many will have stayed. Thus, the use of white phosphorus in the presence of civilians cannot be justified simply by stating that they were warned to leave.