UNDERSTANDING
THE GOLDSTONE REPORT

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.

Professor Newton said it is not true that the use of white phosphorus violates theChemical Weapons Convention. Some people would say it falls under the Convention’s ban on the use of air-dropped incendiary weapons in urban areas, but he does not see this as the case. He said that even in urban areas, there are pockets where white phosphorus and other controversial weapons use is acceptable following a detailed analysis of the feasibility of avoiding civilian damage. He said there also needs to be a detailed target analysis before the use of aerial weapons, involving a feedback flow of information to the commander.

Desmond Travers of the fact-finding mission commented that many weapons considered acceptable during World War II and the Cold War have been called into question today because of more sensitive laws about causing injury to targets. He said that in his opinion, some of these weapons should be removed from militaries’ arsenals. Regarding white phosphorus, he said he agrees it’s not a chemical weapon, but asked if its legality should be reviewed, noting that the Irish army stopped using it 39 years ago because of its danger to people and the environment.

Professor Newton responded, “White phosphorus on a playground is different than white phosphorus somewhere else.” Of course, alternatives to its use should always be assessed, he said, but it all comes down to the circumstances.

Regarding the mission’s question about the implications of issuing warnings to civilians, Professor Newton said that warnings alone are not enough. He cited a Hamas brigade commander saying that all Gazans are combatants so it is sufficient for him merely to warn them before occupying their area and using it as a launching ground for Hamas operations. Professor Newton said that all parties are obliged to do what is feasible to eliminate harm to civilians and never co-mingle where it is feasible to not do so.