Based on in-depth investigations of the Human Rights Watch in Gaza, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) repeatedly exploded white phosphorus munitions in the air over populated areas, killing and injuring civilians, and damaging civilian structures. The IDF’s deliberate use of white phosphorus munitions is evidenced in five ways: First, to Human Rights Watch’s knowledge, the IDF never used its white phosphorus munitions in Gaza before, despite numerous incursions with personnel and armor. Second, the repeated use of air-burst white phosphorus in populated areas until the last days of the operation reveals a pattern or policy of conduct rather than incidental or accidental usage. Third, the IDF was well aware of the effects of white phosphorus and the dangers it can pose to civilians. Fourth, if the IDF used white phosphorus as an obscurant, it failed to use available alternatives, namely smoke munitions, which would have held similar tactical advantages without endangering the civilian population. Fifth, in one of the cases documented in this report the IDF kept firing white phosphorus despite repeated warnings from UN personnel about the danger to civilians. The article tries to examine the report based on the fundmental principles of International Law.
Shahbazi, A. (2009). Examining the Report of the Human Rights Watch Concerning
the Use of White Phosphorus against Gaza's People. International Law Review, 26(40), 71-97. doi: 10.22066/cilamag.2009.17370
MLA
Aramesh Shahbazi. "Examining the Report of the Human Rights Watch Concerning
the Use of White Phosphorus against Gaza's People". International Law Review, 26, 40, 2009, 71-97. doi: 10.22066/cilamag.2009.17370
HARVARD
Shahbazi, A. (2009). 'Examining the Report of the Human Rights Watch Concerning
the Use of White Phosphorus against Gaza's People', International Law Review, 26(40), pp. 71-97. doi: 10.22066/cilamag.2009.17370
VANCOUVER
Shahbazi, A. Examining the Report of the Human Rights Watch Concerning
the Use of White Phosphorus against Gaza's People. International Law Review, 2009; 26(40): 71-97. doi: 10.22066/cilamag.2009.17370