As the mantle of Israeli military censorship in place around the Gaza strip eases, abundant data is emerging that the IDF extensively used phosphorus weapons in the densely populated regions of the region, imposing horrific casualties on a civilian population that was unable to flee.
Why?
Let me be clear about my motive in posing this question: I recognize Israel's right to both exist and defend itself against terrorist attacks.
But use of phosphorus as a weapon in combat is a war crime. Use of phosphorus against civilians is a crime on a graver scale.
Why do it?
I am not a soldier. Along with the legally sanctioned use of phosphorus rounds as an illumination device or to generate smoke, it's my understanding that phosphorus incendiary rounds and related devices have replaced napalm, and thus is used as a "wide area" weapon to clear large regions of ground, or against fortifications - as was the case in the brutal US assault on Fallujah.
None of these circumstances were in effect in Gaza: widely-available images show air-burst phosphorus devices raining down during the day, for example, and not in the setting of an infantry assault where a smokescreen would be of use.
So...why?
These weapons would not be deployed casually. They require special handling, special training, setting of fuses for the airbursts, etc. The Gaza operation was reportedly planned for a year, and timed to coincide with the end of the Bush term. There would be a clear military chain of command.
I can think of a few different scenarios:
1. "Break Their Bones"
From the phase of Yitzak Rabin's campain to "break bones" during the first intifada, through Ariel Sharon's campaign of "programmed assassinations" to the strategic bombing of Lebanon in 2006, there has been an escalating level of brutality by the IDF against non-combatant forces, working on the theory that escalating violence will weaken arab extremists and strengthen moderates. Despite the failure of this approach -- David Petraeus' partial success in Iraq, and official US Army counter-insurgency doctrine rests in part on minimizing civilian casualties - the "kick-ass" fantasy has a perennial allure, especially when the violence can be unleashed from the air.
- Domestic Political Considerations
Likud and Netanyahu are leading in the polls. Putting pain on arabs scores poll points and reassures the Israeli public about the "toughness" of the government.
- Teach Obama a Lesson
Just as W. had to learn his lesson in 2001 when he dared to criticize ongoing construction of illegal and provocative Israeli settlements on the west bank - Bush backed down immediately and never made trouble again; Obama has to learn, from the start, that Israel calls the shots. Obama won't dare to criticize Israel in his first week in office, and thus will be drawn implicitly to support any and all IDF actions.
- Political Paralysis
Israel is in a state of existential collapse, threat from internal religious extremists, confusion about its own nature and goals. Unleashing new weapons against arabs offers a brief sense of power and purpose, a distant echo of 1967.
5. Provocation
The most ominous scenario: Israeli leadership knows that there will be mounting pressure for a 2-state solution, a return to pre 1967-borders, including a dismantling of illegal settlements and a return to a divided Jerusalem. burning arabs alive with phosphorus - minimized on in western media - will goad arab extremists into a new level of violence and irrational fury, and thus derail any movement to a peace settlement that threatens the "greater Israel" dreams of the annexationists and the "Fourth Temple" dreams of the religious fanatics.