Did israel use phosphorus
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Human rights groups including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have documented instances they say show Israel using white phosphorus munitions in Gaza and southern Lebanon beginning in October 2023; Human Rights Watch said it verified airbursts and artillery use and Amnesty and others linked those strikes to civilian harm [1] [2] [3]. Israel has consistently denied such allegations, calling specific claims “unequivocally false” while also stating white phosphorus is used in limited tactical roles such as smokescreens [4] [5] [6].
1. What the allegations say — visuals, witness reports, and NGO findings
Human Rights Watch reported videos and witness testimony showing multiple airbursts of what it identified as white phosphorus over Gaza City and locations along the Israel–Lebanon border, and documented use in at least 17 municipalities in southern Lebanon since October [1] [7]. Euro-Med Monitor and other groups have published counts and testimonies alleging hundreds to thousands of strikes in Gaza and described burns, respiratory injuries and fires linked to those munitions [8] [9].
2. Israel’s position — denials and explanations about purpose
Israeli officials and the Israel Defense Forces have repeatedly denied deploying white phosphorus as an offensive weapon in these incidents; the IDF spokesperson called some accusations “unequivocally false” and Israeli statements often stress permitted uses such as creating smokescreens rather than targeting civilians [5] [4] [6]. Israeli public statements cited legal constraints and said the military uses weapons legally and with restrictions in populated areas [6].
3. Legal and technical context — what white phosphorus is and how law treats it
White phosphorus ignites on exposure to air and can cause severe burns and fires; militarily it can be used as smoke, marker or incendiary material [4] [2]. International law treats incendiary weapons under Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, but Protocol III’s scope, definitions and applicability are debated: some experts note white phosphorus is not explicitly banned by that Protocol and Israel has not ratified Protocol III, though customary international humanitarian law still requires precautions to protect civilians [2] [10].
4. Evidence standards and competing readings of imagery
Investigations cited by NGOs relied on video analysis, munitions markings and witness descriptions (including a characteristic garlic-like smell) to identify white phosphorus; outlets such as The Washington Post reported independent verification of video that appears to show white phosphorus over Gaza City [1] [11]. Conversely, Israel has contested the interpretation of imagery and asserted the material seen was not used to target civilians, creating competing narratives about intent and function [4] [5].
5. Scale, impact claims, and health/environmental concerns
Human rights organizations and national bodies reported both immediate harms — burns, fires and hospitalizations — and broader environmental damage (e.g., forests, farmland) attributed to phosphorus use in Lebanon and Gaza; Lebanese authorities and research efforts mapped areas of destruction and documented medical cases said to follow exposure [6] [9] [3]. Euro-Med Monitor described very large numbers of alleged strikes in Gaza and framed the use as part of forced displacement claims, while other reports focused on documented incidents rather than broader policy conclusions [8] [7].
6. Legal debate and policy implications — prohibition, restraint, or regulation?
NGOs argue that firing white phosphorus into populated areas amounts to unlawful use when it predicts civilian harm; Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have pushed for clearer restrictions or bans in practice [2] [7]. Legal analysts and institutions such as the Lieber Institute note technical treaty limits: Protocol III does not straightforwardly ban white phosphorus, and Israel is not a party, which complicates claims of definitive illegality — yet customary law obligations to take precautions still apply [10] [2].
7. What remains uncertain or contested in available reporting
Available sources document credible NGO analyses, videos and state denials, but they also show disagreements over numbers, intent, and legal classification: Israel’s denials and claims of limited smokescreen use stand against NGO findings that assert indiscriminate or unlawful use in populated areas [5] [1] [7]. Specific military intent, full munitions inventories, and comprehensive independent on-the-ground forensic reporting across all alleged incidents are not fully laid out in the cited sources — available sources do not mention comprehensive forensic chain-of-custody reports for every claim [1] [2] [11].
Conclusion — what readers should take away
Multiple respected rights groups and media outlets say there is verified visual and testimonial evidence of white phosphorus use by Israeli forces in Gaza and Lebanon; Israel denies or frames use as legally constrained smokescreen deployment [1] [2] [5]. Legal interpretation is contested: treaty text, state ratifications and customary law produce different conclusions about prohibition versus restriction, so assessing whether specific incidents constitute war crimes hinges on intent, location, precautions taken and independent forensic proof — elements that remain debated in the reporting cited here [10] [2].