Zum Grauen des Krieges gehört die Gewöhnung an das Grauen. Tausend Tote sind eine Nachricht, zweitausend nicht mehr. Nach der ersten Nacht sind die Bombenangriffe auf Gaza kaum noch eine Zeile wert. Erst der Angriff auf ein Krankenhaus durchbricht die schleichende Normalisierung des Krieges. Oder ein Angriff mit besonders verachtenswerten Waffen. Wie etwa weißer Phosphor, der horrende Folgen auch für Zivilist*innen haben kann.
On October 16, Human Rights Watch reported on the use of phosphorus ammunition by the Israeli military in Gaza. This drew global attention to the extensive bombing attacks in the Gaza Strip, as the news spread rapidly worldwide.
Weißer Phosphor kann grausame Wunden zufügen
Why is that the case? White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. Its use in war is not generally prohibited, in fact, it is quite common. There is no indication that during the attacks last week in Gaza, even a single person was harmed by phosphorus, while over 3,000 people were killed by bomb attacks. Additionally, 1,400 Israelis were affected by the terror of Hamas, and 200 people were abducted by Hamas with an uncertain fate. With such extreme violence, terror, and carpet bombing, why is white phosphorus still considered a significant news item?
Let’s start from the beginning: White phosphorus ignites upon contact with air and burns extremely hot, producing heavy smoke. It is primarily used in military operations to illuminate a battlefield at night or to create a smoke screen for concealment. Grenades are launched into the air, dispersing many small particles impregnated with phosphorus over a large area, which slowly descend to the ground. The problem arises when these particles have not burned out by the time they reach the ground, as they can quickly ignite anything in their path. Additionally, they can cause severe injuries to humans, as phosphorus burns at a temperature of 800°C and deeply penetrates the skin. It is a horrific weapon when directly used against people, which has unfortunately been done in conflicts such as the Vietnam War.
Einsatz von weißem Phosphor im Irakkrieg
Even after the illegal attack on Iraq in 2003, the US military ruthlessly utilized white phosphorus. When enemy fighters could not simply be shot or bombed because they were hiding in houses or caves, they were directly targeted with white phosphorus, which eats through the skin and into the bones of its victims. Those who were still able to run and left their cover were shot. This combination of incendiary bombs and intense gunfire is casually referred to as „shake ’n‘ bake“ in the US Army, drawing inspiration from an American convenience food brand.
Weißer Phosphor in der Luft
Foto: Imago / Pond5 Images
So entmenschlicht dieses „shake ‘n‘ bake“ in unseren Ohren klingt: Im Krieg ist es erlaubt, solange damit nur auf gegnerische Kämpfer*innen und nicht auf Zivilist*innen geschossen wird. Denn im Krieg geht es ja genau darum: Die Gegner*innen umzubringen. Für Völkerrecht ist da wenig Platz. Geächtet sind im Krieg vor allem solche Waffen, die unterschiedslos auch Zivilist*innen treffen oder diese im besonderen Maße gefährden. Deshalb gibt es eine besondere Ächtung von biologischen und chemischen Waffen und von einigen konventionellen Waffen, letzteres normiert in der Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCCW).
The Protocol III of CCCW prohibits the use of incendiary weapons under certain circumstances. However, incendiary weapons are clearly defined as weapons specifically designed to ignite people or materials. Explicitly exempt from the prohibition are weapons that unintentionally cause fires and actually have another function. One exception mentioned there is illuminating battlefields or creating smoke screens.
High risk for the civilian population
And that is exactly wrong. Because it may be the case in the glossy brochures of the arms industry that artillery shells with white phosphorus do exactly what they are told: burn cleanly before they even come close to the ground, and in the end, a little ash falls to the ground. But real life does not adhere to theory. There is an excellent report by Forensic Architecture, an outstanding research agency, from 2012, in which the use of phosphorus shells is modeled using examples from Iraq and Gaza.
The agency reaches a clear and harsh verdict: Depending on environmental and weather conditions, there is always a possibility that burning parts of phosphorus ammunition may hit people or materials. It states that regardless of the military objective, there is a significant risk to the lives and well-being of the civilian population in the area of operation. The military using this ammunition cannot control or manage this risk.
That is why the current report by Human Rights Watch on the use of phosphorus ammunition in Gaza is so crucial. Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, and every use of phosphorus ammunition carries the risk of harming innocent bystanders. Therefore, it is high time to expand Protocol III of the CCCW and also prohibit any type of weapon that can cause horrific burns to civilians.