The use of white phosphorus was not a crime.

Most people know about Israel's use of white phosphorus (WP) during Operation Cast Lead. Many believe that WP is a banned weapon. That is completely untrue. WP is completely legal as both a weapon and as a smoke screen (its general use) as long as the toxic properties of WP are not intended to be used as a weapon.

This makes the use of WP potentially controversial. However, Israel's use of WP is only controversial because it was used by the Jewish State. America and Russia both use WP and yet seem to be almost immune to criticism. The website Global Security explains WP and its uses.

The question at hand, since WP is completely legal to use for both military and non-military means, is what is the 'legitimate' accusation against Israel? Israel's detractors accuse Israel of using WP as a chemical weapon against civilian populations. If this accusation is true (it isn't), is it a violation of international law? The answer is a resounding 'no'. The Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with protected persons, states the following:

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

While the PLO, a terrorist organization, submitted a letter of accession to Geneva Conventions I-IV, it was rejected on the grounds that "Palestine" is not a sovereign State. The "Palestinians" are, therefore, not protected by any of the Geneva Conventions.

Even though the "Palestinians" are not protected by the Geneva Conventions, it would still be an atrocity to use WP deliberately against civilians. However, there is still another legal boundary to labeling Israel's use of WP as an atrocity. We go again to the Fourth Geneva Convention on the use of human shields. Articles 28 and 29 of the Convention state, "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred." This means that the party which uses the human shield is responsible for whatever happens to the human shield.

It is well established that Hamas uses human shields. As can be seen in videos in that link, Gazan media openly encourages children to protect Hamas terrorists. This means that any civilians killed by Israel while attempting to fight Hamas are solely the responsibility of Hamas unless Israel is deliberately targeting the civilians. Israel was not deliberately targeting civilians, but was using the WP as a smoke screen. In the single confirmed incident of WP use in a civilian area, the WP was being used to screen troops from view of anti-tank missiles.

All civilians harmed or killed by Israel's use of WP were accidental, and only occurred because Hamas fights in civilian areas. This means that all civilians harmed or killed by Israel during Operation Cast Lead, whether by the use of WP or any other weapon, were 100% the responsibility of Hamas, not Israel.