Expanding on John M. Joyce's posts here and here, we know the IDF uses white phosphorous artillery shells, as any conventional military would, to illuminate nighttime targets and for smoke to obscure ground force maneuvers.  Last weekend, Human Rights Watch (HRW) in the person of senior military analyst Marc Garlasco observing IDF operations from the vantage point of the Gaza Israeli border, released a statement to the media accusing the IDF of purposefully using white phosphorous munitions to cause burn casualties among Gaza civilians. The HRW statement caught the attention of the world media and the blood libel grew to dramatic proportions.  Note these HRW allegations in a news release of January 10^th, with the by-line of “Israel: Stop Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza.”

Israel appeared to be using white phosphorus as an "obscurant" (a chemical used to hide military operations), a permissible use in principle under international humanitarian law (the laws of war). However, white phosphorus has a significant, incidental, incendiary effect that can severely burn people and set structures, fields, and other civilian objects in the vicinity on fire. The potential for harm to civilians is magnified by Gaza's high population density, among the highest in the world.

"White phosphorous can burn down houses and cause horrific burns when it touches the skin," said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. "Israel should not use it in Gaza's densely populated areas."

The world media immediately jumped on the HRW allegations without so much as a by your leave.  Note these comments from Honest Reporting on the swirl of controversy perpetrated by HRW’s Garlasco:

NGOs such as HRW enjoy the "halo effect", whereby, because of their humanitarian focus, they are insulated from scrutiny and are regarded as above reproach by the media. In this case, media including The Guardian, Times of London, Christian Science Monitor and CNN have repeated HRW's claims.

However, this charge has been disputed by the International Red Cross, which stated that it had no evidence to suggest that white phosphorus is being used improperly or illegally by Israel. As the AP reports:

"In some of the strikes in Gaza it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used," [Peter] Herby told The Associated Press. "But it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way." ...

Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk.

Then on Wednesday, January 14^th, Ynet reported that a patently illegal white phosphorous mortar round was fired the prior day by Hamas into the Western Negev.  The Ynet report noted this comment from the security chief for  the Eshkol regional council:

The council's security chief, Nikki Levy, said that "the potential danger of using such a rocket is enormous. It is far more dangerous than other Qassam rockets and mortar shells. This is an escalation in the type of explosives the Palestinians use on civilians."

This report, as well as the statements of International Red Cross representatives cited by Honest Reporting raises a suspicion about the credibility of the HRW senior military analyst, Garlasco.

Back in June, 2006, we caught Mr. Garlasco in another calumny, his HRW report on the Gaza Beach episode. You may recall that a hapless family of Gazans picnicking on the dunes of the abandoned Gush Katif settlement were killed and injured by an explosion.  Garlasco, who at the time was on the scene in Gaza alleged that it was a live Israeli 155mm artillery round that was the culprit basing it on his evaluation of the crater caused by the explosion and his qualifications as a US-trained bomb damage assessment expert based on his experience in Iraq.  In an Israpundit article entitled: “The Incredible Marc Garlasco”, we noted:

So there was Garlasco part of the purported Human Rights Watch (HRW) “investigating team” as its senior military analyst in full glory in front of the media stating that he was “certain it was caused by a 155MM round,” the IDF forensic, operational damage assessment and intelligence information to the contrary.

After all if you read the HRW news releases, they had done what they deemed the requisite GPS studies and besides, “they were there in Gaza and the IDF wasn’t” so as their headline bleated the IDF “Artillery Strike Probably Killed Palestinian Family.”

Judy Klinghoffer in her posting on Tuesday on her History News Network weblog addressed Garlasco’s previous work on the Haditha episode in Iraq and likened him to the role of U.N. Rep.Ter-Larsen during the infamous Jenin “massacre” allegations-subsequently denied by a UN investigation.

Honest reporting in its report entitled “Unbiased Advice” posted today takes Garlasco to task for his Rafah Gaza reports on Housing destruction by the IDF during its campaign to uncover smuggling tunnels under the border with Egypt, prior to the unilateral withdrawal of last summer.

But we went further and did some investigation about Garlasco with a MILINT expert who knew Garlasco in Iraq. 

I knew that my buddy had been involved with doing targeting in the preparation for the big push at the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq. I had looked at Marc Garlasco’s resume on line at Mother Jones radio and noted his Iraq- related stint.

As it turned out myfriend at MILINT worked with Garlasco on pre-war Iraq targeting effort at DIA.

He noted that Marc had bolted when the war began and the rest became history as Garlasco became the purported senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch with his housing destruction reports in Gaza and such.

He also pointed out to me that Garlasco is not technically qualified to point to a depression in the sand on Gaza beach and state uncategorically that it was caused by an Israeli 155 MM round. Why? He had no scientific training required to do bomb damage assessment-typically a USAF intel function.

That information and more might take Garlasco and the miscreants at the New York Times Jerusalem Bureau, and the BBC/CNN/Reuters news hounds down a peg!!

It makes Garlasco, incredible, doesn’t it?

Now in January, 2009, the media forgot to do some background checks on Garlasco, and simply gave his comments great credence over those of the IDF, International Red Cross and the Eshkol regional council security team in the Negev.  Apparently, Hamas can fire anti-personnel white phosphorous mortar rounds at innocent Israeli civilians. But nary a peep from HRW and Garlasco, who perpetuated the blood libel that IDF forces are using white phosphorous illegally to cause burn casualties on hapless Gaza civilians. We’d call that hypocritical and incredible.