Name: ***
Rank: ***
Unit: ***
Place of incident: ***
Description: … Another case we had in our designated area was some house that according to intelligence information was said to be booby-trapped, that it contained a tunnel and the like. In other words, it was said to be highly dangerous. Troops did not enter it because it could be mined and if there were tunnels then there was the risk of soldiers being kidnapped etc. So several shells were fired at it and no explosions were heard on the scale that would have indicated that it did contain whatever it was suspected to contain. Then some order arrived to ignite it. The way to do that was to actually fire phosphorus shells from above. What the phosphorus does is to let out an umbrella of fire over the target and naturally that ignites the whole house. Finally we also saw all kinds of secondary blasts going, and two Qassam rockets flew out of there towards Israel, probably aimed and charged. There were lots of other things there and more secondary blasts, but that was the only time in our own area when phosphorus was used. But in this case there was definitely use of phosphorus ammunition. I do recall, though, that looking north we saw Giv'ati infantry troops in Zaytoun, and witnessed quite a lot of phosphorus being used. I can't tell to what extent that use was actually necessary operationally, and whether it was done inside the inhabited area.
It looked that way, but it could also have been… Phosphorus was definitely used there, I saw this and you cannot go wrong, you actually see the flaming umbrellas.

Name: ***
Rank: ***
Unit: ***
Place of incident: ***
Description:

Often a house that was suspect for tunnels or explosive charges was a house that was targeted with various phosphorus shells, thinking this would activate all the charges. In other words, phosphorus was to serve as an igniter, simply make it all go up in flames, which then ignited the explosive charges. And the tunnels. Everything was ignited.
Is that what you were told at the preliminary briefing?
No, I say it now as a comment. This was one line of reasoning.

When did you hear about the use of phosphorus, and from whom?
I ran into it, there were all sorts of rumors but I saw it with my own eyes in one of the houses in our immediate area.

What's the story?
The story was that a house was seriously suspect for containing explosive charges. There was also intelligence information about tunnels and the like. Naturally a shell was fired, that didn't do too much. We didn't get the indication we wanted, so the artillery forces decided to target this house, and they were the ones using phosphorus. That's what actually happened. I don't remember whether they fired just one shell or more, I think there were several used. This house went up in flames. Later there were secondary blasts and shelling into Israeli area and so that house was rightly suspect. But 'exploding smoke' was definitely used there.

Did the phosphorus hit just the house?
I don't know for sure. I saw it because I was on guard duty that night. It creates a kind of umbrella. It explodes several dozen meters above the house and forms an umbrella of fire on the house. To tell you that it was pinpoint precision? Artillery never achieves pinpoint precision. But I know that the artillery officer said the hit was on target.

And that is the only use you recall of artillery in your area?
We kept hearing artillery. We were close enough to the border to hear both the firing and the impact. There was also mortar fire from our own outpost. Targeting a house.

Massive use of mortars?
I don't know what you mean by massive. But I think it happened dozens of times during the week we were there.

Precision mortars? Do you remember?
Mortars is not a precision weapon. It is usually more precise than a 52mm caliber mortar, but to say it's precise? I don't think anyone considers it a precision weapon. Again, I'd like to reiterate that this is a neighborhood that we know with certainty is empty of people, or at least there are not supposed to be people there. Whoever is there is considered an insurgent. This is the approach. Obviously. Therefore, the main fear is for the lives of soldiers. The risk of friendly fire. That's the story here. But mortars were definitely used.

Name: ***
Rank: ***
Unit: ***
Place of incident: ***
Description:

Then we went back north, about 500 meters from the fence, and stayed there all night as look-outs. We saw nothing special. The next day we got back to base to get new mission orders and were once again assigned to a force from Battalion *** with whom we went in. We walked with them on the beach and saw all the white phosphorus bombs I've told you about, we saw glazing on the sand.

Can you describe it? What did you see?
You're walking along the sand and hear this crunch of something being crushed. We looked down and saw what looked like the shards of thousands of broken glass bottles.

What color did it have?
A dirty brown.

Did you see remains of this elsewhere nearby?
There was an area of about 200-300 square meters of glazed sand like that. We understood this resulted from white phosphorus, and it was upsetting.

Why?
Because in training you learn that white phosphorus is not used, and you're taught that it's not humane. You watch films and see what it does to people who are hit, and you say, "There, we're doing it too." That's not what I expected to see. Until that moment I had thought I belonged to the most humane army in the world, I knew that even in the West Bank, when we go into a neighborhood, we do it quietly so that people won't see us, but also in order not to disturb them, no less. We're not… Even when Molotov cocktails were thrown at us in the West Bank, we wouldn't shoot, the rules are very explicit. If your own life is at risk, you shoot. But under no other circumstances. Practically speaking, how often are you really in a life-threatening situation in the West Bank? Until that moment I had never fired a shot except at cardboard targets, just at the shooting range and maneuvers, and I also understood why. An IDF soldier does not shoot for the sake of shooting nor does he apply excessive force beyond the call of the mission he is to perform. We saw the planes flying out and you see from which building the rocket is launched against Israel and you see the four houses surrounding that building collapsing as soon as the airforce bombs. I don't know if it was white phosphorus or not, and I don't really care that much, but whole neighborhoods were simply razed because four houses in the area served to launch Qassam rockets. I don't know what else can be done, but it does seem somewhat unfair.

What, the proportions?
Yes. It's disproportionate.

When you went in, the airforce was still in action and the heavy equipment – not rifles, but artillery, armor and auxiliary fire. You were watching what was being fired there, and how the tanks and mortars were used?
From what I saw in our missions, tanks were often sent in, platoons from Battalion ***, to secure close cover, stand together with several tanks on a range, the tanks waited for something to move in order to return fire effectively. I didn't go in with the heavy equipment, we were attached to special units who did not work with the heavy equipment.
What do you mean by "waiting for something to move"? What were your rules of engagement? What were you told at the briefings?
"Anything looks suspicious to you, open fire."

What is suspicious? Arms and intent are both valid there, too?
Yes. You have to detect weapons, verify that person is not one of ours. If he has something on him, that is grounds enough to…

No intent, even without intent.
They were assuming that anyone present in a bombed-zone, carrying a Kalashnikov, is no weapons collector.

You go into Al Atatra, and you see buildings, houses?
Ruins. I entered Al Atatra after seeing aerial photos and didn't identify anything, and my photographic memory is not that bad. I remembered that 200 meters further on down the track there should be a junction, with two large houses at the corners, and there wasn't. I remembered there was supposed to be a square with a Hamas memorial monument, and there wasn't. There was rubble, broken blocks.

How did destruction affect your ability to communicate, to navigate?
It got to the point where we would try to report to field intelligence about a figure sticking out its head or a rocket being launched, and the girl (at field intelligence) would ask, "Is it near this or that house"? We'd look at the aerial photo and say, "Yes, but the house is no longer there." "Wait, is it facing a square?" "No more square." She would ask us if this was the third or fourth junction, and we'd tell her the houses are all crushed over the junction and you don't see a single junction. It got to the point where we could hardly see our way. Later I went in to the lookout war-room and asked how things worked, and the girl-soldiers there, the lookouts, resented the fact that they had no way to direct the planes, because all of their reference points were razed. So they would direct them in general terms or rely solely on coordinates. They found their reference points on aerial photos shared by the pilots and the war-room, and very approximated, which also annoys me. What is this, approximation? It's highly possible that now the pilot will bomb the wrong house.

Were you told of this approximation, or is this your own take on things?
It was my own take on things. She tells him, "Take some 800 meters east of the sea and so and so meters at such and such an azimuth from this or that line," and you say, "Wait, if he does not use the compass and other instruments in his cockpit for these measurements, then possibly he'll miss targets, it's not so far-fetched. This is not the 'smart bomb' we had been working on so hard. Could be he's using such a bomb, but aiming at the wrong target."