“The international community must reconsider the classification of white phosphorus so that it is no longer treated solely as an incendiary or smoke weapon, but also recognized as a chemical weapon,” says environmental researcher and activist Abbas Al-Baalbaki in an interview with Daraj.
At the beginning of the war, Al-Baalbaki was asked to conduct tests on soil samples from areas targeted with white phosphorus. When handling the samples, he noticed that they ignited upon exposure to air, a characteristic of white phosphorus, which spontaneously combusts when it comes into contact with oxygen.
In the interview with Daraj, Al-Baalbaki said there is no widely recognized protocol that precisely defines the steps for analyzing white phosphorus in water or soil. Over a 12-month period, he monitored the samples in the lab and found that “they still contained particles that ignited upon fragmentation, confirming the difficulty of white phosphorus decomposition in natural environments and its potential to remain a pollutant for extended periods.”
According to the National Council for Scientific Research, Israel has turned southern Lebanon into a “Biosphere of War to disrupt life in the region.” A total of 284 white phosphorus shells were dropped on Lebanon, with 221 of them targeting the Nabatiyeh province, according to the same center. The phosphorus shells burned 2,192 hectares of land, including forests, agricultural lands, and citrus, fruit, and olive trees.
The Lebanese Ministry of Agriculture reported that between October 8, 2023, and July 5, 2024, Israeli white phosphorus attacks caused 812 fires, which destroyed 60,000 olive trees.
Scientific Controversy Over White Phosphorus
Environmental researcher Abbas Al-Baalbaki told Daraj that there is a significant scientific gap regarding the effects of white phosphorus on water and soil. Conflicting information exists regarding the consequences of Israel’s use of white phosphorus in its recent war on Lebanon. A World Bank report notes that “the alleged use of white phosphorus munitions… could lead to the contamination of crops and both surface and groundwater, posing a long-term threat to health, agriculture, and the environment.”
Meanwhile, the National Council for Scientific Research confirmed that the extensive use of phosphorus shells has polluted the soil with harmful substances, degrading its health and fertility.
Professor Rami Zurayk, a soil chemist at the American University of Beirut, explained to Daraj that “white phosphorus (P4) is a substance that ignites when it reacts with oxygen, turning into phosphoric acid.” He clarified that “this ignition creates thick fog or what is known as a smoke screen, used to conceal the movement of tanks or soldiers on the ground.”
Zurayk further explained that white phosphorus causes severe environmental damage, destroying crops due to phosphoric acid-laden clouds that lead to plant wilting and death. It also contributes to forest and woodland fires, leaving a clear negative impact on ecosystems. He noted that if a lump of phosphorus falls into a river, it settles at the bottom.
A report by the American University of Beirut titled “The Socio-Environmental Impact of White Phosphorus Ammunition in South Lebanon” warns that white phosphorus contamination in soil threatens a variety of living organisms, pollutes surface and groundwater, and endangers food security. The report predicts a decline in agricultural productivity due to white phosphorus bombings.
The report references studies from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which indicate that the use of white phosphorus munitions results in 10 percent of the phosphorus remaining in the soil or water.
According to the agency, “white phosphorus reacts mainly with oxygen in water and may stay in water for hours to days. However, chunks of white phosphorus coated with protective layers may stay in water and soil for years if oxygen levels in the water and soil are very low.” The agency also states that white phosphorus “may stay in soil for a few days before it is changed to less harmful chemicals. However, in deeper soil and the bottom deposits of rivers and lakes where there is no oxygen, white phosphorus may remain for several thousand years.
In an interview with Daraj, Dr. Mohammad Abiad, advisor to the Minister of Environment and director of the Laboratories for the Environment, Agriculture and Food (LEAF) at the American University of Beirut, stated that “soil studies conducted from the beginning of the war on Lebanon until January 2024 revealed an increase in phosphorus levels ranging from 100 to 400 times the natural concentrations.”
However, Abiad argued that the negative effects of white phosphorus are limited to immediate damage rather than long-term consequences. He pointed out that the greater risk comes from heavy metals such as nickel, cadmium, barium, and mercury, which result from bombings and are linked to cancerous diseases. In this context, he mentioned a 2022 study on areas targeted during the July 2006 war, which found that these regions still contained high concentrations of heavy metals.
Abiad also confirmed that tests on samples of olive oil and olives exposed to white phosphorus during the recent war showed they remain safe for consumption.
His views align with a study conducted by the Spanish contingent of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which concluded that white phosphorus does not harm plant or animal life, meaning normal agricultural and livestock activities can resume in affected areas after its use.
An Environmental Crisis with Uncertain Effects
A research team led by Professor Zurayk collected samples from agricultural areas in southern Lebanon and Baalbek. However, the study no longer focuses on white phosphorus specifically. In an interview with Daraj, Lynn Dirani, a PhD student at the American University of Beirut, explained, “We are studying the impact of bomb and explosive remnants on the soil.” She added, “The samples are being analyzed to determine the concentrations of six heavy metals commonly found in bombing sites: cadmium, zinc, nickel, lead, cobalt, and tungsten.” She further noted that “the team is also studying microbial activity in the soil, which is a key indicator of its health.”
The study follows a citizen science approach, relying on volunteers who have access to areas affected by white phosphorus bombings. Samples are collected from a central explosion point, surrounding areas, and a location approximately 500 meters away.
Dirani explained: “We noticed elevated phosphorus levels, but we have not yet identified high concentrations of white phosphorus.” She concluded, “It is difficult for phosphorus to remain in the soil, unlike heavy metals that persist. However, further analysis is needed before reaching definitive conclusions.”
Amid this scientific debate, Professor Zurayk emphasized the importance of collaboration among researchers to study these deposits. He noted: “Unified techniques for sample collection and analysis must be developed, along with the exchange of findings to expand their applicability.”
Legal Loopholes Covering Environmental Crimes in Armed Conflicts
In 2013, the Israeli army pledged not to use weapons containing white phosphorus. However, it resumed their use in its recent war on Gaza and Lebanon. According to The Washington Post, the Israeli army acknowledged using white phosphorus “to create smoke screens, not for targeting or causing fires,” claiming that this practice “complies with international law.
According to Human Rights Watch, Israel used white phosphorus munitions in at least 17 towns in Lebanon, including five cases where these weapons were unlawfully used in residential areas. A classified report from a country contributing to the UN peacekeeping forces (UNIFIL), obtained by The Financial Times, revealed that incendiary white phosphorus was used near a UNIFIL base, injuring 15 peacekeepers.
In an interview with Daraj, former Bar Association president Melhem Khalaf explained that “international law lacks a specific treaty that explicitly bans the use of white phosphorus weapons in armed conflicts.” He noted that the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which Lebanon has signed, “prohibits the use of incendiary weapons from air and ground strikes against civilians in residential areas and forbids making forests or any vegetation cover a target for incendiary weapons.”
Israel has not signed the CCW, but due to the ambiguity of legal texts, Khalaf stressed the importance of applying customary international humanitarian law to assess the legality of white phosphorus use in armed conflicts. He stated, “If white phosphorus is a lethal incendiary weapon, then the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons applies to it.”
Professor Rami Zurayk explained that “white phosphorus affects humans both directly and indirectly.” He elaborated that “when inhaled, the resulting phosphoric acid causes severe respiratory inflammation that can lead to death. If it comes into contact with the skin, it continues to burn until it reaches deep layers, causing deep burns that are extremely difficult to treat.”
Khalaf explained that Protocol III of the CCW defines an incendiary weapon as “a weapon or munition designed to set fire to objects or cause burns through flames or heat generated by a chemical reaction upon impact.” He pointed out that “the text does not explicitly list white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon, as it is classified as a smoke-generating weapon under the convention.” However, he argued that “white phosphorus should be considered an incendiary weapon because it causes burns to civilians and ignites objects, necessitating compliance with customary international law principles, including proportionality, the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, and the prevention of excessive suffering.”
In 2009, after Israel’s excessive use of white phosphorus against civilians in Gaza, a medical report by the Israeli Ministry of Health stated that white phosphorus “can cause severe injuries and death through skin contact, inhalation, or ingestion.” The report confirmed that “white phosphorus is toxic and has severe consequences that exacerbate injuries.”
Khalaf pointed out that “Article 2 of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) defines a chemical weapon as a toxic substance that, through its chemical action in biological processes, can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to humans or animals.” He stressed the need to review legal definitions related to toxic, hazardous, and chemical substances, as outlined in international treaties such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, which “prohibits the use of toxic and hazardous chemicals, especially if they have harmful effects.”
In an interview with Daraj, Dr. Mohammad Abiad defined white phosphorus as “a chemical weapon, though it is not prohibited under international law.” This highlights the challenges in interpreting and enforcing international regulations regarding the use of such substances in conflicts.
Khalaf ultimately argued that “the Chemical Weapons Convention, even if it does not explicitly mention white phosphorus, prohibits the use, development, production, and stockpiling of chemical weapons.” Therefore, he concluded that if white phosphorus is proven to be a chemical weapon, “its use is prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention.”
Eight countries have described incendiary weapons as “among the most inhumane” used in warfare, noting that they can cause severe burns and respiratory damage for which there is often no specialized medical treatment available in war zones. These nations have acknowledged the need to address gaps in Protocol III of the CCW, which did not classify white phosphorus, arguing that this omission “undermines the convention’s effectiveness.”
The use of white phosphorus is a grave violation of international law. According to Khalaf, it is a “destructive weapon that may amount to genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.” He emphasized that “its use in the recent war on Lebanon warrants accountability before the International Criminal Court.”
