A/HRC/12/48 page 148 642. As to why the hospital was the subject of these attacks, doctors speculate that its location close to the border is one possible reason. Another relates to the rumour that Israel believes that Muhammad al-Deif, a well-known Hamas militant, is treated inside the hospital. 643. According to one witness in the hospital, Israeli armed forces tried to assassinate Mr. alDeif on 12 July 2006. Although he survived the assassination attempt, he was badly hurt and, according to some rumours, his legs were amputated and he became blind. It seems that Israel believes that he receives some rehabilitation and medical treatment at al-Wafa hospital. 644. On 5 February 2003, for instance, Israeli snipers shot and killed two staff nurses who were on duty inside the hospital (Abd al-Karim Lubad and Omar Hassan, both aged 21).378 2. Factual findings 645. The Mission notes that the three witnesses interviewed are senior doctors in the hospital. The Mission found them to be credible and reliable. They clarified a number of apparently inaccurate statements that have appeared in press reports, especially regarding the nature of the warnings given. 646. The Mission considers that the warnings given cannot be considered as a warning within the meaning of article 19 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It was not specific and no indication was given about when the attack would take place or how much time there was to evacuate the hospital. 647. As to the reasons for the multiple attacks on the hospital in 2003, 2008 and 2009, the Mission is not in a position to comment. 3. Legal findings 648. The Mission finds that the choice of deploying white phosphorous shells in and around such a building, where patients receiving long-term care and suffering from particularly serious injuries were especially vulnerable, was not acceptable in the circumstances. The Mission is particularly concerned about the attack on the hospital on 16 January from such close proximity. Even if there was some degree of armed resistance in the area (which the Mission cannot confirm), commanders in deploying such weaponry must take into account all the facts and circumstances. 649. The Mission considers the use of white phosphorous in such an area as reckless and not justifiable in relation to any military advantage sought in the particular circumstances. 650. The Mission considers that the general protection given to hospitals indicates the need for particular consideration to be given to the use of such especially hazardous materials. The failure to provide sufficient warning indicates in the Mission’s view a wilful failure to consider seriously the consequences of using such weapons in those circumstances. 378 See http://www.hrea.org/lists/hr-health-professionals/markup/msg00099.html.