by Judith Bergman
Hat tip: Jean-Charles Bensoussan
In an exclusive interview, Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, speaks about the conflict with Hamas, the ethics of war, the battle for public opinion, and the prospects for peace • Peace is far from breaking out, he says.
Col. Richard Kemp
|
Photo credit: Yoni Reif, Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies  |
Col. Richard Kemp, CBE, has been spending time
in Israel, where he spoke at Shurat Hadin's "Towards a New Laws of
War" Conference, and at Bar-Ilan University, which bestowed him with an
honorary doctorate in recognition of his stalwart battle against
terrorism and terrorist organizations. Kemp, now retired from the
British Army, was commander of the British forces in Afghanistan in 2003
and served in Iraq, the Balkans and Northern Ireland. For the last
five years of his 30-year military career, Kemp served as top adviser
to the British prime minister on questions of intelligence and
counterterrorism.
Q: Can Israel win the asymmetric war launched against it by Hamas?
"I have no doubt that if the IDF had wanted to
destroy Hamas it could have done so. The reality of finishing off
Hamas, however, would have been that Israel would have had to take
responsibility for Gaza. No one else would. Not the Palestinian
Authority, not Egypt and not the international community. Gaza would
have been on Israel's shoulders. Running Gaza would have been a huge
commitment and a thankless one, as well. Israel would not have received
any gratitude from the people of Gaza -- on the contrary. And all this
at a time when there is a threat from Hezbollah in the north, Islamic
State and al-Qaida in Syria, jihadist groups in the Sinai, and, above
all, the threat from Iran. I think that was the main reason Israel did
not finish off Hamas.
"Another reason Israel did not finish Hamas
can be found if you compare Gaza to the battle of Fallujah, which is
probably the most comparable situation to that in Gaza. Speaking very
broadly, of course, but if you extrapolate from Fallujah into what
would have happened if Israel had gone on to destroy Hamas in Gaza, it
would most likely have cost several thousand lives of Israeli soldiers
and many more wounded. It would have required an Israeli ground
invasion of Gaza. Probably tens of thousands of Gaza civilians would
have died in that process, which would have resulted in massive pressure
on Israel from the international community."
Q: Retired IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz has
said that Operation Protective Edge lasted seven weeks, because Israel
kept a steady flow of humanitarian supplies to the Gaza Strip. He
stressed that this was the ethical thing to do. Would the U.S. or the
U.K. have made a similar ethical choice?
"It is very hard to say, when you are talking
about a hypothetical situation, but I do think that, compared to the
way most countries would react, Israel is extremely patient and tolerant
of attacks coming from Gaza. Not just the ones that came during
Operation Protective Edge, but also the sporadic missiles shot at Israel
since 2005, when Israel left the Gaza Strip, and which have been fired
into Israel in the last couple of days. I do not think it is a
situation that many countries would tolerate for as long as Israel has.
The U.S. and the U.K. would not have put up with such attacks for so
many years. They would have taken much stronger and more decisive
action in order to ensure that these rocket attacks would not occur
again.
"Israel is constrained in a way that other
countries are not. I think there is a particular humanity within the
nation of Israel and a particular desire not to kill people
unnecessarily. It was summed up in Golda Meir's words when she said
that 'we can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot
forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.' I think that sums
up the ethos and the morality of Israel.
"In addition to that, Israel is restrained by
the international community, in particular by the United States, which
affects Israel's reactions. It has to because Israel depends, as every
other country in the world does, on other nations to survive and so it
has to take account of public and political opinion in the world. One
of the problems, of course, is that the attitude of the Western world
toward Israel is far harsher than it is toward any other nation and
that is counterproductive, since it has the effect of constraining
Israel more greatly and prevents it from acting decisively militarily
speaking, which effectively only serves to prolong the conflict."
Q: Is there a way out of this predicament for Israel and the repeated confrontations with Hamas?
"It is a situation that Israel will face time
and time again. Israel obviously does whatever it can in terms of
intelligence, diplomacy and political influence to make its case and to
make the world understand the reality, but the real responsibility
lies with the international community, which is so heavily engaged in
the Israel-Palestine conflict, far more than in any other conflicts in
the world.
"Rather than constantly trying to pressure
Israel, the international community should take some responsibility for
seeking to resolve this situation. Not by pushing Israel into another
round of peace talks, which are not going to be productive, but by
pressurizing the Palestinians and the nations that support the
Palestinians into acting more responsibly. The only way out of this
repeated cycle of violence is if the international community take
concerted action to constrain the Palestinians.
"The reality, however, is that the
international community's response is the exact opposite. They
encourage violence by condemning Israel constantly and by not
condemning the real villains in this situation -- Hamas, Islamic Jihad
and the PA."
Q: Nonmilitary people have little
understanding of war, yet journalists and human rights activists pass
judgment on Israel's military actions all the time. How can you widen
the understanding of the military challenges Israel faces?
"Conferences like Shurat Hadin are valuable,
because they highlight the realities of armed conflict and the laws of
armed conflict as they apply to modern day conflict as opposed to
traditional conflict. The more lawyers and military people who
understand military conflict make the case for Israel in the media and
to political leaders -- the more that happens, the more it will have of
an effect. One example is José María Aznar's group, Friends of Israel
Initiative, which uses military experts to inform governments to make
them realize the realities of war.
"I also gave evidence to the U.N. independent
commission in Geneva that is investigating the Gaza conflict in
February this year and I gave them a comprehensive briefing on my
perception of the operations of the IDF based on my observations -- I
was here for the entire conflict -- and on my wider military experience.
The U.N. commission readily admitted that they have no military
experience or knowledge. They did actually welcome the input that I
gave them. In my case, they did not ask me to go there, I put myself
forward and I think that kind of action is helpful for military
observers and legal experts, who want truth to come out rather than a
distorted picture -- to impose themselves on the situation. The U.N.
were resistant initially, but they did eventually agree to it."
Q: In explaining its case to the world, what obstacles does the IDF face compared to British forces?
"The real problem is the media -- I say it as a
blanket term, but obviously it does not apply to all. Western
politicians in the U.S., U.K. and other countries are heavily
influenced by the media. Many media organizations are anti-Israel and
they do not want to report the news objectively. They shape the news in
terms of their own agendas, which are anti-Israeli. That is the biggest
factor influencing the behavior of the international community. The
media organizations are themselves influenced and manipulated by the
Palestinians and their supporters, but that is only because they allow
themselves to be manipulated by them.
"However, there are other factors. In European
countries, there are significant Muslim populations. Large percentages
are strongly anti-Israel, and most politicians, in addition to being
heavily influenced by the media, are influenced by their perception of
needing to appease these populations and their views.
"It is so easy for the media to influence
public opinion against Israel and to control what is happening. Israel
can extoll its virtues as much as it wants -- none of it matters when
you show a photograph of dead children from an Israeli bombing attack.
That trumps everything. The fact that all the deaths in these conflicts
are ultimately the responsibility of the Palestinian terror groups that
force an Israeli response is normally not considered.
"In comparison, British troops overall have
the benefit of the doubt. It is not media driven in the same way
against British soldiers. Take the BBC, as an example. If British
forces carry out an airstrike on a Taliban position in Afghanistan and
during that airstrike 10 civilians are killed, it will be talked about,
but it will not be automatically condemned as a war crime and reported
in that way. There will not be a media outcry against them.
"If Israel does the same thing, it will be
condemned and it will often be reported in a very biased way. The IDF
is not given the benefit of the doubt. It is just a completely different
and distorted method of reporting Israeli actions and it has a huge
effect. Those things mean that Israel as a Western democracy is in a
much more difficult position than any other country."
Q: Is there a viable short-term solution to
the troubles of the region or are we looking at a perpetual
continuation of the status quo?
"There is no short-term, no medium-term, and
not even a long-term solution. The fact that there is a problem does
not mean that there is a solution. I am not optimistic. Israel's
neighbors have deliberately perpetuated this conflict over many decades
by holding hostage Palestinian refugees, facilitated by the U.N.,
keeping them in perpetual refugee status and not allowing them to
integrate into the countries that they have gone to. Meaning that they
and their descendants, children and grandchildren, are political
hostages. This situation has not occurred anywhere else in the world;
it is only in relation to the Palestinians and it is an indication of
how much governments in the region wish to use the Palestinians as a
political weapon.
"One reason why this problem will drag on in
perpetuity is that Hamas and the PA are inciting hatred of Jews and
Israel into their children. Only when they stop indoctrinating their
children with anti-Semitic hatred will this stop. The indoctrination is
on television, in school, in textbooks -- wherever you look, that
indoctrination is going on. The U.N. is running the schools where the
indoctrination takes place and the West is funding it all. In effect,
it is funding the perpetuation of the conflict.
"Another reason is that the Middle East today
is incredibly dangerous. I cannot see how that is going to change. Yes,
there will be flare-ups in violence, there will be periods of relative
tranquillity, but the same volatility as exists today in the Middle
East is going to exist for all time or at least for the foreseeable
future.
"The volatility in Israel is likely to
continue for the very long term, because Israel cannot afford to
withdraw militarily from the West Bank and if it does not, there will
not be a Palestinian state. However, even if the PA were to accept the
Jewish state and end the conflict, that would still leave the West Bank
vulnerable to infiltration by other groups that want to see the
downfall of Israel. Islamic State is dedicated to the destruction of
Israel, so is al-Qaida, and other groups will spring up when those two
groups have become history. If the Palestinians have a sovereign state,
then what does that state become? The question is, whether it is in
the West's interest to have yet another Islamic state and yet another
threat to the West."
Q. Would it change the prospects for the future if Iran were to be finished off as a major player in the region?
"No. It would only change the dynamics. Iran
is intent on the destruction of Israel, even if it has to wait 100
years, and they use various proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah to
attack Israel and the Jewish people in the region and around the world.
Iran is a furious foe of Israel, but it is not the only one. Many of
the Arab nations would also like to see the destruction of Israel.
"If or when Iran is stopped, others will step
into the vacuum. Take Egypt, for example. I believe President
[Abdel-Fattah] el-Sissi, whether it is his intention or not, to be a
friend of Israel. His actions have been in Israel's interest. What
happens once he is gone? Who will replace him?
"Israel is in a position where it cannot just deal with
the situation as it is today. It has to look at the situation as it
could look tomorrow -- it needs to look at the worst-case scenarios of
tomorrow. Peace is very far from breaking out."
Judith Bergman
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=25717&hp=1
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment