Article published in The Jewish Chronicle, 19 December 2023. © Richard Kemp

Well intentioned though he may be, former defence secretary Ben Wallace, in an article in the Telegraph, gets much wrong about the Gaza conflict and risks stoking antisemitic hate. He supports the eradication of Hamas but says Israel is doing it all wrong. He doesn’t explain in any detail how they should do it differently. What he does offer are lessons from Northern Ireland. But Wallace doesn’t seem to recognise that Gaza is nothing like Northern Ireland. Not only that, he draws the wrong conclusions about how the IRA terrorist campaign ended. He seems to think it was because the Nationalist population ‘recognised that the IRA didn’t have its wellbeing and economic interests at heart’, which it was not. He seems to imply from this misunderstanding that Israel should be prioritising winning the hearts and minds of the civilian population over destroying Hamas.

The reality is that the vast majority of the Nationalist community never supported IRA violence but were largely powerless to do anything about it. On the other hand the people of Gaza, as well as the people of Judea and Samaria — the West Bank — are overwhelmingly behind Hamas’s violence. Nothing like the level of visceral hatred for Israel and the Jews that exists in these territories was ever present against the British in Northern Ireland. It is virtually bred into Palestinians almost from birth. Despite what Wallace suggests, nothing can change that, at least for generations.

The IRA was in fact beaten by British military and police action and almost total intelligence penetration of their terrorist networks, not by some kind of popular uprising against them. Likewise, Hamas can only be defeated by overwhelming force. It was never necessary to use the same level of violence against the IRA as it is against Hamas, because their very nature, and the environments of the two conflicts, were utterly different. Northern Ireland, where I did seven operational tours of duty, was and remains a part of the UK, with a constant level of policing and security. Gaza on the other hand is effectively a separate country, and has been totally controlled in all aspects by Hamas.

Hamas fights among civilians and designs its tactics to ensure Israel kills as many civilians as possible. The IDF on the other hand have become world leaders at attacking an enemy while minimising the extent of civilian casualties. I was in Israel a few years back with a delegation of about 15 former generals from democracies around the world. Every one of them said their own armies would not be able to achieve Israel’s standards of avoiding unnecessary civilian deaths.

Wallace does not appear to accept this, writing that Israel is carrying out indiscriminate attacks. That is the opposite of reality. According to a former US State Department official and Marine Corps fighter pilot, Israel is using a greater percentage of precision aerial weapons in this conflict than any country in the history of urban warfare. Israel only carries out attacks against terrorists and does all it can to warn civilians to leave an area that is going to be targeted. That is their obligation under the laws of war, but inexplicably Wallace suggests this very action breaks those laws by ‘forced movement of civilians’. Hamas of course consistently does the opposite, often forcing civilians to remain in an area they know is about to be attacked.

Wallace also suggests there is a danger of Israel breaching the Geneva Conventions by disproportionate use of force. Proportionality has a specific meaning in humanitarian law: an attack may only be carried out if the expected harm to civilians is not excessive in relation to the expected military advantage. He cannot possibly know whether or not this is the case and should not make such irresponsible allegations. If he is suggesting that Israel is killing a disproportionate number of civilians compared to combatant casualties, again he cannot know.

The former Defence Secretary appears to accuse Israel of illegal collective punishment of the civilian population. This is not accurate, either. If he’s talking about Israel denying or restricting goods required to alleviate civilian suffering which could fall into the hands of the enemy, that is both necessary and lawful under the Geneva Conventions, provided it is not intended specifically to harm civilians. I know Wallace does not intend to do either, but his words play right into Hamas’s hands and risk fuelling the sort of antisemitic hatred that we have already seen too much of on the streets of Britain.

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 18 December 2023. © Richard Kemp

In his Telegraph article today, Ben Wallace repeatedly misunderstands the situation in Gaza. To accuse Israel of ‘a killing rage’ and ‘indiscriminate’ assaults is untrue and unfair to an army that surpasses all others in its ability to attack an enemy while doing everything possible to minimise civilian casualties. As General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a few years ago: ‘Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties. In fact, we sent a team of senior officers to get the lessons from the measures they took to prevent civilian casualties.’

I have been in Israel and in the Gaza Strip since this war began, and I know that the measures Israel took back then are the measures they are taking now; except they have been improved on by further battlefield experience in the intervening years.

Despite that, yes, many innocent civilians have been tragically killed. But Hamas plans all of its operations with one overriding aim: to force Israel to kill civilians in Gaza. That is an even higher priority for them than actually killing IDF soldiers and civilians, because it achieves their objective of delegitimising, vilifying and isolating Israel among the world community.

Wallace accuses the IDF of breaking the Geneva Conventions, using disproportionate force, collective punishment and forced movement of civilians. How can he know whether or not the force Israel uses is disproportionate?

Proportionality has a specific definition in the Geneva Conventions. It means that an attack may only be carried out if the expected harm to civilians is not excessive in relation to the expected military advantage. How is he in a position to judge that? Perhaps he is thinking about the civilian to combatant casualty ratio, in which Israel has a better track record than most other armies in the world – but that statistic is impossible for him to know. Unless of course he is working on Hamas figures, which are likely to be inflated, take no account of the many Palestinian civilian deaths they themselves have inflicted, and make no distinction between civilian and combatant deaths.

Where too is evidence of collective punishment? If military operations that bring death, suffering and destruction on civilians is collective punishment, then that applies to virtually every war that has ever been fought. If he means denying or restricting supply of commodities needed by civilians, but likely to be used by enemy forces, then that is permissible under the laws of war.

The idea that Israel is somehow breaking the Conventions by forced movement of civilians is also incorrect. Under the laws of war combatants on both sides are required, where possible, to warn civilians of an impending attack and take whatever steps they can to move Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 11 December 2023. © Richard Kemp

You may not realise it from social media and much mainstream media, but Israel is winning decisively in Gaza, with Hamas consistently outgunned and outfought. The butchers of 7th October are beginning to lay down their weapons and surrender in droves or just run away.

While still clearing the enemy out of parts of Gaza City, since the ceasefire ended the IDF’s main effort has switched south into Khan Yunis, Gaza’s second largest town and Hamas’s major stronghold. In a stunning operation last week, IDF ground forces rapidly broke through Hamas defences there, encircled the city, drove a wedge between two major fighting formations and are now launching targeted raids into the heart of the terrorist infrastructure.

The tunnels are being cleared out by specially trained soldiers and dogs, along with robots, and destroyed using explosives and imaginative techniques, potentially including sea water and sponge bombs. Meanwhile the air force, as well as directly supporting ground troops with attack drones, helicopters and combat planes, has been striking at Hamas leaders, intelligence operatives and munitions. The last few days have seen some of the heaviest fighting so far.

The consequences have been devastating for the terrorists. Many have been killed, including battalion commanders who cannot be replaced. In my experience even some of the most hardcore jihadists are only too willing to spill the beans after being taken captive and therefore the growing number of prisoners will give up critical intelligence on operational plans and the whereabouts of senior Hamas leaders.

On top of this military ruination there is a growing resentment within Gaza. Ordinary people know their lives have been devastated and loved ones killed and maimed as a result of Hamas’s actions. Sensing the terrorists’ weakening stranglehold, more and more civilians are speaking out against the oppressive regime in a way that has never before been possible, including, it appears, to TV cameras.

All this signals the beginning of the end for Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The fight is not yet over but Israel’s objectives are being met with greater speed and effectiveness than many expected. Wisely, the Israelis took little heed of American and British military experts that urged restraint, advising the IDF not to invade with armoured divisions but instead rely on special forces raids as they themselves had done in Iraq and Afghanistan. That didn’t work there and it wouldn’t have worked in Gaza.

Netanyahu was also right about his strategy for preventing a regional war: go strong and Iran’s proxy terrorist groups will waver. Now Hizballah and its masters in Tehran are clearly shaken as they watch their allies in Gaza being eviscerated. Thus Israel has now Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 5 December 2023. © Richard Kemp

The West has allowed a new Al Qaida armed with ballistic missiles to form under its very eyes. After their post-9/11 neutralisation in Afghanistan, the greatest fear of the US and its allies was that it would re-emerge under the protection and with the support of another state, possibly acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, a potential alliance between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein was one of the main drivers of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

That same nightmare scenario now exists with the Houthis. They have seized control over much of Yemen’s state apparatus. They are sponsored by Iran, which funds them and has armed them with ballistic and cruise missiles and attack drones, some with ranges exceeding 2,000 kilometres – the operational distance to Israeli territory – as well as anti-ship missiles, remote controlled maritime attack vessels and sea mines.

Since mid October the Houthis have been firing drones and missiles at Israel in ‘solidarity’ with Iran’s other proxies, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. On the 31st a ballistic missile was intercepted by the IDF’s Arrow air defence system above the Earth’s atmosphere, marking the first ever example of warfare in space. Since the Gaza war began the Houthis have been attacking shipping in the Red Sea, some with apparent Israeli links.

This is by no means the first time the Houthis have attacked international commercial shipping: in 2016, they attempted to strike two US warships in the Red Sea. They’ve also launched multiple drone and missile strikes against Saudi Arabia and the UAE, some causing significant destruction.

The most recent Houthi attacks were against the USS Carney and several commercial vessels on Sunday. This was a narrow miss: if the American warship had been hit, the West could have been dragged into further conflict. That of course remains a distinct possibility unless the Houthis can be deterred or de-fanged. And then of course there is the immense damage that these attacks are doing to global trade, with the Red Sea providing a vital maritime transit route connecting the Suez Canal to the Indian Ocean.

All of that brings into sharp focus a wider Western strategic naivety in the region. Much of the blame lies at the door of Joe Biden. Soon after he took office, without any apparent thought for the geopolitical implications, he de-listed the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organisation; largely, it must be assumed, because his nemesis Donald Trump proscribed them in the first place. Continue reading →