Richard Kemp, retired British Army colonel and military analyst, spoke to a January 22 Middle East Forum Podcast (video). The following summarizes his comments:
Following Hamas’s invasion into southern Israel’s border communities, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have been effective in their operational objectives of destroying Hamas’s military infrastructure in Gaza and killing its terrorists. In its terror spree, Hamas massacred 1,200 Israelis, injured 4,000, and kidnapped over 200 hostages to Gaza. While the IDF continues to pursue its objectives, the rescue of the hostages still held by Hamas has not yet been achieved. The complexities of engaging the terrorists in urban warfare while civilian casualties mount is part of Hamas’s strategy of using the Gazan civilian population as human shields. By flooding global media with photos of civilian casualties, the terror group is furthering its goals of garnering sympathy for the Gazan people and turning much of the world against Israel.
The added challenge of ferreting out Hamas’s command and control centers buried in over 300 miles of subterranean tunnel city under Gaza without endangering the lives of the Israeli hostages is daunting. Although international pressure is mounting on the IDF to transition to targeted strikes and limit collateral damage, intensive combat operations remain a key tool in their strategy.
The false accusations of genocide lodged against Israel as it degrades Hamas fuels public outrage over images of civilian deaths. Israel must counter this media battle that has been waged against the IDF since the 1960s. In the information war, many media outlets are committed to the narrative that Israel can do no right. What’s more, their biased agenda is a cudgel against Israel that whips pro-Hamas/anti-Israel demonstrations into a frenzy. Accusations against Israel’s right to defend itself against terror are echoed by the UN, human rights groups, national governments, and universities – all of whom engage in anti-Israel propaganda.
The false accusations of genocide lodged against Israel as it degrades Hamas fuels public outrage over images of civilian deaths.
Setting aside the highly charged reactions to this war, an instructive way to understand the death toll in any war is to examine the “civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio.” By goading the IDF into killing as many civilians as possible, Hamas enrages the public against the IDF and pressures Israel into a ceasefire, thereby furthering Hamas’s objective – “to remain intact.”
Hamas’s unverified casualty figure of 23,000 does not separate terrorists killed from (1) civilian deaths, (2) Gazan civilians murdered by errant Hamas rockets launched against Israel that fall short, and (3) deaths by natural causes. However, even using the 23,000 number, which is repeated by the media and the UN, and comparing it to the 9,000 Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists the IDF claims to have killed, the resulting ratio yields “1.5 civilians killed for every one terrorist killed.”
A UN report issued prior to Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza examined the “average ratio of civilians killed in conflict around the world.” It concluded that urban area conflicts produce a nine to one casualty rate, i.e., nine civilians to every one combatant. In Gaza, the 1.5 to one ratio is significantly lower than the UN average of collateral damage incurred in global conflicts.
Post-war Gaza, with the particulars of management and reconstruction unknown, will require the uncompromising need for “long-term Israeli responsibility for [the] security of Gaza.” Given the current situation, “this is exactly the wrong time to be talking about a two-state solution.” It is unfeasible for two reasons: (1) the Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership, much like Hamas, seeks “the elimination of the state of Israel"; and (2) prior to October 7, each Israeli withdrawal – from Gaza, and southern Lebanon – was met with violence against Israel. This accounts for why Israel cannot militarily leave Judea and Samaria, a.k.a. the West Bank, without endangering the entire country. Maintaining the “current status quo with some enhancements in terms of a degree of sovereignty” remains the best prospect.
Success in Gaza for Israel means eliminating Hamas as a future threat to the Jewish state and rescuing the hostages. Whether both can be achieved remains to be seen, but eradicating Hamas within Gaza and elsewhere will not eliminate the threat to Israel’s existence. Israel’s need to establish security and maintain intelligence capabilities in Gaza are only one part of the equation. Deradicalizing the population by eradicating the poisonous Jew-hatred that has infected its education system since Israel vacated Gaza in 2005 is a task that the international community, possibly led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, should take on as part of the reconstruction of Gaza.
In northern Israel, the IDF faces another potential front on its border with Lebanon. Hezbollah, the Iranian regime’s Lebanese proxy, has fired some 2,000 missiles into Israel. The U.S., France, and other countries are making “diplomatic efforts” to pressure Hezbollah to abide by its obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and move north of the Litani River. Should Hezbollah be compelled to move, it would likely be short-lived before they would return, as none of these countries could effectively force Hezbollah to adhere to the resolution.
The problem is Israel’s, and if Hezbollah “is not forced north,” there are few options other than engulfing southern Lebanon in a “major conflagration.” Hezbollah’s rockets, especially its precision-guided missiles capable of reaching the “length and breadth” of Israel, could cause significant damage. For Lebanon, however, war with Israel would be “devastating.” The U.S. as well as Israel’s allies should pressure Hezbollah by messaging that they will have Israel’s back – a pronouncement that could “tip the balance.”
The weakness of the current U.S. administration’s response to the Iranian mullahs’ proxies has advanced the regime’s hegemonic ambitions and unleashed havoc in the region.
Global concerns over the spread of the conflict across the entire region are expressed against the backdrop of low-level attacks by Iranian proxies in Syria on Israel. Iranian proxies are also in Judea and Samaria, as is Hamas. For now, the IDF is containing the situation in the West Bank, but further south in Yemen, the Houthis, another Iranian proxy, have launched ballistic missiles against Israel that it intercepted. Undeterred, the Houthis have attacked global shipping, initially targeting ships linked to Israel but expanding attacks on other ships traversing the Red Sea. These attacks are being countered with American and British retaliatory strikes.
As other Arab countries have no desire to join the conflict, all the aggression against Israel and the U.S. is driven by Iran and its proxies. While the Islamic regime fears U.S. expansion of its anti-Houthi operations, it is feeling pressure from suicide attacks waged from within and from the continuous unrest of its people unhappy with the ayatollahs. The regime, in a desperate show of strength to the U.S. and within Iran itself, ordered its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) to attack targets in Iraq, Syria, and nuclear-armed Pakistan, considered a U.S. partner.
Hitting Iran harder with sanctions to prevent illicit oil shipments and weapons smuggling might contain the regime, but direct strikes against the IRGC would be a more muscular deterrent to rein in the ayatollahs. After former president Trump eliminated the IRGC Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, Iran backed down. The Middle East’s dictum is “weakness provokes and strength deters,” but the weakness of the current U.S. administration’s response to the Iranian mullahs’ proxies has advanced the regime’s hegemonic ambitions and unleashed havoc in the region.
