
Colonel Richard Kemp, the former commander of the British military forces in Afghanistan, spoke to Israel National News - Arutz Sheva about the report published by the New York Times today (Thursday) that the IDF adopted less restrictive rules of engagement following the outbreak of the war with the October 7 massacre by the Hamas terrorist organization.
Col. Kemp said the New York Times report may "tells us nothing new but it is clearly slanted to imply that the IDF is operating outside the laws of war. It suggests that Israel has adopted a different and less restrictive policy than in previous Gaza conflicts. That is almost certainly true. Previous conflicts were far more limited in their nature, intended to respond to attacks from Gaza that were far more limited in their effects on Israel. After 7th October Israel had no option other than to destroy Hamas rather than inflict limited damage especially on key commanders and military assets as had occurred previously. That has required a far more extensive and aggressive military policy."
He further stated that "the Times report suggests standardised 'quotas' on potential civilian harm. If these exist then they are likely to be guidelines for operational planning policies. But strikes are not authorised by such guidelines. Each strike is launched according to a proportionality assessment with legal advice. That will depend on the threat posed by individuals, groups or assets at the time the assessment is made."
He emphasized, "It’s important to note that whether a strike was or was not legally proportional does not depend on the outcome of the attack but the prior assessment of potential civilian harm. Hence for example an unknown Hamas explosives dump could intensify the harm caused by the strike, perhaps killing many more civilians than expected, as may have been the case in at least one of the examples given by the Times. That would not mean that the strike was disproportionate or unlawful. The IDF’s policies in this area are similar to those of other Western countries. Of course in some military campaigns, including Afghanistan and Iraq, restrictions will be tighter than required by the laws of war, reflecting prevailing political policies."
"Like other countries, the IDF place restrictions on their rules of engagement according to the laws of war and political, moral and humanitarian considerations. They also vary according to the place, time and circumstances and the weapons platforms used for an attack. The only overriding consideration is that they must always conform to the laws of armed conflict," he said.
When asked about his assessment of the IDF's conduct in the war against Hamas, he responded, "In my experience of observing the IDF in action they scrupulously stick to the laws of war in their targeting policies and actions. Of course errors will be made and lessons learnt and procedures modified accordingly. The Times is critical of the IDF’s intelligence and civilian harm mitigation measures. They don’t seem to understand that intelligence can rarely be 100% and nor can assessments of population levels in a given area. I doubt however that any army has ever had the quality of intelligence the IDF has in Gaza and I know that no other army has had such sophisticated or effective means of mitigating harm to civilians."
"However war is always going to result in civilian casualties, especially in Gaza where Hamas has a deliberate policy of using human shields and wants to compel the IDF to inflict the maximum number of civilian casualties in order to isolate and vilify Israel and force them to cease their attacks," Col. Kemp concluded.