Richard Kemp, "The U.N.’s Gaza Report Is Flawed and Dangerous": Exposing the Bias of Mary McGowan Davis and the Times Editorial Board

Tweet

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "The U.N.’s Gaza Report Is Flawed and Dangerous," Colonel Richard Kemp, former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, exposes the United Nations Human Rights Council report on last summer’s conflict in Gaza for what it is: tendentious trash commissioned to vilify Israel. Colonel Kemp writes (my emphasis in blue):

"The report is characterized by a lack of understanding of warfare. That is hardly surprising. Judge [Mary McGowan] Davis admitted, when I testified before her in February, that the commission, though investigating a war, had no military expertise. Perhaps that is why no attempt has been made to judge Israeli military operations against the practices of other armies. Without such international benchmarks, the report’s findings are meaningless.

The commission could have listened to Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said last November that the I.D.F. [Israel Defense Forces] had taken extraordinary measures to try to limit civilian casualties. Or to a group of 11 senior military officers from seven nations, including the United States, Germany, Spain and Australia, who also investigated the Gaza conflict recently. I was a member of that group, and our report, made available to Judge Davis, said: 'None of us is aware of any army that takes such extensive measures as did the I.D.F. last summer to protect the lives of the civilian population.'

The report acknowledges that Israel took steps to warn of imminent attacks but suggests more should have been done to minimize civilian casualties. Yet it offers no opinion about what additional measures Israel could have taken. It even criticizes Israel for using harmless explosive devices — the 'knock on the roof' — as a final warning to evacuate targeted buildings, suggesting that it created confusion. No other country uses roof-knocks, a munition developed by Israel as part of a series of I.D.F. warning procedures, including text messages, phone calls and leaflet drops, that are known to have saved many Palestinian lives.

Judge Davis suggests that the I.D.F.’s use of air, tank and artillery fire in populated areas may constitute a war crime and recommends further international legal restrictions on their use. Yet these same systems were used extensively by American and British forces in similar circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are often vital in saving the lives of our own soldiers, and their curtailment would jeopardize military effectiveness while handing an advantage to our enemies."

Now compare Colonel Kemp's conclusions with those of The New York Times in a June 23 editorial entitled "War Crimes and the Gaza War" (my emphasis in red):

"The report is expected to serve as the basis for a fuller investigation into possible war crimes by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. It is unrealistic to expect Hamas, which the United States and other countries consider a terrorist group, to comply with international law or police itself. But Israel has a duty, and should have the desire, to adjust its military policies to avoid civilian casualties and hold those who failed to do so accountable."

Yes, the New York Times is every bit as biased and ignorant as the panel responsible for preparing the United Nations Gaza report. Needless to say, the Times failed to mention how the UNHRC, ever since it came into being, has consistently singled out Israel for censure. As observed by UN Watch:

"In the nine years of its existence, the UN Human Rights Council has condemned Israel more times than the rest of the world combined, revealed UN Watch today, ahead of a new report to be released by the Geneva-based NGO that documents endemic selectivity and politicization at the world body.

The outcome resolution for the latest Gaza report, to be introduced at the UNHRC this week by the Palestinians together with the Arab and Islamic states, will condemn Israel exclusively, and will mark the 62nd resolution targeting Israel since the new and improved Council was created in 2006 -- while the total of all other UNHRC condemnatory resolutions for the rest of the world amounts to 55, with most of the worst violators given a free pass, if not a seat on the council itself."

One can only wonder why the Times allowed Colonel Kemp to rebut its vacuous editorial.

Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch: More Egg on His Face After Goldstone Retraction

First, in 2009, Robert Bernstein, the founder and chairman of Human Rights Watch for 20 years, ripped into this organization, stating that "Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism" and that "[o]nly by returning to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it can Human Rights Watch resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html).

Next, in 2010, Marc Garlasco, HRW's "military expert", left the organization after it was discovered that this investigator of "war crimes" was an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/31/expert-quits-rights-group-over-nazi-memorabilia/).

Now, in 2010, HRW's credibility has reached a new nadir with Goldstone's retraction of his Gaza report. Goldstone had been a member of HRW's board, and HRW became one of the chief proponents of the report on the Gaza war prepared for the United Nations Human Rights Council by Goldstone, which was exceptionally critical of Israel (see: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/human_rights_watch_selling_goldstone_s_indictment0).

Kenneth Roth, the executive director of HRW, cannot accept Goldstone's retraction sitting down, and has returned fire with an opinion piece in The Guardian entitled "Gaza: the stain remains on Israel's war record" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/gaza-stain-remains-israel-war-record). Roth writes:

"Goldstone backed away from a particularly controversial charge in the report – the allegation that Israel had an apparent high-level policy to target civilians. He now says that information from Israeli investigations indicates "that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy".

Goldstone was right to make that amendment.

. . . .

But Goldstone has not retreated from the report's allegation that Israel engaged in large-scale attacks in violation of the laws of war. These attacks included Israel's indiscriminate use of heavy artillery and white phosphorus in densely populated areas, and its massive and deliberate destruction of civilian buildings and infrastructure without a lawful military reason. This misconduct was so widespread and systematic that it clearly reflected Israeli policy."

Regrettably, Roth's remarks amount to little more than a smoke screen. Ignored by Roth are Goldstone's other admissions in his Washington Post retraction (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html):

• Hamas now confesses that the Israel Defense Forces numbers concerning hostile combatants and civilians killed in the operation were accurate.

• Subsequent to Operation Cast Lead, hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel.

What is the significance of Hamas's concurrence that its losses were in line with the numbers reported by the IDF? In a nutshell, this means that the IDF did a remarkable job in controlling civilian casualties, given that Hamas was fighting, i.e. firing rockets and missiles at Israeli civilian targets, from within and alongside "civilian buildings and infrastructure".

As stated by British military expert Colonel Richard Kemp in an interview with the BBC (http://zionism-israel.com/issues/Israel_human_rights_kemp_gaza.htm):

"I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza."

Of course, Colonel Kemp is never mentioned by Roth in his opinion piece in The Guardian.

And what about Goldstone's observation that Hamas and friends continue to fire mortar shells and rockets at Israeli civilian targets in southern Israel? Needless to say, also no mention of this "phenomenon" in Roth's opinion piece in The Guardian. Any such mention might interfere with HRW fundraising in, for example, Saudi Arabia (see: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/07/fundraising-corruption-at-human-rights-watch/21345/).

Bottom line: Roth's attempt to equate the conduct of Hamas with that of Israel is sickening, and it is HRW's prejudicial record that remains stained.

Thomas Friedman's "War, Timeout, War, Time ...": Horsefeathers!

In an op-ed entitled "War, Timeout, War, Time ..." in today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/opinion/27friedman.html?hp), Thomas Friedman claims:

• suicide-bombings and rockets from Gaza and Lebanon "seem like a distant memory" to Israel, which has never been more prosperous;

• Israel has won its last three wars using what Friedman calls “Hama Rules”, which he defines as "no rules at all";

• the brutality of Israeli tactics employed against Hezbollah and Hamas have resulted in U.N. investigations into alleged war crimes.

Friedman concludes, "the risks to Israel’s legitimacy of another war in Gaza, Lebanon or the West Bank — in which Israel could be forced to kill even more civilians to squash rocket attacks launched from schoolyards by fighters who wear no uniforms — will be staggering."

Let's get down to brass tacks.

Israel has never been more prosperous? Perhaps from Friedman's perspective, when he stays at the fanciest Jerusalem and Tel Aviv hotels, all appears glorious and sanguine. But consider the following statistics:

"Of the 2.1 million households in Israel, one of every four Israelis –1.6 million people – lives below the poverty line. Close to half of them are working in full or part-time jobs and are still unable to provide the basics for their families. This Passover, charity organizations say they saw a 40 percent increase in the number of people asking for help. In Jerusalem nearly 1,000 people a day come to four soup kitchens at which hot meals are served.

• One-third of Israeli children, some 777,400 in number, live in poverty-stricken families, according to the National Insurance Institute (February 2009). Israel ranks among Western countries with the greatest percentage of poor children.
• The number of working families under the poverty line continues to rise, from 45.7 percent in 2007 to 66.4 percent in 2008.
• In 2005, the poverty line for a single person was about $445 per month; for a family of five, it was $1,337. A minimum-wage earner in Israel brings in approximately $883 per month; taxes can reduce that number almost to the poverty line.
• Over 70 percent of the minimum wage earners in Israel are women.
• 75 percent of poor families cannot afford medicine and 70 percent are dependant on food donations.
• 80 percent of Israelis living on support provided by aid groups are below the hunger line."

http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=203418

Suicide-bombings and rockets from Gaza and Lebanon seem like a distant memory to Israel? Friedman forgets to mention the Scud missiles from Iraq that fell on Haifa and Tel Aviv in 1991; this is something my family and I, then living in Tel Aviv, will never forget. But more to the point, I can tell you that a day does not pass when I do not dwell on the horrors of recent wars, as does my oldest son. Are we different from other Israelis? Absolutely not. Everyone in this country has lost one or more relatives or dear friends in a war or terrorist outrage, and there are countless Israelis suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome.

Israel has won its wars using “Hama Rules”, i.e. "no rules at all"? Here, as someone who observed these wars from up-close, I must try very hard to refrain from profanity when answering Friedman. In a nutshell, compare civilian casualties during Operation Cast Lead with civilian casualties in America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. As stated by Colonel Richard Kemp to the U.N. Human Rights Council on October 16, 2009:

"I am the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. I served with NATO and the United Nations; commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War. I spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Government’s Joint Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.

* * * *

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop Hamas from attacking them with rockets.

And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare."

Israeli tactics employed against Hezbollah and Hamas have resulted in U.N. investigations leading to delegitimization of Israel? Again, reread Colonel Kemp's statement to the U.N. Human Rights Council. Also consider:

• What did the U.N. do when five million people died in the Congo over recent years? Nothing.

• What did the U.N. do when millions more died in Darfur? Nothing.

• What has the U.N. done with respect to the 400,000 Uzbek refugees from rioting in Kyrgyzstan? Nothing.

• What has the U.N. done with respect to the 200,000 refugees from fighting between Saudi forces and Yemenite rebels? Nothing.

On the other hand, when nine Turks, seeking "martyrdom" and belonging to an organization linked to al-Qaeda, die while attacking Israeli soldiers with pistols, knives and clubs, then it is time for the U.N., Obama and The New York Times to demand international investigations.

There will always be anti-Semitism, and no matter what Israel does or does not do, it will not achieve international "legitimacy" during our lifetimes. Given, however, the choice between committing suicide in order to achieve some vestige of "legitimacy" and survival, please forgive me if I choose survival.