Colonel Richard Kemp's combat experience spans two continents, several wars and 30 years of service in the British army, but he is currently worried by a war of words taking place beyond the battlefield.
War crime accusations condemning Israel's actions in the 2008-09 Gaza War stem from the "second front" that plays out continuously through television, newspapers and social media, he told roughly 70 students and community members in List 120 last night. The event was sponsored by Brown Students for Israel.
At the start of the 8 p.m. speech, which was part of the Independent Voices on the Middle East lecture series, Kemp assured the audience that his remarks were "objective." Drawing on a variety of historical references and his military experience, he depicted the Israeli military's conduct as in keeping with international norms for treatment of civilians during wartime and argued that international outrage was largely due to widespread anti-Israel sentiment.
Kemp cited statistics he attributed to the Israeli government and Hamas to show that the ratio of Palestinian civilian to combatant deaths was about one-to-one, below the three-to-one average for recent international conflicts. The war claimed roughly 1,400 Palestinian and fewer than 15 Israeli lives, though estimates vary.
Comparing Israeli actions in both the war and the 2010 Gaza flotilla raid to those of other western and Middle Eastern nations in similar situations, Kemp said Israeli military action has never disproportionately affected noncombatants. Though he acknowledged that the Israeli army, like all militaries, sometimes fails to meet its own standards for the humane treatment of civilians, "few other armies ever wrote higher ideals to live up to," he said.
International reaction to Israel's role in the war, largely negative outside of the United States, is predicated on media misrepresentations and strained diplomatic relations, he argued, adding that bodies like the United Nations Human Rights Council are often influenced by representatives from dictatorships in the Middle East.
In a question-and-answer session following the speech, one student asked about the causes of media distortions.
"In Arab countries, there is an institutionalized hatred for Israel as an entity," Kemp responded. "Another reason is fear of Islamic terrorism. … Many people want to appease those who would attack us."
But Kemp's remarks were not universally accepted.
Outside the building, representatives from Brown Students for Justice in Palestine handed out slips before the speech citing an Amnesty International report that accused Israel of launching direct attacks on civilians. After the event, members of the group said they remained unconvinced, particularly by Kemp's justification of Israeli actions.
"He's glossing over its role as the oppressor and equating international condemnation with ethnic cleansing," said Alysha Aziz '12. "He had this mantra of three times less deaths … but it felt like in some ways that was just spitting on the faces of those who had died."
"Personally, I think that no voice should be shut down, but I was expecting some more background knowledge and honesty," said Eduarda Araujo '15, another member of the group.
Harpo Jaeger '14, co-leader of Puzzle Peace, a pro-Israel campus organization that seeks a two-state solution to the conflict, said he appreciated Kemp's comparisons of Israel to other western nations because it was a new perspective on the issue. But he said he found Kemp's argument that anti-Israel sentiment stems from an appeasement of extreme Islamists "complete crap," and that he believed the event did not live up to its billing. "I was disappointed that it was framed as an independent voice," Jaeger said. "There was absolutely a political agenda."
But Jennifer Sieber '14, an intern for the Israel on Campus Coalition and the organizer of the speech, said the event was a valuable way to further campus dialogue on the issue, particularly through a reception following the speech that included various student leaders. She said Kemp substantiated her opinion on the issue with meaningful arguments. "It didn't change anything that I had thought," Sieber added.
