By BERNIE BELLAN On Wednesday, September 11 an event was held at the Berney Theatre featuring John Spencer. The event was billed as “Hamas’ War: Truth and Consequences.”

Spencer, who retired from the US Army as a major, was described on the poster advertising the event as “the world’s leading urban warfare expert” and a “strategic adviser to world leaders.”

According to the website of the Modern Warfare Institute, which Spencer says he helped to create, “John W. Spencer currently serves as the chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute, codirector of the Urban Warfare Project, and host of the Urban Warfare Project Podcast. He is also a founding member of the International Working Group on Subterranean Warfare.

“He served over twenty-five years in the Army as an infantry soldier having held ranks from private to sergeant first class and second lieutenant to major. His assignments as an active duty Army officer included two combat deployments to Iraq as both an infantry platoon leader and company commander, Ranger instructor with the Army’s Ranger School, Joint Chiefs of Staff and Army Staff intern, fellow with the chief of staff of the Army’s Strategic Studies Group, and strategic planner and then deputy director of the Modern War Institute where he was instrumental in the design and formation of the institute.”

The email advertising the event that we received came from an organization known as “TAFSIK.” We have attempted to obtain more information about TAFSIK – and who’s behind it, but in response to two emails we sent to them asking them to describe who’s behind the organization, we simply got back a response that was a regurgitation of material already available on their website: “Tafsik organization emerged resolutely from the tragedy of October 7th, dedicated to combating Jew Hatred in Canada and beyond. By forging alliances with diverse communities—including Iranian, Indian, Christian, Yazidi, Venezuelan, and many other groups—Tafsik is uniting voices against Jew hatred on a global scale. The organization hosts significant events featuring prominent figures such as Douglas Murray, Gad Saad, Hillel Fuld, and Colonel John Spencer, to illuminate the challenges faced by Israel and the Jewish community worldwide. Additionally, Tafsik is leveraging cutting-edge AI technology to combat Jew Hate more effectively. As one of the fastest-growing grassroots organizations in Canada, Tafsik is committed to fostering understanding and solidarity in the fight against hatred.”

There were also names of three other organizations that were listed as sponsoring the Spencer event on the email received from TAFSIK: The Jewish Federation of Winnipeg; another organization called “Blue &”…something (the logo is unintelligible); and a third organization called Manitoba Israeli Coalition.

As well, during the event two other organizations were mentioned as having had some involvement: Winnipeg Friends of Israel and Bridges for Peace.

This event had an inordinate amount of security surrounding it. Registrants were told in advance that the actual venue would not be disclosed until shortly before the event. Here is what the email said: “Given recent threats and security events across Canada and elsewhere, we ask that you please keep this information confidential for security purposes…Filming and other recording will not be permitted.”

As it was, the venue turned out to be the Berney Theatre in the Asper Campus. When attendees arrived they might have seen one lonely protester, whose face was fully covered in a kaffiyah, holding a Palestinian flag. But there were also at least 20 Winnipeg Police Service members there – and at least five police cars. (There seemed to be even more police by the time attendees left the campus between 9:30-10:00 pm. The cost to hire all those police must have been exorbitant.)

Wow! We wondered what might be said that would be so sensitive as to prohibit recording – and how much money was spent in holding an event that was limited to only 200 individuals (the maximum capacity of the Berney Theatre), yet required a huge turnout of police.

To be honest, we didn’t hear anything from Spencer that one would think would have required a prohibition on recording the event – no discussion of military tactics or anything that he hasn’t already gone on the record as having written or said previously.

Spencer (who completed a 25-year period of service in the US Army infantry with the rank of “major,” but later was promoted to the rank of “colonel” in something called the “California State Guard”) focused largely on defending the IDF from accusations that its tactics merit criticism as, for instance, that they have been “disproportionate” to the level of threat posed by Hamas.

Interestingly, Spencer gave a full length interview to the Canadian Jewish News two days prior to the September 11 event in Winnipeg during which he went into a great more detail about Israeli military operations in Gaza than he did in the Berney Theatre on September 11. (You can read that entire interview at https://jewishpostandnews.ca/faqs/rokmicronews-fp-1/u-s-military-expert-john-spencer-to-speak-in-winnipeg-sept-11-argues-israel-isnt-committing-genocide-in-gaza/.)

As noted, the major point of Spencer’s talk, rather than being an analysis of military tactics employed by the Israel Defence Forces – which, I was rather hoping to hear, was a rebuttal of the accusation that has been levelled against Israel that what it is has been doing in Gaza amounts to “genocide.”

Here is some of what Spencer had to say during what was almost an hour-long talk:

“Just about everything that has been said about Israel and Gaza is a lie.”

There is a “global deficiency in understanding urban combat…There has been a long history of urban combat” but, until quite recently, urban combat has been about “fighting for cities, not in cities.”

Later, Spencer expounded upon this theme when he examined in some detail battles that took place in Manila (1945), and in Mosul (2016-17), in which cities were ravaged as a result of opposing forces trying to defend positions on the one hand, while other forces were trying to take those positions on the other – but in both cases, while there was a certain amount of underground fighting, the forces attempting to defend their positions were largely above ground and their ostensible purpose was to prevent the enemy from overtaking their positions. He contrasted those situations with what Hamas’s only goal throughout this war has been, which is “to survive the conflict.”

As for how to assess the current war in Gaza, Spencer suggested that “historians take about 20 years to write about combat,” so he was reluctant to weigh in on how successful Israel has been in achieving its goals.

He did say that he has been to Israel three times since October 7 and has been inside different Hamas tunnels on two different occasions. He did agree that the extent of Hamas’s preparations for this war – which were over “15 years” in the making, were quite impressive, but when it comes down to taking a position on whether Israel is actually winning the war, it was in his interview with the CJN that he was far more decisive in his opinion than he was during his talk in the Berney Theatre, when he didn’t take a clear position on that question. Here’s what he said during that September 10 interview:

“I wrote a Foreign Affairs article countering actually four major articles that have been published on ‘Israel isn’t winning. Israel is actually creating more terrorists than it’s killing’. All of these wrong frameworks.

“Israel absolutely is winning its war against Hamas in Gaza, because I taught strategy at West Point. Wars have a start, they have an end. They have political goals, which can change, although Israel hasn’t changed its three primary goals for the war against Hamas. Those are: number one, return the hostages. Number two, destroy Hamas, its political and military power in the Gaza Strip. And number three, secure the borders. 

“There’s different wording for them, but those are the three goals. And Israel is absolutely [winning] all three of those.  Especially with the hostages.  They brought home over half the hostages to include over a hundred living hostages. But there is the myth that Israel could have brought them home a different way. It could have been negotiated in the beginning.”

In fact, during his talk Spencer paid scant attention to the situation regarding the hostages. It would have been interesting to hear from an urban warfare expert what he makes of the challenge presented by Hamas likely holding the remaining hostages in its network of tunnels. There have been several articles written – especially in the New York Times, detailing the enormous difficulties the IDF has had in going into Hamas tunnels. Like many other commentators though, Spencer noted that the number of tunnels Hamas had built came as a major surprise to the IDF.

A major part of Spencer’s talk, however, was given over to a rejection of various arguments that have been used against Israel, including that its response to the Hamas attack on October 7 has been “disproportionate,” and the suggestion that Israel has been engaged in “genocide.” Again – it would have been nice to be able to record Spencer’s talk so as to give you a more precise account of what he said, but during that September 10 interview with the CJN he made the exact same points in response to criticisms of Israel’s conduct of the war:

“Well, at the macro level, it seems for Israel, Gaza is where the truth dies. The accusation that Israel has been disproportionate, indiscriminate, excessive, or starving the population. While none of those are true, there’s actually a counterfactual huge body of evidence, actually real and physical. Like the “starvation”. I went to the Netzarim corridor, saw where the (U.S. humanitarian) pier used to be, and there were just mountains, a whole field of humanitarian aid that just hadn’t been picked up. But from the actual execution of war, like you said, for the IDF, there’s no comparison. So the IDF was being compared to other operations where just this tunnel challenge of being able to find and operate with an entire world underneath the urban areas.

“Hamas built this world underneath their civilians for the sole purpose of using everything on the surface to cause [criticism from] the international community. the destruction, the civilian casualties, everything, but all these lies about being disproportionate, proportionality–nobody’s faced this challenge in modern history. No military has. 

“And then the other thing, which is what the prime minister and other Israeli officials or government use, which is backed up by data, is that in this execution of this war against Hamas, a defender who’s had 15 years to prepare for the attack of the IDF, Israel has done more and has implemented more civilian harm-mitigation measures than any military in the history of war, to include the U. S., Canada, the coalitions, to prevent civilian casualties and destruction. Like evacuating cities, like dropping [leaflets], the use of daily pauses, the use of certain munitions. There’s a long list that I go through. There’s actually over 10 civilian harm-mitigation measures that Israel has implemented, some that have never been created before in the history of war, like tracking civilian populations with their cell phones on or off and then restricting them. This is what I saw in Khan Younis, restricting the IDF operations because of that overriding aspect of preventing civilian harm, trying to get the civilians out of harm’s way, even though Egypt, which owns a lot of the destruction, the civilian casualties, and [took in] not a single refugee. So even that aspect of fighting a war against a military who’s trying to get their civilians killed without a complete area to move civilians to, into the Sinai, which would be really realistic. So the idea of how to find a way to create a safer zone within Gaza while still moving against Hamas.”

Spencer cited the claim that over 40,000 civilians have been killed during this war. He countered with the claim that, even if that figure is close to being correct – which he didn’t concede, over 13,000 of the deaths have been of Hamas fighters. (What Spencer didn’t do though, is offer an assessment of how strong Hamas remains. Recent reports that Hamas has been resurfacing in the north – which the IDF had previously claimed to have been rid of Hamas fighters, would tend to indicate just how difficult it will be to subdue Hamas militarily.)

Still, even if one were to accept the notion that there have been a large number of civilians killed during this war, Spencer suggested that one must take into account various criteria in evaluating to what extent a military force engaged in warfare with an enemy that is not only willing to use innocent civilians as human shields, it actually wants to see large number of casualties among its own population.

He offered these criteria for determining the level of responsibility one might attach to a military force when it is engaged in urban warfare where civilians are present:

• military necessity

• proportionality

• distinction (between civilians and combatants)

• humanity

• honor

Spencer noted that in the annals of warfare, even when tens of thousands of civilians have been killed as the result of urban warfare (or, as was the case in Manila in 1945 when the US Army fought to liberate that city from the Japanese and over 100,000 civilians died), the defending force did not deliberately want to see civilians die in order to turn world opinion against the enemy force – which is what he said, Hamas has been doing. Even ISIS, Spencer claimed, as brutal and savage as it was, was willing to surrender control of cities in situations where it was clear it was about to be defeated, rather than see entire civilian populations killed in order to enflame world opinion against the attacking forces. Hamas, he said, has as its clear goal, to survive – and if it can pressure Israel into accepting a ceasefire that will allow them to do that – even at the cost of seeing thousands of its fellow Palestinians killed as a result, then it will have achieved its aim, Spencer said.

And, as he said during the CJN interview, Hamas will want to pursue its goal of survival by having the international community exert pressure on Israel to accept a ceasefire that will allow Hamas to regroup only to attack Israel yet again – and again.