I don't know who Col Kemp is, don't much care, but his recitation of Israel's efforts to limit its own military effectiveness to safeguard "innocent civilians" is classic. See for yourself.
Western civilization has made some "laws of war" that are quite ancient, but the most powerful ones tend to stem from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The gist of these laws is that civilians are to be treated as distinct from the war effort and should be spared the effects of war. War is to be waged by nation-states only, and any use of force or war actions taken by non-states is unlawful. The exception to these general ideas is that if an enemy uses civilians to shield himself and his acts of war, then those civilians are no longer protected.
We have now taken this exception to an extreme at the same time that our enemies ignore it with abandon. Terrorists operate almost exclusively by hiding among civilians, knowing that we will allow others to scream bloody murder if a single person gets a stubbed toe or is even slightly inconvenienced by western military actions.
The Treaty of Westphalia was an attempt to civilize war by confining it to the parties involved in the progress of the war. It's not exactly clear how the conscripts forced to bear arms are somehow less innocent than their neighbors still at home, but the theory was to protect those neighbors still at home and end the devastation brought by incessant wars.
There's a big problem with this theory. In the age of kings and monarchs it may have seemed that wars were matters for the aristocracy and their pretensions to rule and intermarry and have continual intrigues, but that has never been fully the case. In all wars, the people in the end are the ones to decide whether the cost of war is worthwhile. No matter how despotic a ruler, the people can refuse to wage war just as the people of Russia rebelled against the Tsar and ended the war on the Eastern Front in the Great War. By removing the people's liability for the war waged in their name, the Westphalian order freed up despots and aristocrats to commit freely to war with no consequence to the people, unless they get drafted.
We have taken this Westphalian sentimentality to absurd extremes. Col Kemp recites military restraints self-imposed by Israel that are all completely unnecessary by the letter of the law. When a belligerent uses civilians to shield its military activities, those civilians are no longer protected. Israel could destroy each and every military target or reasonably suspected military target regardless of any civilians, hospitals, or school yards in the way.
And this is the inherent weakness of Western Civilization. We do allow the enemy to use schools, churches, and hospitals, as well as homes, as shields. We allow people like the Palestinians to live without intentional retaliation for the acts of war committed on their behalf. Why should any Palestinian do anything to pressure his "government" or "leaders" to behave rationally and live peacefully with their neighbors when there is no downside to waging war?
War can only be waged if the populace consents. We have allowed our enemy to divorce the responsibility for their war from the populace, and neutered any incentive to end the war.
The only morally correct war is total war. The people who support and allow a war in their name need to know that they are personally liable for failing to stop the war. Otherwise, we will continue to struggle against terrorists and other barbarians who can choose to be more ruthless than ourselves to prolong a war and cause our population to grow bored and discontinue support for winning wars that the terrorists start.
The Inherent Weakness of Western Civilization