From Gaza to Kyiv: The Wars for Western Civilization | Col. Richard Kemp Ep. 64

What’s really happening in Gaza, Ukraine, and beyond? In this explosive episode of Life Lessons with Dr. Bob, British Colonel Richard Kemp delivers an unflinching, insider’s breakdown of the most dangerous conflicts on Earth. From firsthand accounts inside Gaza with the IDF, to frontlines in Ukraine, to the unraveling of Syria and the rise of global terror networks — Colonel Kemp brings the truth about all of the Global Wars and Hotspots. 

 This is not just about Israel or Ukraine. This is about the future of Western civilization.

🔻Why Israel's war in Gaza is religious, not territorial
🔻The truth about Hamas, UNRWA, and hostage negotiations
🔻What the fall of Assad means for Israel and Iran
🔻How Putin is winning in Ukraine — and what Biden got wrong
🔻Trump’s bold proposal for Gaza and rare earths in Ukraine
🔻The next steps for NATO, and why the West is losing

🔔 Subscribe for more interviews that give you the real story.

#israelhamaswar #ukrainewar #syria #hamasvsisrael  #unrwa #GazaWar #trump2024 #israelpalestineconflict LifeLessonsWithDrBob #israelnews #specialforces 

Transcript

And you ask the question, "Why are Gazans willing to sacrifice their own children?"
It's religious. This is a religious war. This is not a war for national liberation,
as is claimed. It's not a war for land. It's a religious war. And their religious
fanaticism causes them to even sacrifice their own children.
Those people in the West who think that the Palestinians, the gardens, I'll like us
and think like us. They're very, very sorely mistaken. (upbeat music) - Mainstream
media gives you the impression that there is nothing good about America. In direct
contrast to that, my podcasts will prove by examples that America has always been
and still is the land of opportunity for
And welcome to another episode in the series Life Lessons with Dr. Bob. My guest
today is Richard Kemp. I often spend a few minutes in my introduction going over my
guest's background, starting with family, then education, and then career. So let's
start with his family background. Richard Kemp was born into a relatively poor family
in Britain. Moving on to his education, well, there's not much to tell there either.
He graduated from the State High School when he was 17 and immediately joined the
British Army. Okay, so you might be wondering, why is this fellow on my show?
Well, he's here because of what he's accomplished, despite not having had a proper
education or perhaps he's accomplished quite a bit because he didn't have a proper
education. Well as you can tell we didn't spend much time on his early years and
that leaves us with plenty of time to talk about his many many accomplishments.
After a short time in the army ranks he was recognized as a young man who had
potential and was placed into Sandhurst, the Royal Military Academy,
which is the British equivalent of West Point. After graduating there in 1977 at the
age of 18, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Royal Anglican
Regiment. His first tour of duty was as a platoon commander in Belfast during the
thirty year insurgency between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. After
serving seven tours in urban warfare in Northern Ireland, two of which were in
military intelligence, he was deployed to Iraq, where he served in both Gulf Wars.
Then in 2003 he was assigned to Afghanistan, where he was commander of all British
forces there. Among the many things that he accomplished was forming a joint
operational group with the US Marine Corps that collected intelligence against
insurgents and then mounted raids to capture or kill them. Another example of his
many accomplishments is that he was also responsible for an action with successfully
prevented a coup against President Karzai of Afghanistan.
His final assignment with the British Army was from 2002 to 2006,
when he was assigned to the office of the prime minister, where he led the
International Terrorism Intelligence Assessment Team responsible for producing national
intelligence assessments for the government. At the same time, he was also chairman
of the COBRA Intelligence Group that coordinated all of the British intelligence
agencies. In that capacity, he worked closely with allied intelligence agencies,
especially the CIA, to stop terrorist plots and to interfere with high -profile
kidnappings. Upon retiring In 2006, Colonel Kempe was awarded the Commander of the
Order of the British Empire, or CBE. It is one of the most prestigious and highest
honors given in the UK for outstanding contributions to the country. The CBE was
awarded to him based primarily on his leadership in counterterrorism and national
security. Another indication of his effectiveness in fighting terror was discovered in
Syria. His name was found on an Al Qaeda kill list seven years after he left the
military. They were still after him. Awards from his country and the threat of death
by his enemy both stand as proof of Colonel Kemp's success in fighting terror.
Colonel Kemp is a frequent commentator internationally, both in print and in the
broadcast media, where he is called upon as an expert on defense, intelligence,
and counterterrorism issues. He's here today to give us his valuable insights on
various hotspots around the world.
Welcome to the show, Colonel. It's a real pleasure to be here, Dr. Bob. And
although you touched on and alluded to my inadequate education,
one thing you were not aware of probably, though you seem to know a lot about me,
is that I went to a high school in Britain which was founded the same year as the
current walls were completed around Jerusalem, 1539. And I was officially the worst
pupil that school had had since 1539. - (laughs) That didn't come up in any bios
that I checked. Let's start with Gaza, the hottest spot happening in the world
today. I know that your first trip to Israel was for leisure in the mid -1990s,
and that you've been back many, many times since then, unfortunately, not for
leisure. You've been there during each of the five conflicts between Israel and Amas,
starting with Operation Cast Lead in 2008. When was your most recent trip to Israel?
How long were you there? And what did you observe? I got back from Israel about
three, four weeks ago now. And that trip was a very long one. I was there,
I've been there almost continuously since the 9th of October. I went there straight
after the 7th of October. 9th of October in 2003? 2023, yeah. Whoa! And I went
there as soon as the war began and I've spent most of my time there. I've traveled
in and out but mostly I've been in Israel and I've been with the IDF inside Gaza.
I've been visiting IDF units, having talked with politicians, military commanders etc
in all of that time. So I've probably got one of the most unique insights I think
into the way this war has been fought and I've been able to combine that with my
own broader military experience in order to, I hope anyway, to bring some reality to
what's going on there compared and to help counter maybe the lies, the distortions,
the untruths that are constantly told about Israel. - Yeah, in the past there were
such things as war correspondence, but they weren't there for over,
for times like this, for over a year you were there, in and out of course, but
mainly spending time there, so tremendous. Now, in each of the conflicts between
Israel and Amos, The media, and most of the world, immediately criticized Israel for
being an apartheid state, for its disproportionate response to Hamas aggression,
and for intentionally targeting peaceful civilians. Supporters of Israel claim that
there's a huge cultural difference between the IDF and Hamas, that in conflicts The
IDF shields its children from harm, whereas Hamas uses its children as shields.
Would you say that is generally true, and if it is, why would parents be willing
to surrender their children to be used as shields in war? It's totally true.
Only recently we've seen the tragic return of two babies,
a very young baby and a slightly older boy, the Bebas brothers, who were seized
with their parents, dragged into Gaza, held in horrific conditions and then strangled
by Palestinians inside Gaza. I don't know exactly who, but they were. And that's the
way that Hamas and its followers treat children, not only Israeli children but their
own children, they're more than happy to see the death of their own children.
There's no comparison of any sort between Hamas and the IDF, none,
nothing whatsoever. And if I just illustrate that by telling you that something that
many people don't maybe don't know, which is that every IDF medical kit includes a
children's a pediatric airway. Now there's no Israeli children in Gaza.
Those are meant to save the lives of innocent guys and children. And of course, you
know, well, many other people in Gaza aren't innocent. I think you can say that the
children up to a certain age at least could be could well be. And so and the IDF
have saved the lives of so many guys and children during this war,
and sometimes at the risk of their own lives. And not just children, of course.
They've done all they can to minimize the deaths of innocent civilians by so many
different measures, many of which I've witnessed personally on the ground in Gaza
myself. And you have to contrast that with the fact that Hamas want the IDF to
kill their children. They want them to kill guys and children, as well as other
civilians so that they can use that to vilify Israel, to isolate Israel, and to
bring the condemnation of the world against Israel. And it works. You just have to
look at the United Nations, Human Rights Council, General Assembly. - The Pope? - Look
at the Pope, a classic example. - The Pope? - The Pope, and so many other
institutions in the West, so -called human rights groups, governments in some countries
in the world who have condemned Israel and Israel has the IDF has even been accused
of genocide in Israel, the most obscene accusation I can imagine. It's the opposite
of the truth, the total opposite of the truth. And you ask the question, why are
gardens willing to sacrifice their own children? It's religious. This is a religious
war. This is not a war for national liberation, as is claimed, it's not a war for
land, it's a religious war. And their religious fanaticism causes them to even
sacrifice their own children. Those people in the West who think that the
Palestinians, the Gazans are like us and think like us, they're very, very sorely
mistaken. - Well, we certainly saw that happen in October 7th of 2023 when not only
Hamas soldiers or combatants or terrorists, whatever you want to call them, entered
in butchered people. But the population of Gaza next to those communities
participated, and most of the deaths were due to the civilians from Gaza who joined
the terrorists. And it's not just, I mean, you're absolutely right, and it's not
just Hamas and civilians. Don't forget also, among those people that went into Israel
to brutally murder, rape, torture, and kidnap Israeli civilians, as well as Israeli
military personnel, was of course UNRWA, the United Nations organization that has
become and for a long time has been effective in adjunct of Hamas. And so,
and if you look at the, I mean, that alone is a horrifying thing to have learned.
The fact that UNRWA has not only taken part in the murders on the 7th of October,
but has also harbored Hamas, has covered for Hamas. - They became Hamas, they are
Hamas. - They are part of Hamas. And so, you know, this is the mentality
of so many of the guards and people, I would say the majority of the guards and
people still support Hamas, despite what they've done. - And they would do it again.
There have been surveys by the Pew Research Organization, which is far from being
right -wing. And their survey showed that 80 % of the population of Gaza now would
say we want another one. We want to do it again. - Yeah, and that's despite,
despite they know what Hamas have brought upon them. And those people who suggest
that we can have some kind of deradicalization program or Re -education program for
the people of Gaza a living in a dream world. Yes, of course Hamas have controlled
their lives Hamas have dominated them and have Spread propaganda, but it's much
deeper than that and if you look just at the West Bank at Judea and Samaria You'll
see very similar levels of support for Hamas in Judea and Samaria who We're not
subject to the same level of indoctrination as the citizens of Gaza. It's a it's a
poison. It's in their blood. It is. It infects all of them in their blood. And
it's part of Islam. It is part of Islam. Absolutely. As I said, this is a
religious war. Islam, the Islamic teachings do not allow any territory that has ever
been owned or run by an Islamic organization to be taken over,
to be ruled by non -Muslims. And they are duty bound. They're obliged under their
religion to get rid of them. And that's what it's all about. It's about getting the
Jews the hell out of Israel. It's not about a two state solution. It's not about
living side by side with them. They have no, it's an impossibility. They have no
desire for a two state solution. The Palestinians have been offered their own state
many times many many times with maximalist Opportunities for them and have rejected
it every time because they don't want the two -state solution They want the
annihilation of Israel with regard to casualties in wartime.
I looked up the following statistics Regarding the ratio of civilian deaths versus
combatant deaths, and I did this this to dispute the claim that Israel is committing
genocide and killing civilians indiscriminately. So here are the numbers.
In World War II, the ratio of civilian deaths to combatants, it varies slightly
between two to one to three to one. In Vietnam, four to one,
four civilians were killed for every combatant. Iraq in the Iraq war,
four to one. And most recently, the Syrian civil war that started in 2011,
seven to one. Seven citizens were unarmed,
were killed, were killed seven times more than combatants. Regarding the Gaza war,
I checked on the web, and the estimates of that ratio vary widely. The Euro
-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor reports nine to one, but they use the data
provided by Hamas, so it's quite suspect. The London -based Action on Armed Violence,
an independent organization, reports 2 .8 to one, and the IDF reports two to one.
You've been in many conflicts around the world and studied many more. How did the
IDF's actions in this war compare to other countries? Does the IDF intentionally
target civilians in Gaza as many claim?
One other statistic as well to add to your list that you gave there is Afghanistan
in which the U .S. and and its allies, including the UK, by their own estimates
killed about five civilians to every competent. So not far wide of the average that
you gave, but more than many cases. My own estimate, and I've done my own analysis
of this as well, my own estimate is that the IDF have killed, directly killed,
inside Gaza, less than one to one. I know that others will say two to one or
whatever. My estimate is less than one to one. I just want to explain that a
little bit. And that is that first of all, the IDF estimate, they've killed around
about 25 ,000 or more Hamas terrorists inside Gaza. The total number given by Hamas,
which is the only number we have, we can't rely on it, but we've got nothing else
to go on, is I think around 45 something like that. I've heard that give or take
But you've got to take from that number not not right. You've got to subtract not
only the 25 ,000 that the IDF Estimate they've killed they don't know for sure, but
that's the best guess You've got to then take away from that the large number of
guards and civilians who have been murdered Deliberately by Hamas and they've taken a
lot of people out and sure we've seen video of them shooting them in the streets,
that the number, which is also a large number of civilians in Gaza who have been
hit by rockets fired at Israel, but dropped short into Gaza by Islamic jihad,
by Hamas, by other terrorist groups, which amounts to, we don't know how many, but
it's going to mount up. It's something like 13 % of their missiles drop short and
land inside Gaza. And then you've got to take away deaths by natural causes. And
according to the statistics before this war began, in this period,
you'd probably find eight or nine thousand deaths in a population of two millions
from natural causes. Right. Those aren't going to stop. So take all them away. And
my guess is it's less than one to one. But to your question, Israel most certainly
does not, any more than the United States or the UK or any other Western army does
not try deliberately to kill innocent civilians. They do kill civilians, they do,
because if you're fighting an enemy that is hiding among its own civilian population,
which Hamas and the other terrorists in Gaza habitually do, it's part of their
tactic, then it's not just difficult to avoid killing innocent civilians. It's totally
and utterly impossible. - And it's urban warfare. like World War II, which was in
the battlefield primarily, we're talking about urban warfare. - Yeah, and you've got a
very dense population there.
Hamas won't let them go. Very often, if the IDF warn the local population by text
messages, leaflet drops, phone calls-- - Knocking on the roof. - Right, all of these
different things, which they invariably do, or almost invariably do, then Hamas will
do their best to stop these people from leaving when they've been warned to leave.
And not only that, but there's a bigger problem here as well, which I believe would
have prevented some of these civilian casualties. And that is if Egypt had opened
its border. Every other conflict that I know of, when there's a peaceful country
adjacent to a country at war, that peaceful country will open its border and allow
civilians out. Sure. That happened during the Syrian war. It happens. It happened in
Ukraine. Two million Ukrainians left the country and went straight into Poland next
door. 6 .8 million Ukrainians left the country totally to other countries. It happens
in pretty much every conflict, but not here. Why not? Egypt obviously doesn't want
them. We know why because Egypt has suffered from an influx of Palestinian terrorists
before. They don't want the civilians who would be accompanied by terrorists in some
cases. They don't want them there. Well, that's understandable. I can see that. But
why has the United States, why has the UK, why have other Western countries not
pressured Egypt to open the borders? I can tell you the reason why. Because these
countries, they want the civilians to stay there. They want to use them as human
shields, just like - Just like Hamastu, it's their political agenda is not to let
Israel win in Gaza. And the way to stop that in their perverted minds, and I'm
talking about Western countries now, is to keep the civilians inside Gaza and hope
that that will deter Israel from continuing its war and winning its war. - Let's
talk about proportional response. I'm not a military historian, but it's only logical
that if a country is attacked that it should respond disproportionately.
No war in history has ever been won by a tit -for -tat response, right? There's two
there's two facts here, there's two aspects to it. One is the proportional response
to to being invaded and don't forget this this force was not it wasn't just a
small number of people. It was a very large, trained military force out to murder
and massacre and kidnap as many as they could. And the force that Hamas sent into
Israel was bigger than the force that the British army sent to retake the Falkland
Islands back in the '80s. I didn't know that. It was a more than a brigade -size
and and and so you know five thousand or so yeah and you have to consider the
proportionate response to that and the second aspect of proportionality is is more
kind of technical it's it's relates to the laws of war and it's it's often quoted
by people when civilians die and it's the proportional you have to act in a
proportionate You have to act under the laws of war in a proportional way if you're
carrying up military operations where civilians might die. And you make a calculation,
a proportionality calculation, in which a commander decides, and I've made these
calculations myself. It can either be a commander on the battlefield, it could be a
commander back in headquarters in the Air Force, headquarters. You make a calculation.
If I hit this target, Are there going to be a lot of civilians that are going to
die, and if so, is that proportionate to the importance of me hitting this target?
And the laws of war allow you to make that proportionality calculation to say, in
this circumstance, I believe, say, ten civilians are going to die, but that's
proportionate to the target I'm going to hit, and that's a calculation, it's not a
scientific calculation, it's rule of thumb, But it's often, it's often mistaken for
when people say, oh, I don't know, 75 ,000 or 45 ,000,
whatever is her mass or gardens have died, but in Israel, it was only 1200 or
whatever. And that's the question. That's disproportionate. It's nothing to do with
that. But returning to the point you made about a proportional response to a, to an
invasion, You're right. It doesn't have to it shouldn't be it shouldn't be
proportionate It has it has to be doing what you need to do to win to win and to
remove the threat Right, and that can mean without any calculation. No no calculation
Right, obviously you've got to operate within the laws of war in in detailed terms
But the laws of war allow you to take effective Response and if need be as you
rightly say disproportionate response to the threat that you've faced and you can do
pretty much anything you want within the laws of war to remove that threat from
your country. But given that, why didn't Israel extend its successful bombing campaign
in the north of Gaza to southern Gaza? It was doing great, right, in north of Gaza
and then it stopped the air campaign. Well, I Well, I think the IDF or the Israeli
government made the calculation about what it needed to do to accomplish victory in
the war against, you know, the possibility of vast,
vast numbers of civilian casualties. And it's a political calculation. It's not a
military calculation that's been made. And the Israeli government clearly made the
decision that they they would not, sort of as President Trump said recently,
unleash hell, they would be able to accomplish what they need to accomplish with,
let's say, a more restrained approach. And people can argue whether that's right or
wrong. But that's the calculation they made, bearing in mind that Israel has to live
in the world, in a world that already hates and condemns Israel for even the
slightest thing. Right. So from a military perspective, it would have been right to
continue the bombing campaign and kill lots of civilians and lots of terrorists.
In World War II, we certainly bombed civilian areas. We bombed Dresden, right? We
bombed Hiroshima. How many Japanese were guilty? Were military people in Hiroshima?
not many of them. - Yeah, and you've got, it is a, you know, another calculation
that you've got to take as well, which people very often forget, is not just the
civilians are going to die, the enemy fighters are going to die, but also your own
soldiers are going to die. They can't be, they're human beings as well. They can't
just be ignored and you can't, and indeed that's the reason why President Truman
made the decision to bomb Hiroshima for the nuclear attack on Hiroshima because he
calculated or his experts calculated that a million American soldiers would die if
the Japanese homeland had to be invaded. And so it was and not only that but even
more I think one point five or two million Japanese would die in the invasion if
it took place. So the logical and the obvious thing to do was to hit it with
nuclear bombs. But of course, that's not understood today. Right, right. It's
proportionate. If we kill one of yours, you can kill one of ours. So Israel entered
into a ceasefire agreement with Hamas on January 19th.
From a military perspective, when one party in war is clearly winning,
it's not logical for it to agree to a ceasefire. So why do you think Israel agreed
to the ceasefire in the first place, especially when Trump was about to become
president the very next day on January 20th? Well, I agree.
It's a very tough thing to do. And from a military perspective, it wasn't the right
thing to do. But again, there are wider issues. And in particular, the prospect of
getting some of the hostages released. Now, the hostages inside Gaza are very,
very important to the Israelis. And there's a great deal of political pressure on
the Israeli government to get as many of them back as they possibly can. And I
think that's the reason why Israel agreed to a ceasefire in order to get as many
of those people out of Gaza as they possibly could. Now, That obviously has to be
balanced, you know, a relatively small number of people, though in horrific
conditions, being held captive inside Gaza against the overall security of the seven,
eight million, whatever Israelis make up the population of Israel. So that's got to
be balanced. And taking into that equation are the number of terrorists who are in
Israeli jails for serious crimes, some of them for murder, and on life sentences
that Israel is letting go. Yeah. And again, that's a very, it's a very painful
decision, I think, for the government to take in Israel to do that. My only hope
is that they've made plans to hunt them down and get rid of them subsequently. But
I believe, without a doubt, I believe that as soon as the Israeli government
calculates that it has got as many hostages out as it can, and I don't believe
they will all come out. I think it's certainly not in Hamas' interest. - I'm gonna
ask about that, that's right. I'm gonna go into that. - Yeah, but once the Israeli
government decide they've got all out that they can, then they should go back in
and unleash hell on Gaza. Ideally, get the population out first, but that looks
unlikely to happen. - Unlikely. - Otherwise, Hamas have to be dismantled. Hamas is a
monstrous organization. Israel cannot live alongside Hamas any longer, and it has to
get back in there and completely annihilate Hamas. Which, by the way, in my opinion,
is entirely possible. Painful, difficult, but possible. But isn't it obvious to me
that Hamas will never release all of the hostages? Because if they did, then they
don't have any cards, and the IDF will be free to immediately and dramatically
increase its war effort and wipe out every member and supporter of Hamas. So given
that Hamas will continue to hold some hostages, even one hostage,
what will it take for Israel to go back on the offensive and restart the war with
a vengeance to achieve its prime objective of eliminating all of Hamas?
What do you think it'll take? Well, Well, you're absolutely right that it's terrible
thing to think or say, but it's the reality that Hamas is not going to release all
of the hostages They're the most powerful bargaining chip they've got without them.
They're finished totally finished And so I think I mean again going back to what I
said before I think the calculation is One that can only be made by the Israeli
government to decide at what point We don't believe we're going to get any more
hostages out And we go back in and there's there's not an it's not can't really be
an open -ended situation Because for Israel this war shouldn't drag on any longer
than it already has or much longer And so they will need to go back in and
unfortunately The remaining hostages those who are alive, and I don't think there are
very many from my understanding that are still alive 20 I think yeah, I think
something like that I heard so so the idea We'll have to go in and unfortunately
many of those hostages will die with their Hamas and and other guards and captors
You know Israel has been through this before I forget how many years ago it was
maybe 10 15 years ago When Hamas had a captive a captor a hostage gilad shalit and
I think he was hostage for five sick a long time and And And Netanyahu was prime
minister at the time, and he agreed to release over a thousand Hamas terrorists who
were in jail, many with blood on their hands, as they say, convicted, and life
imprisonment for murder, for terrorist acts. He released over a thousand terrorists in
exchange for Gilad Shalit. And I think that sets the wrong standard. Once you stop
being willing to negotiate to save a person or 10 people or 100 people, there's no
end to it, and what's phenomenal about it, what's horrible about it,
is one of the terrorists that was released by Israel for Ghalid Shalit was Yaya
Sinwar, who was the architect of
So it, you know, my view, maybe, you know, I'm not, I'm not subject to political
pressure, but my view is you don't negotiate with terrorists. Yeah, I think, I think
in, in general terms, you're absolutely right. And for example, I mean, I was
involved in hostage negotiations for the British government in the past, with hostages
being taken in Afghanistan and Iraq. And our policy was very strictly that we make
substantive concessions of any sort with terror. - I mean, it's just money, fine, you
know. But to give back murderers in 50 to one or whatever it is.
- I think it's a terrible precedent to set and a terrible practice to follow. And
what it does really is encourage more people to take hostages, not just in Gaza,
in Israel, but around the world. The whole world becomes less safe. - Less safe.
- Yeah, but I've spent such a lot of time in Israel. I know Israelis very well.
And I can, while I don't necessarily agree with it, I don't disagree, I think that
I can understand why Israel places so much emphasis, or the Israeli government plays
so much emphasis on getting their people back. In some ways, their own people mean
more to them than, let's say, if British or American citizens were kidnapped would
mean to the British or American government. So, you know, it's a terrible thing.
It's a terrible precedent, but in many ways I can understand why the Israeli
government decided on both occasions to do that. - Well, part of the reason I think
is because the left is very vocal and they threaten with bringing the government
down and destroying
That has to that plays a role and it's a shame It's a terrible thing for the left
to do what they've done Which is to use these hostages in the time in a time of
war as a lever against the government Right when the whole country should be
fighting unified unified yet They have done their best to bring down Prime Minister
Netanyahu Not just by on the hostage issue, but it's particularly sickening when they
use people who are being held hostage inside Gaza as a weapon against their own
government. Right. And to add to that, in the midst of that, are the criminal
charges against Netanyahu, which he had to show up in court during war for a few
days, a number of days during wartime to answer to some bullshit charges about
mishandling, you know, $20 ,000 or something. I forget what it was all about, but it
was really small potatoes. Moving on to speculating about the day after,
of course, the day after Israel eliminates Hamas from Gaza, which I'm confident
they're going to do, they have to do. So what do you think about President Trump's
statement that the Palestinians should be moved out of Gaza, after which Afterwards
the US would take it over for development to become the Riviera of the Middle East
I think it was a brilliant plan and I think whether it comes about whether it
occurs We'll have to see but just the fact of doing that Fantastic, it was it was
an act of sheer brilliance, which which kicked apart The the prevailing negative
narrative of two states the two -state solution Living side - Being sad by sight.
- We had a two -state solution. - Yeah. - Gaza was effective in its own state. We
saw the result of that. - Israel was out of Gaza for at least 20 years, right?
- Yeah. - Right. - But people tell you that President Trump's proposal of getting the
Gazans out of Gaza is criminal activity. They say it's a crime because you're not
allowed to compel people to leave their own territory, which actually is not true.
In wartime, the Geneva Convention, not only allows you, but requires you to move
populations out of danger. Secondly, people tell you, and I think the reality also
is that huge numbers of guards would be out before you could blink. - Right, they've
been paying, I don't know, $20 ,000 a person to get into Egypt underground.
They pay to escape into Egypt. So if somebody offered them a place to go and
transportation and a tent to live in-- - They'd be gone. - They'd be gone. - And the
other allegation, the other kind of suggestion that you can't uproot two million
people, whatever, and send them somewhere else. But it was okay that the two -state
solution, under the two -state solution, it was envisaged to uproot half a million
Israelis from Judea in some area and send them somewhere else forcibly. That's okay.
And it's okay to pull out 8 ,000 Jews from Gaza back in 2005 and send that.
That's all okay, but they're Jews. They're Jews. So it doesn't matter. It's okay.
But you can't do that to Gazans. And the reality, of course, is that people also
tell you that Gaza is an open prison. And the same people that tell you Gaza is
an open prison, they want to keep the prisons in there. They tell you Israel is
committing genocide in Gaza. But they want the people who are being allegedly
genocide to stay and be genocided. The logic of these anti -Israel mobs is just
extraordinary. But if you look at it from practical terms as well, as President
Trump rightly said, Gaza is a demolition site. It's not just so many of the
buildings that have been destroyed, necessarily destroyed by the IDF, because it's
impossible, again, like it's impossible to fight within a civilian population and not
kill civilians, it's impossible to attack cities without destroying meant much. So
it's not only that. There's also going to be unexploded ordnance inside Gaza,
dropped by the idea that Hamas have used huge numbers of booby traps, explosive
devices in the tunnels, in houses, in the roads. Many of them are still there.
They will pose a danger to anyone who goes back, a distinct danger. And on top of
it, you've got the tunnel network, which has already undermined so many buildings and
will continue to do so. So it's not feasible or realistic or logical to expect
people to stay there in those circumstances. And it's going to take one decade,
maybe 15, maybe 20 years to turn it into a safe place to live again. So what
Trump's proposing is absolutely right in practical terms, as well as in terms of,
for the first time ever, demand something of the Palestinians. Don't just pressure
the Israelis, don't just demand concessions from the Israelis as previous
administrations have done, but actually demand something from the Muslim countries,
from the Muslim countries that should be taking these people in, and also from the
Gazans and the Palestinians who have never been asked to make any concessions before.
Never been asked to make concessions. You're right. It's always Israel, Israel, right?
Has to make, what do they say? Painful concessions. Yeah. And, you know,
all these peace processes who have been running the two -state solution mythology for
so long have only ever demanded anything from Israel. They've always sympathized with
the Palestinians. They've always tried to give the Palestinians. Now, how, you know,
people said you can't take them away from their homeland. But yet we're calling them
refugees, which is it, you know, right? How could they be refugees if that's their
homeland? No, it's it's it's another example of the total illogicality of the anti
-Israel mobs, which is never questioned How many apart from people like you and me
and a few others around the place? How many of these peace processes? How many UN
secretary -general's actually question this total lack of logic or any form of
coherence to their arguments.
Well, Israel currently has a friend in the White House, but it certainly doesn't
have a friend in the International Criminal Court in The Hague. In late November of
last year, the ICC issued arrest warrants for both Prime Minister Netanyahu and
former defense minister Galat, accusing them of crimes against humanity,
specifically the war crime of starvation of the people in Gaza.
Those warrants are still active, and they mean that if either of them lands in a
member country of the ICC, that they'll be arrested and then put on trial.
Given the atrocities that Hamas has committed, Richard, and they've even filmed them
and put them online, what's the story here? - By the way, the ICC is a very
balanced organization. It also issued an arrest warrant for a Hamas terrorist.
The reality that that Hamas terrorist is dead, you know, that's irrelevant. I mean,
I've never known of any dead person to be brought in front of a court on an
arrest warrant, but the ICC does. Well, the reality is that the ICC is a kangaroo
court. There is no evidence to back up the accusations or the arrest warrant
charges, which you've outlined. There's no evidence to back that up. I've been into
Gaza. I've seen the way that the IDF do everything they can to minimize the
killings of civilians, which I mentioned already. And delivering food and fuel and
electricity. Now, did the Allies do that in Germany? Were we delivering food to
Germans? I've seen the new crossing points that the IDF have opened into Gaza,
the roads they've built specifically for the distribution of humanitarian aid. These
measures, these measures and many more measures that the IDF have taken are
unprecedented. I don't know of any other war in which one of the combatants has
brought aid into the enemy civilian population in the same place and at the same
time as their fighting battles, it's never happened. And frankly, apart from the lies
about Israel trying to starve the Gaza civilian population, if you do an analysis of
the calorie count that's been shipped into Gaza since this war began. They've
received, per person, they've received significantly more calories than they ever
received before the war started, including aid and their own produce. So any shortage
is certainly not due to Israel stopping aid getting in. It's due to Hamas, if there
is a shortage. And how many, how many emaciated starving gardens have you seen? I've
seen none. I've seen no imagery of any. I've seen, people who who are Garzans who
have cancer or whatever have been portrayed as being starving, which they're not, the
only emaciated characters, the only emaciated figures I've seen in Gaza are the
hostages released on the last bout. And it's it's it's sheer it is sheer lies by
the International Criminal Court. And I'll tell you one other thing about the ICC.
And I'm very pleased, by the way, to hear that President Trump has sanctioned the
officials of the ICC and their families give and their families give them back What
they're trying to give to Netanyahu and gallons But one thing you may or may not
know is that the chief prosecutor of the ICC who demanded these arrest warrants is
a guy called Kareem Khan who's a pack his Pakistani origin British barrister British
lawyer He he wasn't going to press for these arrest warrants warrants.
I think he had it in his head. He was thinking about doing it. But before he did,
he was going to go to Israel. He was going to hold meetings with Israeli government
lawyers, military commanders. He had a visit scheduled. Now, suddenly, just before
these arrest warrants were demanded by him, out of nowhere, he canceled the visit to
Israel. And he demanded the arrest warrants be issued. Now, there's a bit of a
coincidence occurred here because just a few days before he made that decision he
was accused of serious sexual allegations against international criminal court staff.
Now far be it from me to suggest that there was any connection between the two
things but it would be convenient would it not to be able to to pressure him to
yeah and blackmail him to put up a You know, one of the greatest,
most controversial criminal cases, huge publicity to deflect from his,
the allegations against him and to allow him then to say that Israel manipulated
these charges, which he has said, which is impossible. But again, I'll just give you
that. I'm not making an accusation against poor Mr. Khan, but I think we've, you
know, we've got a look. - I didn't hear that. I didn't know of that story. - Yeah.
- A few days before, right? - Just a few days before. There was a complaint made by
an ICC staff member of serious sexual assault by Karim Khan, which is being
investigated now. But knowing the ICC, I suspect the investigation might not be too
deep. - Now the UK is a member state of the ICC. So would Starmer,
the Prime Minister of the UK actually issue an order to arrest BB Netanyahu if he
landed in England? He said he will. He said that. He said that he would, yes. He
said that if the, before the arrest warrant was issued, he said that if it was
issued, he would have to enforce it, which is not true. Although they're a member
of the ICC, Member states like the UK, which is I argued against the UK joining
the ICC before it actually did and many other people did as well But nevertheless,
we went ahead and did it But a member state Has to satisfy itself or is entitled
to satisfy itself Before it enforces any arrest warrant by the ICC that there are
grounds for that arrest warrant It doesn't just automatically have to do it and and
the British government the previous government, the conservative government that was
there until about six, eight months ago, they lodged an objection to the
International Criminal Court arrest warrants against Netanyahu on the grounds of
jurisdiction, because the ICC does not have jurisdiction to do what they're doing.
What they're doing is unlawful. It's against the ICC's own constitution. When the
Starmer government came into office, they then withdrew that objection. and so the
arrest warrants went ahead.
Moving away from problems in Israel, but still staying in the Middle East. In
December of last year, just a few months ago, the Assad regime in Syria was
overthrown after being in power for more than 50 years. That event significantly
altered the political and military landscape in the Middle East. The good news for
Israel is that the Israelis took the opportunity to fly 350 sorties over Syria to
decimate about 80 percent of Syria's military capabilities. That's one less enemy for
Israel to be concerned with. And in addition, it opens up the airspace for Israel
to significantly shorten the path to Iran for what I hope is an eventual strike on
its nuclear capabilities. But it might be too soon to celebrate, because the control
of Syria is currently in the hands of Abu Mohammed al -Julani,
who was formerly a member of the Sunni terrorist group al -Qaeda. And Making it even
more problematic for Israel is that Jullani is being backed with both money and
military hardware by Turkey's President Erdogan, an Islamist who is very sympathetic
to the Palestinian cause. What's your take, Richard, on the situation in Syria
regarding Israel? Well, the first thing I'd say is that the reason that Assad was
brought down by Julani and his followers was because of Israel. Israel forced that
to happen. They had... Weakened Hezbollah. They severely weakened Hezbollah. They
severely weakened Hamas, the other major proxy of Iran. And in doing that, they had
weakened Iran itself to the extent that it could no longer prop up Assad. So the
demise of Assad, I would put down to Israel. Another... to Israel another another
give him credit give Israel credit but you're absolutely right to be concerned about
HTS that the terrorist group that Jelani leads in in Israel in Syria I mean he's
putting on a nice shirt and a nice sports jacket but that doesn't mean he's not a
terrorist he also wears a tie I saw but he but no he's a terrorist of course he's
a terrorist and and And, you know, okay, thankfully, as you rightly said, Israel
destroyed a huge amount of Syria's military capability.
So he cannot use those tanks, those aircraft, all the other assets that Israel
destroyed to oppress his own people, and he can't use them against Israel. But I
think once he has stabilized Syria as best he can, then he will turn on Israel.
There's no doubt in my mind about that. You're right to say Erdogan is behind him.
Erdogan is also behind Hamas, as well as Qatar and Iran, and is behind Hezbollah.
So I think what as you rightly said, hopefully Iran will be brought,
Iran will be subject to serious attack by Israel soon, and that may be followed by
a fall of the regime, Whether it does or doesn't I think Erdogan wants to fill
that vacuum that Iran has will have left Having with most of its tentacles of its
octopus trying to strangle Israel removed so much of its power in the Middle East
removed I think Erdogan will try and fill that vacuum with Alongside some of his
other allies particularly Qatar, which is a close ally of Turkey Let's move on to
another world hotspot the Ukraine How many times have you been there Richard and
when was your most recent trip? I've been there. I think three times since the war
began and most recently was in the latter part of last year And I've in my time
there. I've had meetings with Israel with Ukrainian government officials military
Commanders, and I visited the battlefronts in Ukraine as well. Mm -hmm. And what did
you learn when you're there? Well, I think one thing I learned,
one thing that I think is relevant to what we were talking about before as well,
is how intensive the war is on the battlefield, but how comparatively simple it is.
And I don't say that lightly because no war is simple. Every military operation is
hugely complex and difficult. But if you compare what's been going on in Gaza, the
immense complexities of fighting against an Uniformed enemy in a area of vast
civilian populations with the tunnels and all the rest of it To the battlefields in
Ukraine where it's tank against tank uniformed soldiers against uniformed soldiers
aircraft against aircraft stuff like that Big difference. It's very very different
And, of course, in most of the cities in Ukraine that have been formed battlefields,
the population have left. So, you haven't got to worry so much about the civilian
population, which is a huge problem. But nevertheless, the casualties have been very
much more intense, far more people have been killed in the battles in Ukraine than
have been in Gaza. But beyond that, I think that One thing that I found most
striking about the war in Ukraine is that the West has not done enough to allow
Ukraine to win. And President Biden in particular, and he obviously as the leader of
the free world, was the most influential. He gave a huge amount to Ukraine, but
never enough to allow them to push the Russians back. And nor did he give them
enough freedom to use their weapons. So they could effectively strike back against
Russia inside Russian territory. Now, that has led us to a situation we're at today
where Ukraine is losing potentially. I mean, maybe if the right amount of munitions
have been given, if Biden hadn't been so frightened of Putin and his nuclear
threats, maybe they could have achieved a lot more than they have. But right now,
the Ukrainians are on the losing side. The Russians are pushing not that fast,
but steadily forward in Ukraine, and they can't be stopped. They will continue. If
they're allowed to continue, if they are able to continue, they will continue. I
don't say they'll take the whole of Ukraine, but they'll take much more of it now
and kill many, many more Ukrainians, soldiers and civilians that have been killed
already. Now, when the war first started back in February 2022,
almost exactly three years ago, Putin anticipated a swift and decisive victory.
I think they assumed it was going to end in a matter of a few months, but it's
been three years. So what did Putin miss? Well, I think Putin expected it to be
over even before a few months. I think he expected it just to last maybe a few
days. He expected the Ukrainian government to fall very quickly, but he miscalculated.
And I think there's a number of reasons for that. I think you know the way that
Russia works. He obviously provided huge resources for the Russian intelligence to
assess what the situation was in Ukraine, political and military. But of course, a
lot of that money that was supposed to go into intelligence went into the pockets
of people at different levels of the intelligence chain. Kleptocracy. And the same
applies to the military. I mean, technically, Putin's military should have overwhelmed
Ukraine in a relatively short space of time. But they, they didn't because he
thought he was, let's say he was sending in a battalion or two 10 battalions of a
fully manned Russian infantryman. Actually, there was about heart, they were about
half strength, they were only half the number he was expecting. Yes, of course, on
the books, there were the full number, number and their rations, their accommodation
were paid for was all paid for by the Russian state. But it went again into
someone else's pocket and the maintenance of the equipment. We saw so many tanks and
other armored vehicles breaking down because they simply weren't maintained in advance
of the war. Now, none of that really came as a great surprise to me because I
when I was serving in Germany with the British army, I saw units of the Russian of
the Soviet Third Shock Army, which was supposed to be ready at short notice to
invade Western Germany. But you looked at their vehicles, you looked at their
soldiers, the soldiers were ill disciplined, the vehicles were rusting, they lacked
wheels or whatever on the tanks and on the trucks. Again, for the same reason,
because the money wasn't going to Third Shock Army, it was going to the pockets of
people higher up. So that I think that's partly the reason at least why Russia
didn't succeed. But I think you also have to give credit to the Ukrainians who I
think have fought very, very hard, very, very hard fighters and ingenious as well.
They've developed their own, some of their own weapons which they couldn't get from
the West. - Like the drones. - The long range drones which have struck deep into
Russian territory.
- So we've spent from what I've read, about $65 billion over three years and it
wasn't a good investment, right? In retrospect, no, it wasn't a good investment.
We should have either done less or more. Yeah, either somehow the US,
and it's only the US, you can forget about Europe in any of these terms, the US
should have somehow tried to bring an end to this war at very early stage, or they
should have gone all in and pushed, you know, the military might of America.
I'm not talking about troops on the ground, but the tanks, the aircraft, the drones,
the long range missiles into Ukraine, which they refused to do. So, you know, you
can't go halfway on something like this. Halfway. On the political front,
why do you think that Trump recently referred to Zelinsky as a dictator, but not
Putin. Is Trump taking Putin's side on this? - I wouldn't say so. I think,
you know, let's not forget that Trump imposed the harshest sanctions on Putin in his
last administration. - Right, but that was the last administration. So now he's upset
about Zelinsky's, something to do with the rare earth minerals or something he said,
it's something like that, right? It seems to be. I don't know if you can, but I
can't read President Trump. I don't understand what he's getting at here and what
his intention and his plan is. But I do know that the idea that he put to
Zelinsky about
investing in rare minerals inside Ukraine was a brilliant idea. It was a phenomenal
suggestion, which could have engaged the U .S. with Ukraine economically to Ukraine's
benefit and to the U .S. benefit, and would also, because of the deep U .S.
involvement that would have brought about, would have been a deterrent to Putin in
the future. Sounds right. Right. But I, so I can't, as I said, I can't read
President, President Trump's mind. Well, one of the articles I read implied that
Trump wants those minerals for, not for free, but for the money we've already spent
on the Ukraine. In other words, we've already given you $65 billion. We want $65
billion worth of rare earth minerals. And Zelinsky evidently said no to that.
And that's why Trump's nose is, it's bent out of shape. - Yeah, I'm sure.
- But, you know, Trump is going to meet with Putin to start negotiations, I think
this week or next week, this coming week. Shouldn't Zelensky be there too? I mean,
how can one person negotiate between two other parties?
Well, I think that's not totally uncommon for, let's say,
a mediator of some sort, if you would consider the US a mediator, to engage with
- One party at a time. - And he has engaged with, US has totally engaged with
Ukraine ever since this war began. But as far as the negotiations,
I don't know what's been discussed with Zelensky and Trump or his people. But I
think it's not unreasonable to expect Trump to try and push or maneuver Putin
separately from Zelensky. I think the idea of bringing Trump, Putin and Zelensky
together at this stage, it would be unworkable. There is some logic in it. Agreed.
So how do you think it's going to end up? I think it will end up on Putin's
terms. So I think in other words, Putin will hold on to certainly most if not -of
the territory that he's already conquered. -Which is about 18%. Which is around about
18 % to 20 % of total Ukrainian territory, including the Crimea, which, of course, he
took back in 2014. So I think that's how it's going to end up, with Ukraine
deprived of a large chunk of its territory. Terrible, though that is. I think that's
the only outcome that can really occur, given that Ukraine cannot push back the
Russians. The US and the Europeans are certainly not going to put their own boots
on the ground to help Ukraine do that, which is about the only way it could
happen. So I think the likelihood is either a peace agreement or a frozen conflict
for the time being with Ukraine losing and Russia winning. And let's not forget,
it's not just Ukraine that loses, it's NATO that loses, because NATO put its, Well,
it's laughable to say it's full strength, but it backed Ukraine totally. And as it
did in Afghanistan, it's going to be the loser again, as it did with the Taliban.
So that's the unfortunate outcome. But it doesn't end there, of course, because
unless the US I hesitate to say the Europeans,
but unless the US can do something to deter Putin. He'll go more. He's going to go
for more. He's going to have a pause. He needs this pause because he's got big
economic problems in Russia. He needs to lick his wounds. He needs to rebuild his
armed forces. And then once he's done that, and maybe once Trump is out of office,
and there's a more malleable president in the White House, if there is after the
Trump period, then I think he will go back. Let's not forget, he didn't touch any
other country during Trump's last presidency. He did beforehand under Obama and he
did afterwards under Biden. So I suspect that I didn't get that. What other country?
Ukraine. Oh, I see. Okay. He attacked he attacked Ukraine under Obama under Obama,
right in 2014 And he then attacked Ukraine again under Biden into 2003
2002 and He didn't touch it under Trump. So I think You know where the people
didn't expand under Trump under Trump's first term He just kept the land he had and
that was yeah, and I I mean people you know they talk about Trump and Obama being
buddy and Putin being buddy buddies I don't know anything about that. I suspect
you're right, but what I do know is that what I do believe is that Putin Fears
Trump and he fears him because he can't predict him any more than you and I can
predict him He doesn't know what he's going to do, and I think the most probably
the one of the greatest attributes of any strong leader is to be unpredictable. Not
to not to kind of show all your colors to your enemy or to other potential
competitors. So, okay, so you think it'll end the borders where they are now, but
how do we get Zelensky to accept that? Well, I think Zelensky does accept it.
He may say it. He sometimes has hinted at it. But I think he probably does accept
it. And I think he will have no choice because if you know, he's he's seeing he's
seeing his armed forces progressively driven back. He's seen more of his soldiers
getting killed. He knows he must know and his generals know they can't stop this.
And they haven't they you know, I don't like to say this. I don't like it at all.
But despite the bravery of the courage of Ukraine on the battlefield, they don't
have the fighting power and the strength to push Ukraine out or even to hold them
back. So I think whether it's Zelensky or whether, you know, the change of
government in Ukraine or whatever, I think they will come to accept it. And I think
something like, I read a poll recently, I forget the figures exactly, but at least
around 50 % of Ukrainians want this war to end even with loss of territory and tell
me the territory that Russia now occupies are they Russian speaking people some of
them are some of them in the Donbas and elsewhere are Russian speakers but that
doesn't mean say they necessarily would say I think some of them would many of them
wouldn't but I think one thing we have to also be aware of is the which is often
sort of not thought about is the What's gonna happen to the people under Russian
occupation? We've seen terraria areas of Ukraine Suffer people suffer very badly under
Russian occupation since this war began and indeed before the war We've seen
something like I forget the figure 20 ,000 children kidnapped from Ukrainian territory
and taken into Russia. Why would Russia want to do that? Why do you want to kidnap
children? What's the advantage there? - Well, they have a diminishing population in
Russia. - Oh, well, that's a reason. - The numbers help them. They claim, of course,
it's, you know, as we've heard from Hamas, you know, we're trying to help the
people.
They have, the Putin has the same kind of, or Putin's people have the same kind of
notion that in some way they're helping the people they kidnap by taking them into
Russia and you know and it's mainly children who haven't been heard of since.
Now I happen to read something about you being involved with an organization that's
trying to free those children. Tell us about that. Yeah I've been involved with a
few organizations in Ukraine and outside Ukraine That's trying to get some of these
kids back and they've succeeded but on a very very low level It's it's been a very
small now these children whose parents are still alive many cases their parents still
alive and living in Ukrainian occupied Sorry, Russian occupied Ukrainian territory and
and and and that the efforts so far have been Not I wouldn't say that successful.
A lot of people are trying to get them back. But not with a huge amount of
success, unfortunately. It's so difficult if you're trying to, first of all, locate
children who in some cases have had their names changed and have been adopted by
Russian families. And goodness knows where in Russia, you can imagine the complexities
of trying to achieve that. And then trying to return them to their parents who are
in an occupied zone yeah well maybe in the first instance you don't you don't you
get them back into into Ukraine proper and then eventually hopefully return to their
parent but it's it's an uphill struggle shall we say well Colonel thank you for
spending time with me today and thank you so much more for having the courage to
travel around the world to visit war zones and to then report on what is actually
happening there. Thank you very much Dr. Bob. I appreciate your time as well and I
also appreciate all the hard work and fighting that you personally do for this same
cause.
In addition to being a commentator on world events, Colonel Kemp is also an author.
His bestseller, Attack State Red, is a first -hand account of His regiment battling
rebel militias in Afghanistan during the Hellman campaign in 2007.
But not to be limited to reporting and writing, Richard was co -producer and military
advisor for a Lionsgate movie, I Am Soldier, about the British SAS,
one of the most elite and secretive special force units in the world. You can find
both his book and his film on Amazon. And if you want to keep up with the
Colonel's travels, go to his website, www .richard -campkemp .com.
Thank you for watching, and if you enjoyed this episode of Life Lessons with Dr.
Bob, Please subscribe and you'll be automatically notified of future podcasts in this
series
Thanks so much for listening to another episode of life lessons with dr. Bob If you
enjoy these interviews with some of today's most influential thought leaders Please
follow and rate the show on your favorite podcast platform and don't forget you can
also watch each episode on YouTube as well We'll see you next time (upbeat music)