Article published by Israel Hayom, 9 May 2016. © Richard Kemp

“What kind of talk is this, ‘punishing Israel?’ Are we a vassal state of yours? Are we a banana republic? Are we 14-year-olds who, if we misbehave, get our wrists slapped? Let me tell you whom this Cabinet comprises. It is composed of people whose lives were marked by resistance, fighting and suffering.”

These were the words of Prime Minister Menachem Begin delivered to the U.S. President Ronald Reagan in December 1981. Begin, one of the greatest leaders and fighters of our times, knew the meaning of true independence.

He knew that it was not about firecrackers, dancing in the streets or lighting flames. It was about standing up for yourself and submitting to no man. Declaring to the world, “this is where we stand.”

Israel’s independence was bought at a high price in Jewish blood, fighting first against the might of the British Empire and then against five powerful Arab armies which sought its destruction.

For 68 years Israelis have fought again and again to defend their independence against enemies who would subjugate their country. No other nation has struggled so long and so hard, surrounded by such unyielding hostility.

But in making their stand, Israelis have never had to stand alone. From the beginning, Jews from the U.K., the U.S., Europe, Australia, South Africa and around the world rallied to the fight for independence under the glorious banner of the Mahal. Among them were non-Jews, including a Christian soldier from my own regiment.

In the years since, and even today, the courage of their young successors, the “lone soldiers”’ of the diaspora, travelling thousands of miles from the safety of their homes to stand and fight here to preserve Israel’s independence, inspires awe and humility. As Begin said: “This is the land of their forefathers, and they have a right and a duty to support it.”

Israel’s independence has a strength that cannot be known by those who have not had to struggle for their freedom. What is the meaning of this independence?

Continue reading →

Article published by Breitbart, 9 May 2016. © Richard Kemp

In his most high profile European Union (EU) speech to date, British Prime Minister David Cameron asked yesterday: “Can we be so sure that peace and security on our continent are assured beyond any reasonable doubt?” He need only look around him for an answer to that question.

In recent months both Paris and Brussels have had inflicted upon them the most devastating attacks since the end of the Second World War.

Right wing nationalism is on the rise as failed financial systems cause poverty, despair, and economic collapse and citizens realize they are no longer in control of their destinies. Anti-Semitism, especially by Muslims, is rampant across the continent. Jews are afraid to be publicly identified and are leaving Europe in droves.

Swedish cities are in uproar as they are flooded with immigrants and their citizens subjected to rioting, abuse, violence and rape.

On the EU’s eastern border, Russian intervention in Ukraine has cost more than 8,000 casualties. Despite EU diplomatic action provoking Russia, the EU remains powerless other than contributing to international sanctions with limited effect.

This is not an apocalypse, but it is a foretaste of far worse to come. And it has been brought about mainly by the policies of the EU.

Yet, in words that seem like parody, Mr. Cameron begs us to vote to remain in the EU for our own safety. He cites Blenheim, Trafalgar, Waterloo, and the First and Second World Wars when British heroism saved the continent.

The Duke of Marlborough, Churchill’s ancestor and victor at Blenheim, would certainly have voted for Brexit. His greatest victory was won against Louis XIV’s France when he destroyed the prospect of a European super state.

Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 9 May 2016. © Richard Kemp

David Cameron says Brexit could lead to continental war. Former Nato secretaries general suggest the EU is a “key partner” for the defence organisation. But in the future, the opposite will be true, for this simple reason. A vote to remain would embolden Brussels in the goal of ever-closer union. This will include a European army, enshrined in the EU project through the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties. And an EU army would undermine deterrence and cripple Nato, weakening European defences when we face increasing threats from Russia, the Middle East and radical Islam.

A German defence white paper, leaked last week but supposed to be kept under wraps until after the referendum, leaves no doubt of Germany’s intention to drive through the merger of Europe’s armed forces “and embark on permanent cooperation under common structures”. Germany has begun to combine substantial elements of the Dutch forces with their own.

A centralised army is an indispensable component of the superstate to which the EU is openly committed. It would also provide an excuse for struggling economies to slash defence budgets. Few nations take defence seriously enough to spend even the 2 per cent of GDP required by Nato, a shortcoming criticised by President Obama in Germany last month. An EU army will see these nations cut back even further, cynically pretending that defences are strengthened even as forces and capabilities are merged and downsized.

Funds will be diverted from Nato combat forces as the EU army lavishes cash on costly new command structures, including a surfeit of generals with expensive headquarters. Indeed, reducing the influence of Nato and the US is the aim for several EU members, especially France and Germany. And if we undercut Nato, that aim will succeed, leading to US retrenchment.

Obama’s pivot to Asia has shifted American foreign policy focus from Europe and the Middle East, tempered only by recent developments in Ukraine. The next president, especially if it is Hillary Clinton, is unlikely to pivot back. Donald Trump makes no secret of his impatience with Nato and concern about the extent of America’s budgetary contributions set against Europe’s failure to pull its weight – a widely held US position. Continue reading →

Letter published in The Times, 4 May 2016. © Richard Kemp

Germany is pushing hard for the creation of a European army — its defence white paper points towards an inexorable merger of national defence forces. This is an inevitable result of the EU’s pursuit of ever-closer union, and is a project championed by Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission president.

Few European countries take defence seriously, with Britain one of the small number that meet the Nato spending requirement of 2 per cent of GDP. EU member states will see a European army not only as a chance to consolidate power in an EU super-state but also as a way of cutting back even further on defence spending. A European army would undermine Nato, the most effective guarantor of peace and security since 1945, as funds are diverted into the new EU military structures.

Most EU states have shown themselves deeply reluctant to deploy military forces for combat. An EU army will no doubt have many flags and generals, and impressive headquarters, but will be hamstrung by the vacillation, political correctness and interminable working restrictions that are the hallmarks of Europe today.

If Britain remains in the EU we will sign up to a European army no matter what our political leaders tell us today. The referendum will be seen as a mandate for the ever-closer union that so many are working towards. However, it is hard to see how a European army could be formed without Britain, so Brexit is likely to scupper the project and thus keep Europe as a whole stronger.

Article published by The Gatestone Institute, 2 May 2016.

by Richard Kemp and Jasper Reid

Battle-hardened British soldiers were moved to tears by the horrors they witnessed at the Nazi charnel house of Bergen-Belsen when they liberated the concentration camp in April 1945. Yet seventy years after thousands of troops fought and died to destroy the regime that murdered six million Jews, the scourge of anti-Semitism is again on the march across Europe.

In just one week, a British student leader, a Labour Party constituency MP, a London council leader, a member of Labour’s National Executive Committee and even Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have all been accused of being mired in Jew-hatred.

It is the tip of the iceberg. Each of these people was voted into power by an electorate that knew exactly what their views were. Had they not held these views they would not have been elected.

All are on the political left, but the problem does not stop there. The cancer of Jew-hatred today spreads from right to left throughout European nations and in all supranational bodies including the European Union and the United Nations. It is led by politicians, human rights groups and the media, whose contorted worldview has contaminated ordinary people on a scale unimaginable possibly even to the arch-propagandist Dr. Josef Goebbels himself.

In the 21st Century, outside the Middle East, it is hard to express hatred of Jews publicly. So Jew-haters everywhere have adopted a proxy: the Jewish state. Israel is the acceptable target of their hate. That is why Labour MP Naz Shah’s “solution,” with chilling echoes of Reinhard Heydrich, was to “transport” all the Jews out of Israel, with the obvious implication that this would be done forcibly and violently.

It is why National Union of Students President Malia Bouattia advocated violence against Israel and accused the international media of being “Zionist-led.” It is why Muhammed Butt, a London Labour council leader, shared a Facebook post denouncing Israel as “a terrorist state like ISIS.” It is why former London Mayor and Labour National Executive member Ken Livingstone sought to discredit Zionism by his assertion that Hitler supported it.

Where does all this hatred come from? Its long lineage begins with the Muslim prophet Muhammed and its modern form pre-dates Hitler. Back in the 1920s and 30s, murderous Arab gangs attacked Jewish communities in post-Ottoman, British Mandated Palestine and tried to drive them into the sea. They were stopped by Britain’s Captain Orde Wingate, who taught the Jews to defend themselves, fighting alongside British troops. Continue reading →

Article published in Asia Times, 28 April 2016

by Col. Richard Kemp, Yossi Raskas and Dr. Harold Rhode

The Middle East is a mess. Terrorism is weakening resolve in the West. The migration crisis threatens to unravel the transatlantic security fabric. Civil society is faltering.

The answer is straightforward: Zionism, the movement inspired by belief that the Jewish people should return to the Land of Israel to rebuild their own sovereign state, has succeeded in one of the most inhospitable regions on Earth. And it continues to lead the way as a beacon of moral clarity and success for the West.

Of course, statehood is no guarantee for security, and we cannot perfectly predict fluctuations in the terrorist marketplace. We do not know, for example, whether Iran will decide to break out toward nuclear weaponization today, tomorrow or fifteen years from now. What is clear, however, is that western rapprochement with Iran is moving forward, well before either the US or the European Union is capable of outlining an effective contingency plan.

But fears regarding Israel’s survival would be overwrought. The Israel Defense Forces—the strongest military in the Middle East —will remain battle-ready, as they always have been. They will continue to set the standard, morally and militarily, for armies of liberal democracies to operate against sub-state enemies.

Ultimately, Israel will not only survive but thrive. Since its inception, the Jewish state has endured several major wars, waves of suicide attacks, and other traumatic events. Still, Israel’s birth rate is steadily climbing, its economy is punching far above its weight, and its diplomatic ties with Sunni Arab states are growing stronger.

In the face of protracted violence and hostility, Israel’s response has historically been more prosperity and more freedom. It is a global leader in medicine, technology, and innovation—with the most start-ups outside Silicon Valley — and among the freest and happiest countries in the world.

Continue reading →

Article published in The New Day, 25 April 2016. © Richard Kemp

British forces, with our NATO allies, should attack and destroy the Islamic State in Libya – whether or not we are invited in.

From their growing base around the town of Sirte and along a 150-mile stretch of coast, Islamic State terrorists threaten the whole of Europe, including Britain. If they are not stopped they will expand through Libya and generate increasing support among jihadists throughout north and east Africa.

ISIS has been damaged in Iraq and Syria, but they have not yet suffered a decisive blow at the hands of Western forces. This is needed to shatter the myth of invincibility that has inspired widespread support among Muslim communities throughout Europe.

Their brutal defiance of Western powers has been a magnet for thousands of jihadists who have flocked to join them. Many have returned and now present the greatest terrorist threat the continent has ever seen.

Before it’s too late, NATO navies need to impose an iron grip along the north African shore to turn back the migrants and cut off sea routes for terrorist infiltration and arms smuggling.

NATO air forces need to unleash a thunderstorm of air attacks against Islamic State fighters in and around Sirte, with a devastation not yet seen in Iraq or Syria.

And the British Army and our allies must get ready to go in on the ground. Unlike the quagmire campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, this time the gloves must come off so that we can attack and defeat them rapidly and with extreme violence.

And then we must get out quickly, with no attempt to remain to impose Western-style democracy or build schools.

Image: smoke over the Gulf of Sirte, Libya

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 15 April 2016. © Richard Kemp

William Roberston, a servant boy and the son of a tailor, enlisted as a Private at 17 and ended up a Field Marshal, the most senior rank in the British Army. He served at its head in the First World War, as Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

Robertson’s story is unique; but the history of the British Armed Forces is replete with men and women from the humblest of backgrounds who have defied the odds to achieve the most remarkable success.

Kidane Cousland, from a council estate in Tottenham, who left school at the age of 15 barely able to read, and also originally joined as a Private, is a shining example. Yesterday he won the Sword of Honour, awarded to the top officer cadet at Sandhurst. By any measure this is a remarkable achievement. To win the sword, Cousland not only beat the 200 members of his intake on the world’s most demanding leadership course, but also the many hundreds of other applicants who failed even to reach the formidable front gates of the Royal Military Academy.

Sandhurst’s motto is “Serve to Lead” and it is that ethos of service among officers towards their juniors that makes the British Army unique and provides people like Cousland with opportunities rarely found in any other walk of life. I have no doubt that, like the young William Robertson 128 years before him, Cousland was encouraged to strive for a commission by the officers in his regiment and his comrades in the ranks.

For many recruits, some as young as 16, the Army is their first proper family, and their instructors the first people to take any real interest in whether they sink or swim. Contrary to the screaming, shouting image favoured by TV documentary makers , staff at basic training centres care deeply about their recruits. They make enormous efforts – often in their own time – to encourage them to succeed. This is a matter of personal and professional pride and also because they know that the lives of their young charges may soon depend on the standards they have trained them to. Continue reading →

Article published by The Algemeiner, 13 April 2016.

by RUTHIE BLUM

Discussing the challenges democracies face in confronting unconventional warfare, a retired British Army officer on Tuesday touted the Jewish state as exemplary.

Asked about the case of the IDF soldier currently under investigation for killing a subdued Palestinian terrorist who had just committed a stabbing attack against a comrade-in-arms, Colonel Richard Kemp – once the commander of UK forces in Afghanistan — said, “All people make mistakes, and soldiers are no exception, particularly since they are under immense pressure, may suffer from a lack of sleep, physical discomfort and often great fear.” The only relevant question, he added, is how an army and a country respond to violations, when they are determined as such.

Addressing the Gatestone Institute — a New York-based think tank specializing in strategy and defence issues — Kemp told The Algemeiner that the immediate public condemnation of the soldier in question by Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and IDF Chief of General Staff Gadi Eizenkot before all the facts of the case had even been established, was a function of their awareness of the “continual and unjust international pressure on Israel, no matter what it does.”

If the Israeli establishment had not reacted that way, said Kemp, author of the best-selling book Attack State Red, “it would have come under political assault.”

This attitude towards Israel, said Kemp, “is damaging to the West as a whole, because it constrains every army of every democracy; others do whatever they want. The perfect example of this is the war on ISIS. Though killing innocent civilians is obviously something we must avoid doing as much as we possibly can, our enemies hide among the civilian population, and sometimes we must risk the lives Continue reading →

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 6 April 2016. © Richard Kemp

The Ministry of Defence admits it is reviewing military physical fitness standards in preparation for the expected announcement later this year that women will be allowed to serve in all front-line combat units, including the infantry and SAS.

The MoD denies that standards will be reduced, but of course that is precisely what is going to happen. Generals – having put up a fight for many years – have been told women will join front-line units and, like the good soldiers they are, intend to make it work.

The people who have demanded this change – politicians desperate to be seen as “progressive”, feminist zealots and ideologues hell-bent on equality of opportunity without exception – would never dream of volunteering. Indeed only a very small number of women will want to join the infantry and of those only a fraction will have the physical capability. Hence the need to lower the bar.

This is an extremely dangerous move. Physical fitness is the single most important building block for an infantry soldier. Everything else depends on it. The only people who fully understand the demands of infantry close combat are infantrymen themselves. I have not heard a single serving or retired infantryman say that admitting women is the right thing to do – unless their wives or senior officers are listening. The overwhelming majority are vehemently opposed and many have said that if women join they will leave.

Why do feelings run so high? Because every infantryman knows that the price for this social engineering experiment will be paid in blood.

The infantry is different from any other part of the Army and from any other job in the world. Technology has changed the rest of the Army significantly over the decades and women now play a vital role in almost every part of it. It has been my privilege to command many women and I have the utmost admiration for the contribution they make. Continue reading →