A Satirical or Factual Portrayal of Radical Muslims? Is The IDF Prepared For All Out War? If Trump Caves On Wall Funding Will That Be His "Moment?"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The views of a man with wooden teeth and a powdered wig. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is this a reasonable satirical characterization of radical Muslims?

I do not believe radical Muslims are happy in their newly adopted countries. They are only happy when they are murdering.

Obama believes they are unhappy because they are out of jobs and do not receive food stamps.  Perhaps they need to change the form of government they have and quit killing their neighbors?

Or, perhaps God put them on earth so everyone who is not a radical Muslim can have something about which they can be thankful? (See 2 below.)

Would this make them happy or would they simply have another excuse to kill those they do not like? (See 2a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sen. Graham admonishes Romney. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is the IDF  prepared for a full scale war? (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Americans are an impatient but also a creative lot.  We "Went West ," "We Went to The Moon, " We Invented The  Atomic Bomb."

I recently read where Ann Coulter predicts Trump will cave on his "wall funding" efforts,  Is she in the know or is that a ploy to stiffen his resolve? Trump stood by Kavanaugh. Would Romney have done so? Henninger thinks not.

Should Trump cave will that become his "Read My Lips"" and/or "You Can Keep Your Doctor" moment?

Can Trump allow Schumer and Pelosi to roll him on a matter that has become synonymous with national security?

My own far out prediction is should Trump relent on his demand, regarding wall funding, he might as well chuck a 2020 run because his life will be made more miserable than Democrats already intend and he may decide to renounce being president. That is not his usual style because he is a fighter but even fighter's, particularly billionaire ones, have their limits.

Stay tuned!

And:

Is Haley stealing Trump's thunder or is she doing so at his direction? (See 5 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dick +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1)

 "The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and therespectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and

Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and
privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the
enjoyment." -George Washington

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Radical Muslim Satire?

They're not happy in Gaza ..
They're not happy in Egypt .
They're not happy in Libya ..
They're not happy in Morocco ..
They're not happy in Iran ..
They're not happy in Iraq ..
They're not happy in Yemen ...
They're not happy in Afghanistan ...
They're not happy in Pakistan ..
They're not happy in Syria ..
They're not happy in Lebanon ..

SO, WHERE ARE THEY HAPPY ?
They're happy in Australia ..
They're happy in Canada ..
They're happy in England ..
They're happy in France ..
They're happy in Italy ..
They're happy in Germany ..
They're happy in Sweden ..
They're happy in the USA ..
They're happy in Norway ..
They're happy in Holland ..
They're happy in Denmark ..

Basically, they're happy in every country that is not Muslim and unhappy in every country that is !

AND WHO DO THEY BLAME ?
Not Islam.
Not their leadership.
Not themselves.

THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!
AND THEN - They want to change those countries to be like,THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY!

Everyone seems to be wondering why Muslim Terrorists are so quick to commit suicide. 

Let’s have a look at the evidence:
- No Christmas
- No television
- No football
- No pork chops
- No kosher hot dogs
- No burgers
- No beer
- No bacon
- Towels for hats
- Constant wailing from some idiot in a tower
- More than one wife
- More than one mother-in-law
- You can't shave and your wife can't shave
- You cook over burning camel poop
- Your wife is picked by someone else for you 
- Then they are told "when they die, it all gets better"???


2a)

The True-State Solution

Follow the map the British drew in 1922, which put Arab and Jewish Palestine across the Jordan River.

By Daniel J. Arbess

The Trump administration has offered tantalizing clues about its forthcoming “Deal of the Century” for Mideast peace. It could be a bold new concept—replacing the failed “two-state solution” with a Jordan-Israel confederacy, in which Jordan would be recognized as the Palestinian state. Call it the true-state solution.

Palestinians have always been the majority in Jordan, though they haven’t been treated as such since its creation as a British-appointed Hashemite monarchy in 1921. The true-state solution would enfranchise the Palestinians. Jordan would extend citizenship to, and assume administrative responsibility for, Arabs now living on the West Bank of the Jordan River—including the cities of Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and Jericho—which would be Israeli territory. West Bank Jordanians could receive financial support to relocate across the river to Jordan itself if they wish, or remain as permanent residents (but not citizens) of Israel. Israelis would be free to live anywhere west of the Jordan River. Variations of this “Jordan option” have received increasing attention across the region in recent years.

Why would King Abdullah II accept such an arrangement? To be blunt, it would be his best option. His rule—and his family’s security and fortune—already teeters under pressure of regional migration and domestic Palestinian discontent. The king’s acquiescence—or possibly U.S.-guided abdication—would probably buy his family’s protection.

Trump administration officials have promised their plan will take advantage of Israel’s recent unprecedented collaboration with its Arab neighbors and other developments that suggest “things can be done today that were previously unthinkable,” as then-Ambassador Nikki Haley said last month. The administration promises a new approach based on practical realities.

Start with a truthful foundation of history. Britain inherited all of present-day Jordan and Israel when the Ottoman Empire dissolved after World War I. The Palestinian Mandate of 1922 divided the area into Arab Palestine (Transjordan), comprising 78% of the territory, and Jewish Palestine (Israel), the remaining 22%. Britain later tried to accommodate Arab opposition by further dividing Israel’s 22% in what became the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947. The Jewish Agency for Palestine immediately accepted that plan. But when the General Assembly passed the resolution recognizing Israel’s independence, the Arab states immediately launched a war, which squandered the Partition Plan’s window for an Arab state on the West Bank.

Jordan, encouraged by Britain, annexed the West Bank in 1950—a move the Arab League bitterly opposed and almost no state recognized. That arguably left Israel with the legal right under the original British Mandate to claim sovereignty over the entire 22% of Palestine outside modern Jordan. Israel’s claim was further consolidated by its victory in the 1967 war. Jordan later disavowed its claim on the West Bank and severed administrative ties in 1988, leaving the status of its former citizens further in limbo.

Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization had tried to win Palestinian control of Jordan, repeatedly attempting to assassinate King Hussein in the 1960s. After the PLO was evicted to Syria by Jordanian troops in “Black September” 1970, the PLO’s narrative shifted entirely to painting Israel as the Palestinians’ “occupier.” Despite underwriting a two-state settlement in the 1993 Oslo Accords, Arafat’s launching of the second intifada seven years later revealed that the PLO’s paramount goal was still rejection and delegitimation of Israel, not coexistence.

West Bank Palestinians have been fortunate to remain in territory under Israeli protection and administration since the 1967 war. They have been unwanted by the Hashemite Kingdom or other Arab nations—then and since. Little wonder that polls suggest a large majority of West Bank Palestinians would prefer life in Israel to being governed by the Palestinian Authority. They seek normal lives, jobs they can travel to and other basic human liberties. This would be possible with a Palestinian role in Jordan’s leadership that not only accepts the Jewish state’s legitimacy and mutual security responsibilities with Israel, as the Hashemite Kingdom already does, but also restores the Palestinians’ Jordanian citizenship and coordinates with Israel in civilly administering the West Bank.

There are Palestinians who would support such a move. Mudar Zahran, 45, is a Jordanian Palestinian who describes himself leader of the Jordanian Opposition Coalition. He lives in Britain under asylum, having been convicted in 2014 in absentia for “inciting hatred against the regime, sectarian strife and insulting the king as well as security services” to show for it.

Mr. Zahran told the European Parliament in September that what holds back the Palestinian people from enjoying Israel’s economic prosperity is the corruption of the Palestinian Authority and the Hashemite family’s exploitation of Jordan’s Palestinian majority. “Let our people go,” he implored, “both peoples, Jordanians and Israelis.” A true-state solution would let them end the futile refrain of resisting and defending and get on pursuing common interests as they have been for decades in Jerusalem’s Old City.

A Palestinian capital in Amman would have no use for the Palestinian Authority, much less its corrupt, illegitimate and unpopular leaders and their incitement. Would King Abdullah make room for more-representative governance in Jordan? Or might some forward-looking Palestinian emerge, with U.S., Israeli and Arab support, to advance his citizens’ economic prospects and human rights?

And what about Gaza? U.S. officials have said they see that as a separate problem and its resolution as a prerequisite for success. It seems logical that Palestinians there could also enjoy a confederacy option, with either Jordan or Egypt.

The true-state solution would be innovative and elegant—worthy of “Deal of the Century” designation. If it materializes, Barack Obama will ironically deserve some of the credit. His cultivation of Iran’s Ayatollahs stimulated the Arab states’ recent cooperation with Israel. And Donald Trump will have proved instrumental in helping Israel fully attain its potential as a “light unto nations,” for all its cultures and inhabitants—Christians, Druze, Muslims and Jews—and as a beacon of democracy, prosperity, peace and stability in the Middle East and beyond.

Mr. Arbess is CEO of Xerion Investments.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)

Lindsay Graham Defends Trump from Romney

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham had harsh words for his fellow Michigan Republican Sen.-elect Mitt Romney on Wednesday after the newly elected senator wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post attacking President Donald Trump's character. Graham joined Brian Kilmeade on Fox News radio to discuss the incoming senator's op-ed and Graham did not hold back. When asked about the wisdom of Romney publishing such a piece so early into his time in Washington, Graham said bluntly, "Well, how does it work to the advantage of the people of Utah?"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4)Is the IDF ready for all-

out war?  In Israel, the 

debate rages on

The military’s state of readiness has dramatically improved, according to internal reports, but a senior analyst told JNS it had a lot more catching up to do after years of neglecting the ground forces, which will be essential for defeating enemies like Hezbollah decisively

BY YAAKOV LAPPIN

The question of just how ready the Israel Defense Forces is for war has dominated Israel’s headlines in recent weeks. The issue came to the fore following the stormy end to the 10-year tenure of the IDF Ombudsman, Maj. Gen. Yitzhak Brick.

Brick released a scathing report and multiple statements, claiming that the military’s ground forces are grossly underprepared for conflict. He went as far as to say that “the IDF is undergoing a process of deterioration that has reached its peak in recent years,” during an address last month to the Knesset’s State Control Committee.

Brick’s alarming assessments have been outright rejected by military chiefs, including the outgoing IDF Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot, and the Commanding Officer of the ground forces, Maj. Gen. Kobi Barak.

While Eizenkot has ordered the military to examine Brick’s claims, he has consistently affirmed that the IDF’s war readiness has improved dramatically in recent years. Eizenkot has focused his four years as chief of staff on improving readiness, meaning that Brick’s criticisms are being leveled at the heart of his efforts and legacy.

Israeli Military Ombudsman Major General Yitzhak Brik speaks during a State Comptroller Committee meeting at the Knesset, on December 12, 2018. Credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90

Dr. Eado Hecht, a researcher at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is a defense analyst specializing in military theory and military history, and a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan. Hecht also lectures at the IDF Command and General Staff College, and serves on the Editorial Advisory Panel of The Journal of Military Operations.

Hecht told JNS that in general, he agrees with Brick and other critical voices who think the IDF is unprepared, but added that this is not a zero-sum argument. “There are areas in which the IDF has done excellent work, and there is a reason why foreign militaries come here to learn from it,” said Hecht. “On the other hand, there are areas in which the IDF is not good enough.”

Neglecting ground forces in favor of ‘high-quality intelligence and long-range firepower’

Hecht explained that the way in which Brick and military command measure war readiness is different, and to understand this difference, it’s necessary to dive into the IDF’s history. The Second Lebanon War of 2006, he said, was the second-lowest point in the history of Israel’s military. The lowest point can be found in the years 1950 to 1953. “The difference between these two points is that while in 1950 to 1953, the IDF did not know how to conduct continuous security missions and did not know how to deliver proper security, in 2006, the IDF knew how to do continuous security in an excellent manner, and hence, it defeated the Palestinians in the ‘high and low tide war’ [the Second Intifada of 2000 to 2006],” said Hecht.

However, it was during those years of the Second Intifada that new concepts were taking hold, regarding the future of warfare. The concepts held that there will be no “big, high intensity wars” anymore, and in the unlikely event that such wars do occur, they should be fought with high-quality intelligence and through the use of long-range firepower, mostly delivered by fighter jets, to destroy enemy targets.

As a result, “the IDF deliberately neglected the necessary requirements for ground combat,” said Hecht. By the time Lt. Gen. (ret.) Dan Halutz became chief of staff in 2005, the ground forces had suffered major neglect, leading to significant failures in the war that erupted with Hezbollah the following summer.

The strategic gains that Israel received from that war came “despite tactical failures,” noted Hecht. Those failures led the next chief of staff, Lt. Gen. (ret.) Gabi Ashkenazi, to demand a “return to basics” for the ground forces. They underwent a major upgrade during Ashkenazi’s tenure. But then, under the leadership of Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and chief of staff Lt. Gen. (ret.) Benny Gantz, this trend was stopped, according to Hecht, and the older trend of focusing on airpower and intelligence, which dominated before the Second Lebanon War, made a comeback.

Israeli soldiers cover their ears as a tank fires into Lebanon from Kiryat Shemona on July 20, 2006 during the Second Lebanon War. Credit: Guy Assayag /Flash90

The current outgoing chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot “brought back Ashkenazi’s trend,” Hecht argued. “However, the reference point for Eizenkot and the general staff compares today’s IDF to the military of 2006. Brick’s reference points compare today’s IDF to the military when it was at its peak, 40 to 50 years ago,” he stated.

The bottom line, said Hecht, is that compared to its performance in 2006, the IDF of 2019 has “undergone a terrific improvement.” At the same time, he warned, there is a need to take stock of the growing threat posed by Hezbollah, which today amounts to some five infantry divisions, in terms of relative power.

“Hezbollah is like the PLO and the Syrian army in Lebanon in 1982 combined. True, they [Hezbollah] do not have tanks, but they have many things that the Syrians and the PLO did not have then,” said Hecht, pointing to powerful guided anti-tank missiles as one example.

“They are moving ahead with the fortification of southern Lebanon at a scale that did not exist before, and they are much more professional and skilled than the PLO was back then,” he said.

According to public sources, in 2006, Hezbollah’s forces in southern Lebanon were equal to perhaps two infantry divisions, and the organization was armed with far fewer anti-tank missiles, mortars and other powerful weapons. Hezbollah today is some six times more powerful than what it was in 2006, said Hecht.

Is the IDF’s order of battle big enough for enemies on multiple fronts?

Crucial questions revolve around the IDF’s ability to battle foes multiple fronts simultaneously.

“What will happen if the IDF needs to fight against more than only Hezbollah? If, for example, a rebuilt Syrian military faces it in the Golan Heights, backed-up by Shi’ite forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran? And, at the same time, Hamas begins bombarding our home front from the south? Does the IDF have a sufficiently large order of battle to deal with all of these enemies at the same time? We would have to call up reserves against Hamas on its own. Against a smaller Hezbollah in 2006, we had to call up reserves. Since then, we have cut reserves very sharply—entire divisions and brigades have been cancelled,” posed Hecht.

He cautioned that there were also open questions about how long it would take to get reserves to emergency weapons’ storage facilities and the state of readiness among military vehicles in light of decreased maintenance personnel numbers.

While Eizenkot has placed a major renewed emphasis on the ground forces, “still, most of the focus is on increasing firepower. But is this firepower capable of giving the State of Israel the strategic reply it needs to force Hezbollah to cease firing and to prefer a ceasefire?” asked Hecht. “And until it does that, can this firepower decrease the quantity and efficiency of Hezbollah’s [own] firepower on the Israeli home front? The only way to effectively decrease Hezbollah’s fire is through a large-scale ground offensive. To do that, the IDF needs to conquer a large hilly area, containing dozens of Shi’ite communities,” said Hecht.

An Israeli army vehicle drives near a new concrete wall on the border between Israel and Lebanon near Rosh Hanikra in northern Israel on Sept. 5, 2018. Photo by Basel Awidat/Flash90.

Each Shi’ite village, however, will likely have a Hezbollah force as big as one or two military companies, lying in wait.

“This is what the IDF’s units will have to pass in order to reach the rocket-launch cells that are firing on the home front,” added Hecht.

The IDF has greatly increased its war training, Hecht acknowledged, but according to Brick, these have not yet reached adequate levels, particularly among the Armored Crops and the Artillery Corps.

‘We have made great improvements’

In one of his final speeches in uniform delivered on Dec. 23, Eizenkot gave an assessment of the situation. “At the end of 2018, the balance of Israel’s national security is greatly improved,” he said, while at the same time, an unstable region has created very high levels of explosiveness.

“Of course, this obligates us as a military to be at a very high level of readiness. We have made very big efforts to improve the IDF’s readiness. The IDF is a very large military by any standards, especially when reserve forces are added to it. And there are very high costs for holding a military of this scale, particularly the ground forces, at a very high level of readiness.”

Ultimately, stated Eizenkot, the IDF’s capabilities have been greatly improved.

IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot speaks at a conference at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya on Jan. 2, 2018. Credit: Flash90.

On Dec. 19, the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee released a report that followed its own investigation into the IDF’s readiness. The report found that “the level of readiness in the IDF for war has significantly improved since [the 2014] ‘Operation Protective Edge’ [against Hamas in Gaza].”

The inquiry found that in almost every parameter, “there has been a dramatic increase in the level of readiness—whether in the number of training sessions, the ammunition inventory, replacement parts and others.”

The report praised Eizenkot for leading a multi-year working program, dubbed “Gideon,” which prioritized the building of combat divisions that can fight on any front.

Two days after that report, an inquiry launched by the IDF’s own Comptroller, Brig. Gen. Ilan Harari, in response to Brick’s scathing report, also found that the military’s state of readiness has dramatically improved.

At the same time, the inquiry agreed with Brick regarding the need to make improvements in areas such as logistics, personnel, command and control systems, and the service of non-commissioned officers at war-storage facilities.

According to Channel 10 News, the inquiry called for an increase in the military’s annual budget by 1.5 to 2.5 billion shekels ($400 to $667 million) to ensure that the ground forces remain in good shape.

“If the IDF is missing 2 billion shekels to complete its readiness in the list of aspects that it brings up, that means that Brick is actually correct,” Hecht told JNS. “The IDF isn’t ready.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

5)

Nikki Haley Condemns Anti-Semitism at UNESCO Nikki Haley, the recently departed US Ambassador to the UN, ended her UN tenure with a bang by completing the United States exit from UNESCO, the specialized agency within the UN that’s based in Paris. Haley brought strong condemnation of UNESCO on Tuesday in a Twitter post, stating, “UNESCO is among the most corrupt and politically biased UN agencies... Read More...

++++