Wrapping paper for two presents: $6.

One present for Rebecca plus birthday card: $20.

One present for Max plus birthday card: $20.

One giant hug from Max: Priceless.

One giant happy squeal from Rebecca: Priceless.

One game of balloon ball with the kids: Priceless.

One game of wiffle ball with the two oldest boys: Okay, muscle soreness in the morning. But still: Almost priceless.

I had a lovely time at Max and Rebecca’s birthday party. The twins will be six tomorrow. I’ve known them since they were about nine months old. The hugs just keep getting better and better.

The Ann Coulter/Donnie Deutsch kerfuffle has elicited a lot of comment in the JBlogosphere, with the battle lines seeming to mostly depend on the political leanings of the specific blogger. Right-leaning Jews tended to defend her, saying that her comments were simply a statement of her beliefs which coincides with that of many Christians. Left-leaning Jews tended to label her anti-semitic. At least one crossed party lines but then came back (although his viewpoint seems to be far more nuanced than most.)

While it appears that her “replacement theology” is not necessarily universal Christian thinking, I think we can safely make the assumption that she was espousing a set of personal beliefs that many other Christians share. For a Jew who is secure in his/her beliefs, this should not pose a problem - everyone who has a belief system, by definition, thinks that others are wrong.

Her comments were not anti-semitic by any means, but they were offensive.

Jews who grow up as a minority in a largely Christian nation often must fend off unwelcome but well-meaning attempts by Christians to embrace their beliefs, and, yes, to become “perfected.” This can be considered a minor annoyance or a major offense, depending on the temperament of the receiving party, but in no case are these considered welcome. Religion is a personal thing and when others feel it is their right to try to enlighten you, they are by definition causing offense on some level. The fact that most religions condone proselytizing is no excuse for actually proselytizing in a multi-religious society - as with one’s fist, the right to swing it ends at my face. Most Christians know this. Coulter cannot be unaware that while her beliefs are not offensive, describing them to a mass audience is offensive to Jewish listeners.

Coulter is a very intelligent woman. Unfortunately, as with most loudmouthed pundits, intelligence does not equal wisdom, and Coulter is far from wise.

(This is all separate from the disgusting way some people have seized on this as a sort of proof of conservative bigotry. And such opportunism is not only relegated to the Left.)

cross-posted at Elder of Ziyon 

Haveil Havalim #136 is UP!

It’s about a

NEW grandson

NEW blogger

NEW season

NEW word

NEW job

And much more

and more Ann Coulter than you can shake a stick at.

For at least 20 years there was a debilitating fog of moral relativism in the air, a miasma of guilty self-loathing, to the point when some natives persuaded themselves that although all other cultures were equal, ours alone was less equal than others, or might at least be offensive, and should be suppressed. Even the phrase “host culture” was considered unacceptable.

The quote comes from this article by Minette Marrin in Times Online. A worthy read, although I have my doubts about this:

We have moved on since then, supposedly, and surprisingly suddenly. Many prominent multiculturalists, including the Commission for Racial Equality itself, have recently performed swift U-turns and the bien-pensant orthodoxy now is that multiculturalism has been a divisive failure. Integration is the new big thing.

Not yet, as it looks, I am afraid:

Muslim supermarket checkout staff who refuse to sell alcohol are being allowed to opt out of handling customers’ bottles and cans of drink.

Some Muslim medical students are refusing to attend lectures or answer exam questions on alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases because they claim it offends their religious beliefs.

After the specially oriented graves in the cemetery and toilet seats in prison, after a Muslim policeman refuses to guard Jooz, after many other absurdities (a small selection here) - what else, on top of 7/7 should the politically correct citizens of UK expect?

Hat tip to Mick Hartley.

Cross-posted on SimplyJews.

More evidence is piling up that Israel destroyed a nascent nuclear reactor in the Syrian desert.

Israel’s air attack on Syria last month was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, according to American and foreign officials with access to the intelligence reports.

The description of the target addresses one of the central mysteries surrounding the Sept. 6 attack, and suggests that Israel carried out the raid to demonstrate its determination to snuff out even a nascent nuclear project in a neighboring state.

That would explain why the North Koreans were so pissed off, and why Syria, which signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has yet to follow through with threats to bring the wrath of the UN down around Israel’s ears. It also explains why the Arab and Muslim world is pretty much silent in the aftermath of an Israeli violation of one of “the Arab Nation’s” own countries. (And may I point out yet again the myth of “The Arab Nation,” which pretends that the myriad Arab countries of the Middle East are in actuality one nation, with one thought process. Yes, you may laugh out loud at that pretense.)

And lastly, it explains the absolute news blackout by the Israelis.

Well, no, it doesn’t. That’s the part of the story that I don’t understand. And this part of the story doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, either:

Even though it has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Syria would not have been obligated to declare the existence of a reactor during the early phases of construction. It would have also had the legal right to complete construction of the reactor, as long as its purpose was to generate electricity.

In his only public comment on the raid, Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, acknowledged this month that Israeli jets dropped bombs on a building that he said was “related to the military” but which he insisted was “not used.”

Then why the silence from Syria, if they are legally allowed to start building a reactor for electricity?

A senior Israeli official, while declining to speak about the specific nature of the target, said the strike was intended to “re-establish the credibility of our deterrent power,” signaling that Israel meant to send a message to the Syrians that even the potential for a nuclear weapons program would not be permitted. But several American officials said the strike may also have been intended by Israel as a signal to Iran and its nuclear aspirations.

Gee, ya think? We’ve already speculated that Iran can’t be happy that the IAF managed to penetrate the very same Russian anti-aircraft defenses that Iran has paid hundreds of millions of dollars to use around Iran’s nuclear plants.

So about that radio silence from Israel: I wonder if it’s at the behest of the Bush Administration. Or perhaps it’s a way to keep the major details from leaking out. Iran obviously wants to know how Israel defeated the Russian technology. By keeping a lid on the entire incident, that information doesn’t slip out. Of course they’ll get all the information Syria can give them, but hey—the Syrians suck at technology. Israel is the most technologically advanced nation in the Middle East, and one of the top tech nations in the world. Syria can’t even manage to keep its chemical weapons from blowing up and killing its own people, along with a healthy helping of Iranian engineers. (Still mighty glad about that. Would-be mass murderers deserved what they got.)

This is yet another complete slap in the face of the Walt-Mearsheimer “realist” point of view—the one that says Israel and America’s interests don’t coincide. You can bet your last dollar that Israel is sharing the intel about the raid on Syria with the U.S., because Iran’s nuclear plants may be next in line, and the jets doing the bombing may well have USAF painted on them. If the U.S. does go after the Iranian nukes, our pilots’ lives may be safer thanks to Israel.

Not that we’d ever hear about things like that from the W-M crowd. They’re too busy cherry-picking facts that make their theory work, and ignoring the inconvenient ones that rebut it, like the Israeli raid on the Syrian nuke site. That may prove to be just as important to American interests as the Israelis taking out the Iraqi Osirak reactor in the 1980s.

I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for Walt & Mearsheimer to recognize it, though.