So how was your first night of Chanukah? Mine was latkes and music at the R household. I burned my finger in the oil (sigh) but not badly enough to do more than sting after an hour or so of aloe vera, ice water, Advil, and, um, wine.

Sam and his friends had a concert last night. I asked them to please sing a bit for me, and when they said they had a Jewish song, well, here’s part of it.

If you’re wondering why they paused from time to time, it’s because they were waiting for the rest of the choir to sing their parts.

It’s an extra Hanukkah treat for you all (and it was for me). They even sang it in English, but somehow, it seems more repetitive when you hear it translated.

This year we’re going to have something new for Hannukkah: A video each night. You can thank regular reader chsw, who sent me a link to the video I’ll be using on the sixth night.

Tonight’s video: How Do You Spell Hannuka? by the LeeVees.

And we’re putting it in during the day so you can all enjoy before you go home from work. (Oh, like you don’t all call from work.)

Found a funny bit in the JPost today about Christopher Hitchens’ ignorance of Judaism. This is the best part:

Hitchens’ avers that: “If one could nominate an absolutely tragic day in human history, it would be the occasion that is now commemorated by the vapid and annoying holiday known as Hanukka. For once, instead of Christianity plagiarizing from Judaism, the Jews borrow shamelessly from Christians in the pathetic hope of a celebration that coincides with “Christmas.”

What? Hanukka takes from Christians? Awesome! The Maccabees were time travelers!

A BRIEF Hanukka refresher: The festival is a celebration of the victory in 165 BCE of the Maccabees, over the armies of the Hellenistic Syrians led by Antiochus Epiphanes IV.

Oops. Hey, feel free to be an atheist, Hitch. But perhaps you should know what you’re talking about before putting it down.

I have something in this week’s edition about the Dreaded Teddy Bear of Dooooooom.

The feature interview is with Evan Sayet.

This is the story that the mainstream media never covers: Muslim persecution of Christians is the major cause of the dwindling population of Christians in towns like Bethlehem.

Now, we are being told that Christians in the Palestinian territories will be completely eliminated within two decades. So the new Palestinian state will be not only Jew-free, but free of Christians as well. Another Islamic state will be added to the Middle East.

The ever-dwindling Christian communities living in Palestinian-run territories in the West Bank and Gaza are likely to dissipate completely within the next 15 years as a result of increasing Muslim persecution and maltreatment, an Israeli scholar said Monday.

“The systematic persecution of Christian Arabs living in Palestinian areas is being met with nearly total silence by the international community, human rights activists, the media and NGOs,” said Justus Reid Weiner, an international human rights lawyer in an address at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, where he serves as a scholar in residence.

When you do get stories about Christians in the news services, it is usually from the angle that the Israelis are the Grinches taking away Christmas from Christians due to the anti-terror restrictions in the West Bank. Reuters generally doesn’t publish facts like this:

The Palestinian Christian population has dipped to 1.5 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, down from at least 15% a half century ago, according to some estimates.

No one city in the Holy Land is more indicative of the great exodus of Christians than Bethlehem, which fell under full Palestinian control last decade as part of the Oslo Accords.

The town of 30,000 is now less than 20% Christian, after decades when Christians were the majority. Elsewhere in the Palestinian territories, only about 3,000 Christians, mostly Greek Orthodox, live in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, out of a strongly conservative Muslim population of 1.4 million.

But the persecution of Christians in Palestinian territories has been going on since, well, since there were Muslims. But more recently, since Yasser Arafat was given control of the territories after Oslo. Christians have also been persecuted in Lebanon, Egypt, and other parts of the Middle East. Ninety percent of the 3 million Lebanese Americans are Christian. Muslims have been pushing Christians out of the Middle East for generations.

The Christian Science Monitor (among others) likes to beat up on Israel every year with stories about how the separation fence is ruining Christmas. They do not seem to be able to find stories about Muslims persecuting the Christians of Bethlehem, as does Ynet. I wonder if they’ll run an in-depth series featuring the disappearance of Christians in the Palestinian territories.

It’s not quite time yet for the “Israel is ruining Christmas stories,” but I expect them soon. Look for a run of them about a week before the holiday. We can compare and contrast with previous years.

It is a war crime to keep a soldier prisoner without any contact by the Red Cross or international organizations to check on the prisoner’s health and well-being. Not that a terrorist organization is bound by any rules of morality and ethics, but it’s good to remind the world that Hamas treats Israelis despicably, so that one can point to the difference between Hamas prisoners in Israeli jails, and Israeli prisoners in Hamas hands.

Hamas is denying yet again that they are willing to prove that Gilad Shalit is alive in order to foster a deal.

Hamas leaders denied Tuesday reports saying there was progress concerning a possible prisoner swap deal that would include Gilad Shalit, adding that it also did not agree to relay messages between the kidnapped soldier and his family in Israel.

Red Cross representatives in Gaza said the Islamist group agreed to pass on a letter from Shalit, but a senior member of the organization told Ynet, “There is no concrete discussion on anything, but if a fair and worthy exchange is put on the table, we will be willing to consider any offer.”

According to him, Hamas would agree to show signs of life from Shalit or discuss the possibility of a meeting between the kidnapped soldier and neutral party in return for the release of “hundreds of prisoners – not just one or two.

Of course, if Shalit is dead, then there’s good reason for Hamas to keep playing these head games.

The latest NIE reports that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons development and is likely a number of years away from being able to field a nuclear weapon. This estimate is being hailed because it takes the urgency of an attack on Iran “off the table” but it brings up a problem. Norman Podhoretz asks

These findings are startling, not least because in key respects they represent a 180-degree turn from the conclusions of the last NIE on Iran’s nuclear program. For that one, issued in May 2005, assessed “with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons” and to press on “despite its international obligations and international pressure.”In other words, a full two years after Iran supposedly called a halt to its nuclear program, the intelligence community was still as sure as it ever is about anything that Iran was determined to build a nuclear arsenal. Why then should we believe it when it now tells us, and with the same “high confidence,” that Iran had already called a halt to its nuclear-weapons program in 2003? Similarly with the intelligence community’s reversal on the effectiveness of international pressure. In 2005, the NIE was highly confident that international pressure had not lessened Iran’s determination to develop nuclear weapons, and yet now, in 2007, the intelligence community is just as confident that international pressure had already done the trick by 2003.

I can’t attribute dark motives to this turnabout. I’d like to, really, but the fog of bureaucratic turf wars is not something I wish to cut through right now. Regardless, this turnaround should bring up questions about the reliability of our intelligence gathering operations rather than serve as a rebuke to a trigger happy administration.

Gabriel Schoenfeld asks the right question though

What accounts for this about face, a disavowal of a judgment reached with “high confidence”?

Schoenfeld wonders if this has something to do with the about face, though, on the surface, Asgari was seemingly providing information that pointed in the other direction.

Asgari, who according to reports is being held in a top-secret military installation, has been able to shed a new light on much of the Iranian regime’s most inner workings, especially regarding the Iranian nuclear development project.

Up until now, Iran – according to known intelligence – has been building two nuclear plants, in Arak and Bushehr, and has been using centrifuges to enrich uranium.

Iran, Asgari told his interrogator’s is working in another, stealth path, toward achieving its nuclear goal.

This third method involves attempts to enrich uranium by using laser beams along with certain chemicals designed to enhance the process. These trials are held in a special weapons facility in Natanz.

(much, much more at memeorandum.)
Instapundit (initially) takes the new NIE at face value, notes Well That’s Convenient and asks (rhetorically)

But what could have happened in 2003 that might have persuaded the Iranians to stop work on a weapon of mass destruction?

via memeorandumIt’s a sentiment that Thomas Joscelyn considers

Assuming for the moment that Iran really did halt its program, are we to believe that a substantial U.S.-led military presence in Afghanistan and in Iraq (or potential presence in Iraq, depending on when in 2003 this change supposedly occurred), had nothing to do with Iran’s supposed decision? That is, are we to believe that U.S. led forces on Iran’s eastern and western borders had nothing to do with Tehran’s decision-making process?

Also via memeorandum

(Hmm. Remember what David Pinto wrote to Instapundit? Maybe not, but I do. I’m a nerd that way.)

Meanwhile regardless of which NIE is correct, Ha’aretz concludes:

Professionals will now argue passionately, continuing the debates between Israel’s assessment (an Iranian bomb in 2009-2010) and the American one (a bomb in 2012-2013).The Americans failed to explain Monday how they reached their new conclusions. As such, the general public will find it difficult to decide who is right. Maybe in the future, when there suddenly really is a bomb in play, or maybe not  a decision on this can be final. Meanwhile, Israeli intelligence has adopted the “most severe” approach, but the American decision maker is only affected by the Americans writing the assessment.

It does not really matter. However successful or flawed this report may be, there is a new, dramatic reality, in all aspects of the struggle against the Iranian bomb: The military option, American or Israeli, is off the table, indefinitely.

Given the American interest in the peace process and likely disinterest in Iran, Israel probably has to tread carefully even if its intelligence estimate differs from the American one.

One question: If the 2005 estimate concluded that Iran had stopped its pursuit of nuclear weapons and the new one concluded that it was now close to fielding a weapon, would the administration’s critics be counseling caution or action?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Last week the Washington Post expressed guarded optimism about the peace in the Middle East in An opening in Annapolis.

THE MIDDLE EAST peace meeting in Annapolis yesterday comfortably cleared the low bar of expectations that had been set for it. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and President Bush committed themselves and their governments to reaching a two-state peace settlement by the end of next year. At the last minute, the Israeli and Palestinian delegations agreed on a joint statement promising “vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations” to resolve “all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception.” The more than 50 countries and organizations that witnessed and implicitly blessed the new peace process included Saudi Arabia, which dispatched its foreign minister, and Syria, whose attendance may have opened a small crack in its alliance with Iran.

And yet the little signs I saw, showed something much less appealing.

First there was the behavior of the Saudis. David Horovitz writes about how the Saudis treated Israeli journalists and diplomats.

The United States on Monday indicated that it was willing to accede to the Saudis’ desire not to shake hands or otherwise be seen making overtures to the Israelis.”That’s going to be up to all of the representatives, how they decide to interact. We will of course be respectful of the various relationships, of the various states of relationships among the participants,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. “They’re going to be focused on the tasks at hand. As the Saudi foreign minister put it, nobody’s interested in these uncomfortable situations where there are theatrics for the sake of photographs. We’ll of course be respectful and mindful of that as we’ll put together the various events.”

Other diplomatic sources have said that the Saudis don’t want any contact whatsoever with the Israeli delegation at Annapolis, and therefore the respective delegations will even use different doors to enter the meeting room.

Not only were the Saudis allowed to practice their form of anti-Israel apartheid, the Americans allowed it as a sign of “respect.” Allison Kaplan Sommer provided another telling detail.

During the ceremony, while the world press was watching Olmert’s speech, Barnea, who always has a sharp eye for telling detail, was watching the Saudi diplomats watch Olmert as he delivered his speech.“All of the foreign ministers put on their headphones (for translation.) All of them, except for one, the Saudi minister, Saud Al-Faisel. His ears, underneath his red keffiyah, were left bare. And no, it wasn’t because he understood Hebrew. It was the Saudi method of demonstrating their relationship to the State of Israel. Even as the Israeli Prime Minister was greeting him and speaking of peace, they were refusing to listen. For a minute I thought I was wrong that maybe there was a technical problem. But then I saw his aide next to him – also leaving his ears demonstrably naked.”

Then, as Olmert’s speech ended, and the audience applauded. “The Saudi representative also brought his palms together in order to appear polite. Only someone who sat very close to him could see that the never touched. The little game that the Saudis were playing was just one contradiction – the least noticeable one – in a day full of contradictions.”

So the Saudis who attended Annapolis couldn’t even be bothered to show PM Olmert basic courtesy. And yet, somehow, their presence was seen as a reason for optimism. A handshake would have been a very reasonable (though too insignificant) confidence building measure. And yet America couldn’t even prevail upon Saudi Arabia to do so.

Then we learned that the murderers of Ido Zoldan were Palestinian policemen and that announcement of their arrest was delayed until after Annapolis.

The IDF arrested members of a cell responsible for the murder of Ido Zoldan two weeks ago close to the northern West Bank settlement of Kedumim, it was cleared for publication on Sunday.According to army officials, the arrested men are Palestinian policemen from the nearby village of Qadum.

The IDF reported that two of the men, Abdullah Braham and Jafar Braham, were arrested on the night of the murder. A third terrorist, Fadi Jama’a, was apprehended by Palestinian security forces. The cell members are all 22 years of age.

There are a lot of factors obviously involved in making peace. But when making peace involves keeping slights and outrages quiet how can it be expected to work? Yesterday, I quoted columnist Jackson Diehl

Senior administration officials have told Olmert that he should prepare his public to absorb some terrorism without giving up on the talks.

Now it’s quite possible that the Olmert government is taking its marching orders from Washington. It’s also possible that Olmert has decided to keep the inconvenient aspects of Annapolis quite lest it trigger the fall of his government. For now he’s protected by two parties who claim to be against his diplomatic efforts and yet stay in the government. What if their constituencies started protesting? Playing down the little snubs and absorbing the violence is necessary to keep alive politically.

It also does very little for cultivating support for “painful concessions” and “risks for peace.”

The peace process in Israel wasn’t unpopular because it involved giving away land. It was unpopular because it didn’t work. In order to keep it going early, PM Rabin had to pull a parliamentary maneuver. Certainly Israel isn’t as safe as it was in 1993, the terrorist having established bases of operation in Gaza and Ramallah (and elsewhere) as a result of being invited in by Israel to make peace.

So the only way to convince Israel to go forward with the peace process is to argue that the alternative is too terrible.

“If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished,” Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Haaretz Wednesday, the day the Annapolis conference ended in an agreement to try to reach a Mideast peace settlement by the end of 2008.”The Jewish organizations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us,” Olmert said, “because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents.”

This was too much, even for leftist columnist Yoel Marcus.

I almost fell off my chair when I saw the banner headline splashed across Haaretz’s front page: “Olmert: Two states or Israel is done for.” Israel is done for? I read this quote, taken from an exclusive Haaretz interview with the prime minister, in utter disbelief. Throughout 60 years of Israel’s battle for existence, no prime minister has ever declared that Israel might be “done for.” The closest anyone has ever come to that was the statement by Israel’s greatest general, Moshe Dayan, on the second day of the Yom Kippur War, when he told a forum of news editors that “the destruction of the Third Temple is at hand.” Some of the editors (among them Gershom Schocken) worried that Dayan’s desperation might leak out at the news conference scheduled for that evening. They called prime minister Golda Meir and the event was canceled. In the end, the tables turned and the war paved the way for peace with Egypt. Conclusion: Don’t scare the public. Israel is not done for, in any shape or form.

It’s worse than that. Olmert, by his declaration, has given the Palestinians veto power over any Israeli concession. All the Palestinians have to do is reject a concession as not enough and Olmert is forced to increase the concession. Because if he doesn’t mollify his “partners” the talks risk falling apart and the consequence of that is too terrible to allow.

But is that really what peace should be about? Should it be a matter of keeping quiet over the other side’s bad behavior and fear about the future? Peace and its benefits should sell itself. The problem is that the process hasn’t worked in the past and even its proponents believe that it holds little hope for the future.

So instead of selling a peace of hope, Olmert sells a peace of fear.

UPDATE: It was pointed out that the title to this post, is one of the “Sentiments for the Foreseeable Future” of In Context, a regular read. I suspect that I inadvertently ripped off the sentiment.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Okay. If you saw it, you have a theory as to what will happen next.

I am so bummed that there is a surviving twin. But I don’t believe anyone else is really, most sincerely dead, either. Heroes fell. They’re not dead yet.

I have ideas about Nathan, Nikki, Adam, and Bennett. And who this year’s Big Bad is. (I don’t think we’ve met the boss yet.)

Your turn.