The Aufruf: I figured it would be such an easy thing to simply have my aufruf at my old synagogue in Pittsburgh, but, like everything else involved with weddings, this one ain't easy either... Whom to invite? When to have it (tradition is within the week before the wedding, but that is not feasible)? Ugh.
Shabbat shalom to all. I am headed home soon.
Kesher Talk
Friday, March 01, 2002
Which religion is truly yours? These online tests are sometimes amusing. Here is one to determine which religion best suits you. It is loaded with crappy questions which make a public opinion researcher like myself want to vommit (slanted questions with no options but yes or no), but I went along with it anyway. Here is where it told me where I belong....
Note that there is no demarcation for Conservative Judaism.
Additional: Iain has just informed me, after I asked about Jainism, that there are only two kinds of Jainists: merchants and monks. Since the monks are required to be nudists, there are not a lot of them....
While we spoke, I took the "Which Greek God(dess) Would You Be?" quiz:
1. Orthodox Judaism (100%)
2. Islam (87%)
3. Reform Judaism (84%)
4. Bahá'í Faith (82%)
5. Sikhism (82%)
6. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (62%)
7. Eastern Orthodox (57%)
8. Roman Catholic (57%)
9. Hinduism (54%)
10. Jehovah's Witness (54%)
11. Liberal Quakers (54%)
12. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (54%)
13. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (53%)
14. Unitarian Universalism (50%)
15. Jainism (50%)
16. Seventh Day Adventist (46%)
17. Orthodox Quaker (39%)
18. Neo-Pagan (38%)
19. Mahayana Buddhism (37%)
20. Scientology (33%)
21. New Thought (29%)
22. Theravada Buddhism (28%)
23. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (28%)
24. Nontheist (23%)
25. New Age (22%)
26. Secular Humanism (20%)
27. Taoism (10%)
Note that there is no demarcation for Conservative Judaism.
Additional: Iain has just informed me, after I asked about Jainism, that there are only two kinds of Jainists: merchants and monks. Since the monks are required to be nudists, there are not a lot of them....
While we spoke, I took the "Which Greek God(dess) Would You Be?" quiz:
# 1 Hephaestus- was the only crippled god. He had a deformed leg. He was the fire god. He created all the god's armor and weapons. He was known as being very kind and good natured. He was the blacksmith to the gods.
# 2 Poseidon-He was the ruler of the sea, and Zeus's brother. He created the first horse, and the first earthquake. He was happily married. He is always seen carrying his trident.
# 3 Hades-He controlled the underworld (heaven & hell). He is Zeus's brother. He is known for being merciless, but just. he is also rich for he owns all metal/gems found in the earth. He married Persephone, whom he had kidnapped. He was king of the dead, but was not death itself.
# 4 Apollo- was Artemis twin brother. He was a great musician, and the god of truth, light, and healing.
# 5 Hermes- was the messenger of the gods. He was very mischievous. He was the god of thieves. He had a winged hat, and winged sandals.
# 6 Artemis- was Apollo's twin sister. She was the huntress goddess. She was also the protector of youth. She was one of the three virgin goddesses. She hated men and loved only the hunt. She was also known as the moon goddess.
# 7 Athena- was the goddess of battle. She was known as being logical and wise. she was also the protector of weavers, architects, and artists. She was one of the virgin goddesses, and was vain.
# 8 Hera-she is Zeus's wife and sister. She was the protector of marriage. She was also known for the cruel punishments she would inflict on the women Zeus slept with. She was also very vain.
# 9 Zeus-Ruler of all the gods. He ruled the sky, and wielded the lightning bolt. He is married to Hera, but sleeps with many a mortal women.
# 10 Ares-was the god of war. He was known as being a coward, and was quite disliked by most.
# 11 Hestia-she is Zeus's sister, and is goddess of the hearth. She is know for being one of the three virgin goddesses.
# 12 Aphrodite-was married to Hephaestus, but did not love him. She was the goddess of love. She was the most beautiful of all the goddesses. She was very vain. She could be spiteful at times but was usually just a ditz.
CAIR blames Muslim world insanities on U.S. foreign policy: On last night's ABC News: World News Tonight, Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said: "We shouldn't just deal with spin control. We have to have real changes to real foreign policies. We have to have American values of justice and freedom applied across the board."
Kuwait fights rearguard effort against Gallup poll of Muslim world: The Kuwaitis are a tad upset about the Gallup poll I've been analyzing. They complained in a press release yesterday that they were misrepresented
Well, they're absolutely right. The statements on Kuwaitis should read "Kuwaiti residents." Of course, this just highlights one of the country's domestic problems -- that the regime is none too kind to the resident workers and will never allow them any input to society beyond their labor and their anger...
The Embassy today cited Andrea Stone's February 28 USA Today story where Gallup's Director of International Research Dr. Richard Burkholder was quoted as acknowledging "that half of those polled in Kuwait were non-citizens who 'are more anti-West.'" ("We've Got Work To Do" on Image With Muslims, Bush Says", USAT, A4)
Well, they're absolutely right. The statements on Kuwaitis should read "Kuwaiti residents." Of course, this just highlights one of the country's domestic problems -- that the regime is none too kind to the resident workers and will never allow them any input to society beyond their labor and their anger...
Elite? My colleague Iain Murray asks why the Iraqi National Guard are always referred to as "elite":
"Why is the Republican Guard always described as "elite"? Did they run away in a more disciplined formation? Are they more experienced than their comrades in killing Kurdish villagers and marsh arabs?"
"Why is the Republican Guard always described as "elite"? Did they run away in a more disciplined formation? Are they more experienced than their comrades in killing Kurdish villagers and marsh arabs?"
Archives demonstrate Saudi "Friedman" peace plan nothing new:
"Our plan recognizes the right of Israel to exist only after acceptance of a Palestinian state, the return to the 1967 borders and an end to the state of belligerency."
--Prince Abdullah, November 1981
"Saudi Arabia believes the time has come to end the Arab-Israeli conflict and achieve a just and comprehensive solution to the Palestinian question."
--Prince Saud Faisal, April 1991
"This is exactly the idea I had in mind--full withdrawal from all the occupied territories, in accord with U.N. resolutions, including in Jerusalem, for full normalization of relations."
--Crown Prince Abdullah, February 2002
("A Princely Proposal? Hardly." Bret Stephens, WSJ, Mar. 1)
New Russian anti-Semitic political party formed: "The People's Patriotic Party of Russia was created at a meeting of 187 delegates from 70 regions held Saturday in the Moscow region town of Moskovsky," according to the Moscow Times (a paper I frequently read while studying there)
Leaders of the new party, which plans to contest seats at the State Duma elections in 2003, said they will fight for "an independent Russia" free of the "foreign experience thrust upon us by the West."
The new party's leader focused on those evil Jews, saying that they occupy key positions and control the majority of industrial enterprises and media. "They must return what they have looted in Russia and publicly repent to the Russian people for the crimes that Jewish terrorists and extremists have committed," Gazeta quoted him as saying.
Rodionov could not be reached, but one of his aides referred calls about the new party to Vladimir Miloserdov, the head of its executive committee. Miloserdov, who is the head of an ultra-nationalist organization called the Russian Party, was equally blunt. He named several former Communist and Soviet leaders such as Lev Trotsky and Yakov Sverdlov as Jews "who committed grave crimes against humanity in the 20th century."
Leaders of the new party, which plans to contest seats at the State Duma elections in 2003, said they will fight for "an independent Russia" free of the "foreign experience thrust upon us by the West."
The new party's leader focused on those evil Jews, saying that they occupy key positions and control the majority of industrial enterprises and media. "They must return what they have looted in Russia and publicly repent to the Russian people for the crimes that Jewish terrorists and extremists have committed," Gazeta quoted him as saying.
Rodionov could not be reached, but one of his aides referred calls about the new party to Vladimir Miloserdov, the head of its executive committee. Miloserdov, who is the head of an ultra-nationalist organization called the Russian Party, was equally blunt. He named several former Communist and Soviet leaders such as Lev Trotsky and Yakov Sverdlov as Jews "who committed grave crimes against humanity in the 20th century."
Thursday, February 28, 2002
A conflict "neither side seems willing to end": The MRC reports on ABC News' quest for moral equivalence:
On Tuesday night, ABC's reporter in Israel concluded a story by lamenting how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one "neither side seems willing to end."
For the February 25 World News Tonight, Gillian Findlay reported on two pregnant women who gave birth hours after being shot: How Israeli soldiers fired on a car which did not stop at a checkpoint, killing the husband of a woman shot in shoulder and how Palestinians shot some settlers, killing two and wounding a pregnant Israeli.
Findlay concluded by noting how since her grandfather was killed, the Israeli baby "will grow up without a grandfather, he died in the shooting, just as Heeda [the Palestinian baby, sp?] will grow up without a father, the two newest victims of a conflict neither side seems willing to end."
Israel opens up to Argentine Jews: "Israel is budgeting $140 million, including a one-time-only special offer this year of an extra $20,000 in cash for each family of four on top of the usual grants, to lure Argentina's 200,000 Jews from their country's economic collapse. Last year, 1,500 Argentine Jews settled in Israel, but this year's financial crisis has sparked 6,000 new applications. The money comes from a special world-wide appeal by the Jewish Agency, but with the fervent backing of Ariel Sharon's government. Sharon has set a target of 1 million new Jewish immigrants over the coming decade, mainly from the United States, France and Argentina, to counter a demographic trend that threatens to make Jews a minority in Israel and the occupied territories." (United Press International: UPI hears... Feb. 28)
The venerable Saudi war plan:
Meanwhile, not a peep from the NY Times today , as it continued to crusade on behalf of the "Friedman" peace plan. But the Washington Times talked with Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarek. "Mr. Mubarak cautioned that the plan was unlikely to succeed because Israel viewed it as a starting point for negotiations, while the Saudi proposal could only be an all-or-nothing deal."
Land for peace. But you give us the land first...
Angering Israelis and disappointing other diplomats here, a senior Saudi official lashed out at Israel on Wednesday in a speech to the Security Council that was widely but wrongly expected to be the first public articulation of a new peace initiative promoted by Saudi Arabia.
In the much-anticipated address, the Saudi ambassador to the United Nations barely mentioned the initiative, other than to refer to the enthusiastic reception it has received from governments and commentators around the world.
Instead, he launched into a bitter attack on Israel that appeared to undermine the advertised premise of the much-touted Saudi plan. "No one can deny that what the Palestinian people are undergoing in the occupied territories is one of the worst forms of injustice inflicted by man, one of the worst examples of pressure and persecution and racism and systematic oppression in the history of mankind," said Ambassador Fawzi Shubukshi.
"The objective of Israel was and remains the expulsion of the Arab people from Palestine," he angrily declared. ("Saudi Ambassador Berates Israel Before U.N. Council," LA Times)
Meanwhile, not a peep from the NY Times today , as it continued to crusade on behalf of the "Friedman" peace plan. But the Washington Times talked with Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarek. "Mr. Mubarak cautioned that the plan was unlikely to succeed because Israel viewed it as a starting point for negotiations, while the Saudi proposal could only be an all-or-nothing deal."
Land for peace. But you give us the land first...
Bush to Arabs - you got us all wrong: The inevitable result of yesterday's Gallup poll release on Arab attitudes arrived this morning in a USA Today article: "Bush: 'We've got work to do' on image."
Meanwhile, the Gallup people provided the AAPORNET list with the low-down on the poll's methodology. It more or less confirms my concerns expressed yesterday. It is quite long, so please skip ahead if poll-methodology is not your interest:
Another AAPORNET member, John Hall, expressed his concerns as well:
AAPORNETer Dick Halpern pleads with Gallup to "release the full findings so that interpretations of the data are not left just up to the media to craft their own story... There is too much at stake."
Amen to that. But given the cost involved in running the survey and the potential profits to be gained from selling the data (the "Executive Report" sells for $1,250 and if you want the data set with it, the cost rises to $9,500.), I don't expect Gallup to cave anytime soon.
Meanwhile, the Gallup people provided the AAPORNET list with the low-down on the poll's methodology. It more or less confirms my concerns expressed yesterday. It is quite long, so please skip ahead if poll-methodology is not your interest:
Sample Design
The sample design for all nine nations in the Islamic survey is generally identical to that used by Gallup and virtually all other research companies for surveys based on personal-in-home interviews. It is designed to measure the views of the entire national population of each country included in this project, urban and rural, and is based on a multistage probability sample.
In accordance with the standardized procedures of this sample design, the first stage of the sampling process involved the selection of the primary sampling units (PSUs), that is, the main locations in which the interviews were to be conducted in each of the nine nations.
The selection process began by arraying the population data into strata for those factors for which national census or other official statistics were available, such as the distribution of the urban and rural population.
After the national population data for the nine countries were stratified into groups for the urban and rural populations, the individual PSUs were selected from each urban and rural stratum. Where available, the national population data were also stratified by such other variables as educational attainment and household income.
Because of the inherent difficulties of interviewing in rural areas, the rural population of each country was systematically undersampled relative to the urban population by assigning fewer PSU to rural areas. To subsequently bring the various national samples into line, undersampled rural areas were weighted up to accurately reflect their correct proportions in the total national population.
Following the selection of the individual PSUs in a given country, interviewers were instructed to conduct from five to ten interviews in each PSU. This produced national sample sizes varying from about 750 in the case of Jordan and Saudi Arabia to over 2,000 in Pakistan, resulting in a total sample size for the Islamic project of approximately 10,000 individuals.
Here is a list of the total sample sizes for each of the countries in the survey:
TOTAL SAMPLE 9,924
Pakistan 2,043
Iran 1,501
Indonesia 1,050
Turkey 1,019
Lebanon 1,010
Morocco 1,000
Kuwait 790
Jordan 757
Saudi Arabia 754
The next stage of the sampling process dealt with the selection of the households in which the interviewing was to be conducted. To avoid the possible bias of interviewing only the more accessible households, interviewers were provided with a specified starting point from which to commence interviewing. They were then instructed to follow a specified direction or travel pattern from this starting point, conducting an interview at each subsequent household (or every second or third household) until the interviewing assignment was completed.
At each household so selected, interviewers were instructed to select one person to be interviewed using the so-called "Kish Grid." This procedure requires the interviewer to pre-list, that is, to record the age and gender of every member of the household before commencing the interview. The individual to be interviewed is then identified by a mark that has been randomly printed in various positions on the grid.
The Kish Grid system ensures that the household member to be interviewed is selected entirely at random and has an equal chance of being interviewed. It thus avoids the possible bias that can be caused by interviewers interviewing only the most accessible household members.
Interviewing
All 9,924 interviews on which the Gallup Poll of the Islamic world was based were conducted in-person, in the home. The interview, which consisted of approximately 120 questions, required about one hour to administer. All interviews were conducted in December 2001 and January 2002. Interviewing was conducted by specifically selected survey research organizations indigenous to each region. The entire research process was carried out under the supervision of Gallup Organization research managers.
In certain countries, e.g. Saudi Arabia, female respondents were interviewed by female interviewers only.
Handout cards or exhibits were read to those respondents who were unable to read.
Numerical scales were used exclusively to avoid the difficulties of translating verbal scales into a number of different languages.
Reporting
The results of this project are for the most part discussed on a country-by-country basis without specific reference to an overall total. In certain graphic representations the "Total" bar is based on an unweighted sample of all interviews conducted and should be used for illustrative purposes only.
Another AAPORNET member, John Hall, expressed his concerns as well:
I don't have a great deal of problem with their not weighting to reflect the difference in country size, since they make that clear and since some of results are reported by country. However, are their samples within country equal probability or even probability samples? Also, how much of the population in each country is covered by their methods; what are their response rates?
AAPORNETer Dick Halpern pleads with Gallup to "release the full findings so that interpretations of the data are not left just up to the media to craft their own story... There is too much at stake."
Amen to that. But given the cost involved in running the survey and the potential profits to be gained from selling the data (the "Executive Report" sells for $1,250 and if you want the data set with it, the cost rises to $9,500.), I don't expect Gallup to cave anytime soon.
My meeting with Congressman X: Last night, I spoke off the record with a House of Representatives member about Israel, the Middle East, etc. A few of the interesting things I got from him include:
- Discussion of the "Friedman" peace plan between the U.S. and the Saudis are a lot further along than we've been led to believe (though it is not clear how much of this has actually involved the Israelis, or any other party for that matter).
- A fatalistic approach to Arafat is spreading in Washington. Whether he cannot or will not broker for peace or is simply afraid of getting killed should he attempt it, Arafat cannot be relied upon to bring peace to the Middle East.
- The Congressman suspects Sadaam Hussein's involvement, influencing Hamas and others to push the situation over the edge. He thinks Sadaam hopes to draw the U.S. into a war, in order to line up others on his own side and save his own ass.
Wednesday, February 27, 2002
Manchester to lose Jewish Society: “This is nothing less than an attempt to target Jewish students through the now fashionable veil of anti-Zionism." MuslimPundit has the analysis of an attempt by the Manchester University's Student Union to equate Zionism with racism. "This would justify a repeat of a failed 1996 bid to ban all Zionist organisations on campus which, if passed, would sever the [Jewish] society’s involvement in university politics. The society would be deprived of its funding and social events such as the annual black tie ball would have to be cancelled."
Exercising before synagogue: The editor of Baltimore's Jewish Times has some suggestions on ensuring that you actually get a little spiritual refuge on your next synagogue visit:
"Synagogue is not about pulling a spiritual muscle. It's about stretching them to feel a little healthier each day. That's called Jewish living."
- Do your homework: Going to a bar or bat mitzvah? Check your Jewish paper for the week's Torah reading. Go to the Internet and look it up. Commentaries will include traditional, liberal, feminist, sacrilegious and more. The more bizarre the better. Read a few. You'll perhaps get interested or angry enough to learn more.
- Ignore the service: No one - other than those leading, says you must pay attention. Check out the siddur's poetry and the Torah"s commentary. Surprisingly, the backdrop of the service will be more relaxing than distracting.
- Pace yourself: Don't want to walk in right away? Don't. Chat outside for a while. When ready, enter. If it's not happening inside, go out for a brief walk; let your thoughts roam.
- Take it with you: Services aren't just for the moment, but meant to offer personal growth. Talk about the sermon afterward (OK, maybe even during). During the week, hum a tune you liked. If irked by what you heard, send the rabbi a note. (What, you thought Judaism was a monologue?)
"Synagogue is not about pulling a spiritual muscle. It's about stretching them to feel a little healthier each day. That's called Jewish living."
France never takes sides: "French diplomats are boasting of their latest role in the tangled diplomacy of the Middle East -- providing prison transport. Worried that a Palestinian mob might try to break into Nablus prison to free the three militants arrested in connections with the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi, Yasser Arafat's security forces decided to transfer them to jail in Ramallah. But aware that the prison van carrying the three members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine would be a juicy target for an Israeli missile, they asked the French consul in Jerusalem to lend them his diplomatic car. They also informed the Israelis that Tawfik Tirawi, head of the General Intelligence forces on the West Bank and one of the few top Palestinians still on speaking terms with the Israelis, would join the convoy." (United Press International: UPI hears ... Feb. 26)
Preparing for peace?: The Chicago Tribune editorializes on Sharon's opportunity:
At least the Boston Globe hedges its bets a little:
The Globe reports that "Yesterday the White House spokesman said President Bush phoned Abdullah to welcome his efforts to promote ''a comprehensive peace in the Mideast.''," but fails to mention that Bush was effectively rebuffed! See yesterday's note on the Saudi response.
Frank Gaffney (LA Times, Feb. 27) has an answer to Prince Abdullahs' supposedly "new peace initiative":
A Jerusalem Post columnist compares the Peres speedy quest for peace to the dilemmas of a computer buyer:
The Christian Science Monitor wants America to be tough on Israel, tough on the causes of Israel.
And on the Aish website, Sara Levinsky Rigler insists that Israel will survive, one way or another, because God said so:
Now Sharon has the opportunity to do the unexpected: Negotiate for peace. Much as fellow Likud leader Menachem Begin made peace with Egypt, Sharon has a chance to surprise the world and grab a chance offered by, of all places, Saudi Arabia. ... The plan may have started off as a public relations gesture. But it is being entertained now by Sharon, the Palestinians, Arab states and the U.S. as a possible way to break the logjam.
At least the Boston Globe hedges its bets a little:
There are good reasons to be skeptical about the chances that the proposal Abdullah produced from his desk drawer will be implemented. Neither the prince nor the columnist has a mandate to negotiate any peace agreement. Also, since Abdullah's plan features recognition of Israel by all 22 Arab states and full normalization of relations in exchange for Israel's return to its June 4, 1967, borders, concerned parties are entitled to ask whether Abdullah speaks for the other 21 Arab states.
The Globe reports that "Yesterday the White House spokesman said President Bush phoned Abdullah to welcome his efforts to promote ''a comprehensive peace in the Mideast.''," but fails to mention that Bush was effectively rebuffed! See yesterday's note on the Saudi response.
Frank Gaffney (LA Times, Feb. 27) has an answer to Prince Abdullahs' supposedly "new peace initiative":
The idea of Israel giving up the land it conquered in the course of successive wars waged against it in exchange for a genuine peace with the Arabs has been around at least since the last of those wars ended in 1973. Various U.N. resolutions, numerous shuttle diplomacy missions and the Oslo process have all been predicated on the land-for-peace proposition. Time after time, Israel has agreed to territorial concessions. The resulting dismal experience with each of these ventures has, however, made most Israelis reluctant to buy into such a shopworn idea yet again. Even if the Abdullah plan were a genuinely new concept, it would not be conducive to a lasting peace. Over the past 30 years, Israeli governments of the right and left have recognized that areas of the West Bank have been essential to persuading the Arabs that the "war option" is foreclosed. Should strategic Israeli positions on the high ground above the Jordan Valley, many of which are secured by settlements and military outposts, be surrendered, the Arabs' calculus surely would change.
And despite the interest expressed by President Bush this week, the Abdullah plan cannot accurately be called an "initiative" either. The Saudi king-in-waiting apparently has not decided to formally introduce his plan at an upcoming Arab League summit. There also have been differing reports of the plan's particulars.
The real impetus behind the Abdullah plan seems to be a cynical bid to divert increasingly critical American attention from the Saudi kingdom's double game.
A Jerusalem Post columnist compares the Peres speedy quest for peace to the dilemmas of a computer buyer:
... in our quest for redundant power and speed, we are faced with a dilemma: at any given moment, the computer available a few months later will be faster and cheaper.
The happy predicament of the computer buyer is the best way to explain Foreign Minister Shimon Peres's misunderstanding of Israel's situation. It always pays to dawdle when buying a computer Đ in time you will get more for less. What Peres does not seem to understand is that it is crazy to rush to "buy" peace right now, because prices are about to drop dramatically.
The Christian Science Monitor wants America to be tough on Israel, tough on the causes of Israel.
And on the Aish website, Sara Levinsky Rigler insists that Israel will survive, one way or another, because God said so:
-- if there were no God who had promised otherwise. But there is a God. And although He did not promise Northern Ireland to the Protestants, He did -- repeatedly and emphatically -- promise the Land of Israel to the Jews. And although logic and historical experience usually carry the day, God's will always carries the century.
"Many in Islamic world doubt Arabs behind 9/11": I failed to get a press copy of the new Gallup poll of the Arab world, but apparently someone at the USAToday managed it. Or they just got the press release and reguritated it. Whatever the case, it made the front page.
Do I doubt the poll results? You better believe it! Doubt is always there whenever I am not allowed to see a poll's guts and methodology. You can see some of the results here and here.
But there are markers of trouble:
CNN also covered the poll.
A sweeping poll of attitudes in the Islamic world shows that most Muslims don't believe Arabs carried out the Sept. 11 attacks and disapprove of the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan. The Gallup Organization poll, released Tuesday, is the most comprehensive survey of Muslim countries taken since Sept. 11. It confirms anecdotal evidence of a huge gulf between the West and Muslim nations that existed before the attacks and remains deep.
Do I doubt the poll results? You better believe it! Doubt is always there whenever I am not allowed to see a poll's guts and methodology. You can see some of the results here and here.
But there are markers of trouble:
- According to the USAToday, "The poll results are not statistically adjusted to reflect the populations of the countries surveyed." That is probably good, because we don't have good data on those populations anyhow - adjustment would be stupid. But without knowing more about the sample, we can't even guess at how representative it might be.
- Not all the questions were asked of all respondents, making results often incomparable. "The poll had about 120 questions, but not all were asked in every country because of censorship. For instance, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Morocco did not allow the question about Arab responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks."
CNN also covered the poll.
Pearl of wisdom: "Three weeks ago, Robert Fisk, the Middle East correspondent of Britain's Independent, offered a familiar argument to Pearl's kidnappers: Killing the American would be "a major blunder, an own goal of the worst kind," "the best way of ensuring that the suffering" -- of Kashmiris, Afghans, Palestinians, whatever -- "goes unrecorded." Others peddled a similar line: If you release Daniel, he'll be able to tell your story, get your message out. Somehow we keep missing the point: the story did get out; the severed head is the message. (Mark Steyn, The Naitonal Post, Feb. 25)
Nordic warnings: Oh no! We can't invade Iraq! Norway says it could weaken the war on terrorism!
"It would undermine the cohesion in the broad, international coalition and weaken the chance to control terrorism in the longer term," according to Norway's Foreign Minister Jan Petersen.
Nordic warnings: Oh no! We can't invade Iraq! Norway says it could weaken the war on terrorism!
"It would undermine the cohesion in the broad, international coalition and weaken the chance to control terrorism in the longer term," according to Norway's Foreign Minister Jan Petersen.
Tuesday, February 26, 2002
The San Francisco Chronicle spins a crusade on Anti-Israeli Jews: Confusing, I know. The Chronicle writes a "news" article defending Rabbi Michael Lerner, co-founder of the loony leftist Jewish magazine Tikkun. The Chronicle paints Lerner as a lonely brave soul amidst a sea of Jewish conformity:
Lerner has gathered together a bunch of his rich left-wing buddies to counter what the Chronicle dubs the "withering" campaign against them. Who stands with Lerner? For starters, the reknowned Harvard moron Cornell West. "I want to ask your assistance in keeping alive one of the most significant visionary voices for social justice and social healing in the world today -- Tikkun Magazine," West wrote.
Lerner sees a Zionist conspiracy:
Yeah, no one criticizes Israel, ever.
Lerner wants Jews to "allow themselves to hear the cries of pain of the Palestinian people."
I have something I would like Lerner to allow himself to hear, but I fear I cannot publish it here... But please share your thoughts with the Chronicle "journalist" Chip Johnson at or write to him at 483 Ninth St., Suite 100, Oakland CA 94607.
Lerner is fighting a battle fought by every member of an ethnic group at one time or another. It is the unrelenting peer pressure to succumb to group- think or face being labeled a traitor.
Thinking "outside the box" is now a trendy term for independent thinking in the business world, but it's still widely discouraged in many of the nation's ethnic communities.
There is a huge difference in supporting your community and being controlled by it.
Lerner has gathered together a bunch of his rich left-wing buddies to counter what the Chronicle dubs the "withering" campaign against them. Who stands with Lerner? For starters, the reknowned Harvard moron Cornell West. "I want to ask your assistance in keeping alive one of the most significant visionary voices for social justice and social healing in the world today -- Tikkun Magazine," West wrote.
Lerner sees a Zionist conspiracy:
"One of the things we're up against is this: Most Christians, especially morally sensitive non-Jews, look at the news and see there is something wrong, but feel it is inappropriate, because of the Holocaust, to criticize them," he said.
"There is a PC view toward Jews, but real friends would stand up and criticize Israel when it does something self-destructive," he said.
Yeah, no one criticizes Israel, ever.
Lerner wants Jews to "allow themselves to hear the cries of pain of the Palestinian people."
I have something I would like Lerner to allow himself to hear, but I fear I cannot publish it here... But please share your thoughts with the Chronicle "journalist" Chip Johnson at
Still strong: Despite the tepid response domestically to Sharon's latest speech, the Chicago Sun Times (Feb. 25) warns that "Nothing could be more dangerous than for Arafat, the Palestinians and the Arab world to mistake the current Israeli debate as a sign of weakness. In fact, this kind of noisy democracy is part of what makes Israel strong."
Just compensation: Daniel Pipes implores the victims of 9-11 to seek compensation elsewhere: "You have been engaged in an unfortunate spat with the U.S. government over the money you deserve for your losses on 9/11, prompting anger all around. Here's a solution: Forget Washington and focus on Riyadh." (The New York Post, Feb. 18)
Turkey: audacious and secular:
The beauty of Turkey -- and by this I mean the elegance of its cultural practices -- lies in the fact that it is the only state in the Muslim world audacious enough to convene a conference with more than 40 Islamic foreign ministers present alongside their European counterparts, and then to include the country's leading winemaker and its most popular brewery among the event's sponsors. This may seem trivial in the grand scheme of things -- and the theme of the two-day conference, "Civilization and Harmony: The Political Dimension," was grandiose indeed -- but it is in these touches of Western custom, these flashes of cultural independence, that one detects the true nature of Turkey's separateness from the ummah, or the Islamic world. (Tunku Varadarajan, The Wall Street Journal - subscription required)
Saudis slap down peace rumors: "No official Saudi-Israeli visits will be held to discuss a recently floated land-for-peace proposal until an Arab-Israeli settlement is reached, according to a Saudi newspaper editorial Tuesday. An Al-Watan editorial marked the first Saudi reaction to an Israeli offer for official visits between both Middle East nations in the wake of the" Friedman-voiced land-for-peace proposal. See Ha'aretz.
Crazy boy Bush: On Feb. 17, the University of Southern California played host to a forum sponsored by the local chapter of the Americans for Democratic Action and titled “Our Democracy After 9/11: Can We Save It?”
Looking for an emblematic speaker? According to Edgar B. Anderson, LA Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters "launched into a bitter attack on President Bush’s conduct of the War on Terrorism. “Some of us, maybe foolishly, gave this President the authority to go after the terrorists. We didn’t know that he too was gonna go crazy with it.” She questioned Bush’s desire to spend more billions to pursue “all of these other countries that supposedly are identified with terrorism.” She evoked laughter and applause from the audience, “Now we know that he has a problem with Saddam Hussein. We know that. We know that he’s got to take revenge for what Saddam did to his daddy.” Waters all but apologized for her vote in support of Bush’s response to the events of September 11 as she saluted the sole Congressional holdout: “The only person who should be celebrated and honored and revered is Barbara Lee [of Oakland, CA].” The room went wild. "
Looking for an emblematic speaker? According to Edgar B. Anderson, LA Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters "launched into a bitter attack on President Bush’s conduct of the War on Terrorism. “Some of us, maybe foolishly, gave this President the authority to go after the terrorists. We didn’t know that he too was gonna go crazy with it.” She questioned Bush’s desire to spend more billions to pursue “all of these other countries that supposedly are identified with terrorism.” She evoked laughter and applause from the audience, “Now we know that he has a problem with Saddam Hussein. We know that. We know that he’s got to take revenge for what Saddam did to his daddy.” Waters all but apologized for her vote in support of Bush’s response to the events of September 11 as she saluted the sole Congressional holdout: “The only person who should be celebrated and honored and revered is Barbara Lee [of Oakland, CA].” The room went wild. "
Mike Sultan's bad joke of the day: News reports now say that Osama Bin Laden may have been duped by swindlers who sold him fake radioactive materials.
That is not the only time Bin Laden was duped ...
His realtors (Century 14 Realty) promised him a cave near shopping and mass transit with an ocean view ... he got none of those things.
That is not the only time Bin Laden was duped ...
His realtors (Century 14 Realty) promised him a cave near shopping and mass transit with an ocean view ... he got none of those things.
Toronto synagogue runs a homeless shelter: This is nice to see - the synagogue in which my parents were married is in the news, running a shelter as part of the Out of the Cold coalition. "The Torah says the reward of a mitzvah is the mitzvah itself," notes Rabbi Gunther Plaut, Holy Blossom´s senior religious leader. "That´s what it´s all about. That´s what gives people a great kick — to be able to do something positive."
Mali's lament: The Muslim nation of Mali (in Africa) is facing a rising tide of Islamism.
Well color me CAIR: The Council on American-Islamic Relations denounced "right-wing televangelist Pat Robertson's recent smears of Islam" as an "incitement to violence against American Muslims." They also offered, if Pat would apologize, to meet with Muslim leaders so he could learn the true meaning of incitements to violence - oops, they actually said, "meet with Muslim leaders who could provide him with accurate information about Islam."
You mean Canada has intelligence? Canadian intelligence confirms that the "axis of evil" are aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons. DUH! (The National Post)
But... But... But...: As a military matter, whether Canada joins in any future campaign against Iraq is irrelevant. The notion that the United States, in deliberating what to do about Saddam Hussein, would be swayed by the doubts of an "ally" whose meagre forces would have to hitch a ride on American transport planes just to make it to the war, let alone offer much in the way of supporting firepower (wrapped in their desert-hued blankets, hastily requisitioned to cover their forest-green uniforms, it must be all they can do to get a hand free to pull the trigger), must have them in stitches at the Pentagon. "You mean, we're supposed to invade Iraq all by ourselves? But, but, who's going to be there to lecture us when we take prisoners?" (Andrew Coyne in the National Post)
The important difference between Husseins: Michael Rubin paints sharp distinctions between the late King Hussein of Jordan and Sadaam.
But... But... But...: As a military matter, whether Canada joins in any future campaign against Iraq is irrelevant. The notion that the United States, in deliberating what to do about Saddam Hussein, would be swayed by the doubts of an "ally" whose meagre forces would have to hitch a ride on American transport planes just to make it to the war, let alone offer much in the way of supporting firepower (wrapped in their desert-hued blankets, hastily requisitioned to cover their forest-green uniforms, it must be all they can do to get a hand free to pull the trigger), must have them in stitches at the Pentagon. "You mean, we're supposed to invade Iraq all by ourselves? But, but, who's going to be there to lecture us when we take prisoners?" (Andrew Coyne in the National Post)
The important difference between Husseins: Michael Rubin paints sharp distinctions between the late King Hussein of Jordan and Sadaam.
ozens of statesmen turned out for the 1999 funeral of King Hussein of Jordan. Few will be present at the funeral of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, regardless of whether the Iraqi president's death comes as a result of Phase II of the war against terrorism, or two decades from now. King Hussein may not have been a democrat, but he will always be remembered for his moderation and genuine desire to advance his nation. President Hussein will always be remembered with disdain.
Monday, February 25, 2002
Hag sameach: Happy Purim to all! Down with Hamen!
A sad note on Purim: Grasshoppa has some sad recollections to go with this otherwise joyful holiday.
More on Jewish cost of living: Grasshoppa proffers a possible problem with the AJC study: "my first impression is that they have not looked into how much more it costs to keep kosher. Kosher food (especially meat) is often twice the price of non-kosher meat and makes keeping kosher difficult, especially for those Jews who are not well off. (Yes, they do exist)."
A sad note on Purim: Grasshoppa has some sad recollections to go with this otherwise joyful holiday.
More on Jewish cost of living: Grasshoppa proffers a possible problem with the AJC study: "my first impression is that they have not looked into how much more it costs to keep kosher. Kosher food (especially meat) is often twice the price of non-kosher meat and makes keeping kosher difficult, especially for those Jews who are not well off. (Yes, they do exist)."
Could you be any more paternalizing?:
The solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict already has been spelled out in all its stages and details. The Middle East does not need new solutions. It needs a kindergarten teacher to separate the two children, splash some cold water on their faces, calm them down, and send them back to the fine place where they left their sanity.
This kindergarten teacher could be the United States; if not, it could be Europe. But the biggest mistake the world could make would be to say of the Israelis and Palestinians, "Let them bleed." The orphaned negotiating table still is waiting for the two sides to come back -- and it is still not too late. (Yossi Beilin in the American Prospect)
The American Prospect assails the "Zionist lobby": According to the American Prospect (Vol 13, Iss. 5. "Deal Breakers." Michael Massing.), there is a conspiracy afoot. Evil Jewish conservatives are working to get the U.S. to - gasp - support Israel. And they are hijacking major American Jewish groups to do it.
Well, Michael Massing certainly wears his bias on his sleeve.
Michael cites polls showing American Jews in favor of peace and talks, the U.S. "moving the parties back to the negotiating table," etc. The usual retorts apply - hard to negotiate when you are being blown up every morning.
So Massing interviews left-winger J.J. Goldberg, editor of the leftist Jewish paper The Forward. "Most American Jews vote in favor of Oslo," Goldberg told Massing, citing dubious polls conducted by the Forward. Goldberg complains to Massing that Jews who identify themselves as doves feel much less strongly about Israel than those who identify themselves as hawks. "Jewish liberals give to the Sierra Fund," Goldberg says. "Jewish conservatives are Jewish all the time. That's the whole ball game. It's not what six million American Jews feel is best -- it's what 50 Jewish organizations feel is best."
An interesting and unsubstantiated deliniation - that politically conservative Jews are more likely to self-identify as Jews than politically liberal Jews? Goldberg has no data to back up this ridiculous claim.
Massing is still on task, though. "More precisely, it's what two Jewish organizations feel is best."
The first focus of Massing's ire is the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (CPAJO). Malcolm Hoenlein, president of CPAJO
So it is not that different for the Israeli parliament...
Anyhow, Massing paints a picture of Hoenlein as a staunch suppporter of Israel (G-d forbid) and all-around conservative (unsubstantiated). This information appears to be coming to Massing from an obvious source: the left-wing president, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, of the Reform movement, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC).
Yoffie complains that the CPAJO is not representative enough of all the groups it encompasses, and its board and chairmen have not always been kept on a short-enough leash.
Massing then turns to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and the article takes a campaign-finance-reform tack, as we find out that AIPAC lobbies Congress indirectly - through its members. And it gets its members spending a bucketload of money:
Then we return to the conspiracy fun, where "the Gang of Four" past-presidents tried but failed to keep AIPAC from supporting the "peace" treaties between Rabin, Arafat and Clinton. Then, the "Gang of Four" got their Congressional lackeys to put through a bill moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to - gasp - the Israeli capital city of Jerusalem.
Massing insists that "by inflaming Arab opinion, the bill complicated the efforts to implement Oslo -- and that, of course, was AIPAC's goal." Actually, Michael, the Palestinian Authority never implemented much of its Oslo responsibilities, period. Before or after that bill went through Congress.
What AIPAC seems to push for is strong American support for Israel, period. You can argue about the fine points until you are blue in the face, but a "peace process" requires a modicum of peace. An Israeli surrender at this time would ensure the end of the state of Israel, and probably death for a lot of Jewish Israelis.
The article concludes as a sob story about the poor underfunded leftist Israel Policy Forum, which wants the U.S. to be "even-handed" (i.e., to stop supporting Israel).
So, do American Jewish groups represent American Jews. Well, each one has some constituency, large or small. Interest groups are not democratic by nature. Do I like that? Eh, no, but in a free market democracy, we get to spend our money reasonably freely. If someone wants to invest his in politics, he should be free to do so.
Just don't expect a front page American Prospect expose on how the Sierra Club is failing to represent "moderate" Americans on environmental and regulatory issues. Political, financial and Jewish influence only upsets TAP when it is exercised in a manner with which they disagree. As long as the "undemocratic" are left-wing and anti-Israeli, it will all be okay...
those who are most adept at this do not necessarily represent the broad range of Jewish views on the subject. At a time when Palestinian terror bombings grow more horrific daily and Israeli military action in the occupied territories grows steadily harsher, the bias in political representation has complicated negotiations and reduced the likelihood that the United States will be able to mediate the conflict successfully.
Well, Michael Massing certainly wears his bias on his sleeve.
Michael cites polls showing American Jews in favor of peace and talks, the U.S. "moving the parties back to the negotiating table," etc. The usual retorts apply - hard to negotiate when you are being blown up every morning.
So Massing interviews left-winger J.J. Goldberg, editor of the leftist Jewish paper The Forward. "Most American Jews vote in favor of Oslo," Goldberg told Massing, citing dubious polls conducted by the Forward. Goldberg complains to Massing that Jews who identify themselves as doves feel much less strongly about Israel than those who identify themselves as hawks. "Jewish liberals give to the Sierra Fund," Goldberg says. "Jewish conservatives are Jewish all the time. That's the whole ball game. It's not what six million American Jews feel is best -- it's what 50 Jewish organizations feel is best."
An interesting and unsubstantiated deliniation - that politically conservative Jews are more likely to self-identify as Jews than politically liberal Jews? Goldberg has no data to back up this ridiculous claim.
Massing is still on task, though. "More precisely, it's what two Jewish organizations feel is best."
The first focus of Massing's ire is the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (CPAJO). Malcolm Hoenlein, president of CPAJO
is supposed to reflect the broad consensus within the conference. And, when there actually is a consensus, he gives it an effective voice. It's when there's not that the trouble begins. The problem in part reflects how the conference is organized. Of the group's 51 members, the two largest are the Union of American Hebrew Congregations and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. The former represents America's 1.5 million Reform Jews and their 900 synagogues; the latter, America's 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their 760 synagogues. Both of these groups are generally liberal in outlook and supportive of the peace process in the Middle East. Each gets one vote on the board. By contrast, the Orthodox Union -- the organized arm of Orthodox Judaism -- represents 600,000 Jews and 800 congregations. Nonetheless, it, too, gets one vote. So do a host of smaller organizations, such as Agudath Israel of America, the Zionist Organization of America, and American Friends of Likud -- all of them conservative and unenthusiastic about the peace process. The smaller conservative groups in the conference decisively outnumber the larger liberal ones and so can neutralize their influence. And that leaves considerable discretion in the hands of [CPAJO's president] Malcolm Hoenlein.
So it is not that different for the Israeli parliament...
Anyhow, Massing paints a picture of Hoenlein as a staunch suppporter of Israel (G-d forbid) and all-around conservative (unsubstantiated). This information appears to be coming to Massing from an obvious source: the left-wing president, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, of the Reform movement, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC).
"The organization "has been much more outspoken and forceful in supporting governments of the right than those of the left," says Rabbi Eric Yoffie.... "I feel strongly that during the Rabin and Barak years the conference simply did not demonstrate the same kind of energy and aggressive support for the policies of the Israeli government that it did during the [Yitzhak] Shamir and Netanyahu years."
Yoffie complains that the CPAJO is not representative enough of all the groups it encompasses, and its board and chairmen have not always been kept on a short-enough leash.
Massing then turns to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and the article takes a campaign-finance-reform tack, as we find out that AIPAC lobbies Congress indirectly - through its members. And it gets its members spending a bucketload of money:
In all, hundreds of members on both sides of the aisle receive substantial pro-Israel contributions. This giving packs all the more punch because of the lack of a counterweight by pro-Arab and pro-Muslim PACs. As a result of such lopsided giving, says William Quandt, a member of the National Security Council in the Nixon and Carter administrations, "Seventy to 80 percent of all members of Congress will go along with whatever they think AIPAC wants."
What AIPAC wants, meanwhile, is determined by its board of directors. And directors are selected on the basis of how much money they give, not how well they represent AIPAC's members. "If you want to be a player at AIPAC, you have to be a significant giver both to AIPAC and to politicians," says Douglas Bloomfield, a former legislative director at AIPAC. Accordingly, AIPAC's board is thick with corporate lawyers, Wall Street investors, business executives, and heirs to family fortunes. Within the board itself, power is concentrated among an extremely wealthy subgroup made up of past AIPAC presidents.
Then we return to the conspiracy fun, where "the Gang of Four" past-presidents tried but failed to keep AIPAC from supporting the "peace" treaties between Rabin, Arafat and Clinton. Then, the "Gang of Four" got their Congressional lackeys to put through a bill moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to - gasp - the Israeli capital city of Jerusalem.
Massing insists that "by inflaming Arab opinion, the bill complicated the efforts to implement Oslo -- and that, of course, was AIPAC's goal." Actually, Michael, the Palestinian Authority never implemented much of its Oslo responsibilities, period. Before or after that bill went through Congress.
Any suggestion that AIPAC tilts against peace, or toward Likud, draws strong denials from the organization. "People who assert that have a political motive," says a senior AIPAC staff member who asked not to be identified. "There are fewer conservatives at AIPAC than there are in Israel." Israel, he added, "has a permanent dilemma: Should it take a risk for peace? Honest people can differ. The only way to resolve the matter is through the democratic process -- and the people of Israel have a robust democracy." Nonetheless, AIPAC's activities over the years -- its cozy ties with the Shamir government, its support for moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, its efforts to keep Washington from leaning too hard on Sharon -- leave the unmistakable impression that it, like the Presidents Conference, does not want to see the United States become too involved in pushing for peace in the Middle East.
... .... .... AIPAC and the Presidents Conference have kept the United States from taking steps that many believe are essential if peace is ever to come to the region.
What AIPAC seems to push for is strong American support for Israel, period. You can argue about the fine points until you are blue in the face, but a "peace process" requires a modicum of peace. An Israeli surrender at this time would ensure the end of the state of Israel, and probably death for a lot of Jewish Israelis.
The article concludes as a sob story about the poor underfunded leftist Israel Policy Forum, which wants the U.S. to be "even-handed" (i.e., to stop supporting Israel).
So, do American Jewish groups represent American Jews. Well, each one has some constituency, large or small. Interest groups are not democratic by nature. Do I like that? Eh, no, but in a free market democracy, we get to spend our money reasonably freely. If someone wants to invest his in politics, he should be free to do so.
Just don't expect a front page American Prospect expose on how the Sierra Club is failing to represent "moderate" Americans on environmental and regulatory issues. Political, financial and Jewish influence only upsets TAP when it is exercised in a manner with which they disagree. As long as the "undemocratic" are left-wing and anti-Israeli, it will all be okay...
E-suicide setup: "Click here for martyrdom. Volunteers are invited by Ansar-e-Hizbollah, Iran's radical Islamic shock-troops, to register by internet for worldwide suicide attacks in the event of a US military strike." (Financial Times, Feb. 21) The website is http://www.ansaronline.com
The cost of living Jewishly: I am uncertain of their methodology's precision, but here is the American Jewish Committee's study of "The Costs of Jewish Living." I will try to return to the issue when I have examined the study (hey, its long and could take a while!)
The American Jewish Yearbook: I may share views from time to time with the AJC, but their PR people are either lazy or obnoxious. Either way, my many phone calls and emails asking for a review copy of their yearbook went unreturned and unanswered. So I am buying the damned thing.
Note to PR people: When a journalist asks for something, get back to them as soon as humanly possible. Don't let the person stew for 2.5 months... you'll never get good press that way!
The American Jewish Yearbook: I may share views from time to time with the AJC, but their PR people are either lazy or obnoxious. Either way, my many phone calls and emails asking for a review copy of their yearbook went unreturned and unanswered. So I am buying the damned thing.
Note to PR people: When a journalist asks for something, get back to them as soon as humanly possible. Don't let the person stew for 2.5 months... you'll never get good press that way!
Daniel Pearl: I've not commented on Pearl's kidnapping and murder before, so it is too late to start. But here is what Andrew Sullivan penned:
And I also share his sentiments on the potential new U.S. policy on hostage-takers:
NAZIS, AGAIN: Here’s the Associated Press’s account of the murder of Daniel Pearl:On Friday, a Pakistani investigator told The Associated Press that kidnappers killed Pearl by cutting his throat, and then decapitated him. Speaking on condition of anonymity, he said the kidnappers made two videotapes, one longer than the other, that contained graphic images of Pearl's death and the moments afterward. Another source close to the investigation said a tape showed Pearl before he was killed saying into the videocamera, "I am a Jew, my mother is a Jew."
Thus, once again in human history, mere Jewishness is a prelude to execution. The term “Islamo-fascism,” popularized by Christopher Hitchens, is absolutely on target in this simple respect. Our enemy is without shame and without reflection obsessed with hatred of the Jewish people. If these barbarians had the power, they would do what Hitler did. And if we do not act soon, they may yet manage it.
And I also share his sentiments on the potential new U.S. policy on hostage-takers:
Responding to every kidnapping of a U.S. citizen could become a permanent endeavor. Such a zero-tolerance policy, however laudable in principle, might even encourage such kidnappings, if they are seen as a way to distract and manipulate American public opinion and to yank the chain of the American government. We shouldn’t rise to this bait. The Pearl murder is surely a moment for anger but also for steady nerves. I can’t imagine the much-liked reporter would have wanted his legacy to be anything else.
Understand the enemy as a child, but this is no child's play: Why do they hate us? Rabbi Daniel Lapin has the key to understanding why -- "their very youth. There are dynamics at work here that are most readily explainable in terms of children's interactions with each other and with adults." But he warns us not to presume this work is the play of children...
Referencing Jewish sexual law: I got email from John W. Braue, III's Rat's Nest, who tries to explain the reference in "the Code of Jewish Law (OC 250)":
I’m not sure what the reference is. My opinion (and I must emphasis that I don’t have semikhah yodin) is that he ought to be referring to the Shulhan Arukh here. I don’t think that that would be abbreviated "OC", though (although it was compiled by R’ Yosef Caro, I still can’t imagine where the "O" would from), and the relevant section would be Even haEzer 76:13, based on Ketuvot 48. I can’t think where the Aish rabbi got his ruling.
(UPDATE: Instead of relying upon my own inadequate knowledge, I researched the subject. The "OC" reference means Shulhan Arukh, Arakh Hayim (or Orach Chayim, depending on how you Anglicize Hebrew)).
The "sex through a hole in a sheet" bit is a known urban legend (you’ve been hanging out with the wrong people, Howard – or maybe the right people, if you never heard it before), and is codified in the Shulhan Arukh Katan (not to be confused with the Shulhan Arukh). The S.A.K., however, is not authoritative.