Where in his blog entry did Walt mention Israel, Zionism, or Jews?

That question posed, given the funding of Islamophobic incitement by hyper-wealthy Zionists as well as the mobilization of anti-Muslim hatred by Zionist intelligentsia, no one can seriously dispute that Islamophobia is the Zionism of fools.

Good lord, Scott. Don't you have anything better to do than post this garbage to Walt's blog? If you put half as much effort into thinking about the world as you do in your attempted character assassination, you'd quickly realize that you've been a fool.

Sigh, come on guys.

Danial Pipes is one of the most rabid anti-Islamic anti-Palestian commentators there is! He supports the hate-speech of Geert Wilders. 'Nuff said in my book.

These little high-school exercises in "is being anti-"x" equate to being anti "XYZ"?" are terrifyingly simple and mundane "exercises in basic reasoning". But for your sakes 'cos you seem to need it - is the woman holding the "Stop Wilders" sign anti-Dutch?? etc etc etc.

Is Horowitz anti-semitic 'cos he hates Chomsky??

Dear, oh dear.

Daniel

I don't think this article is about Jews issues. No one have rights to speak against Israel or Jews because it is Ant-Semite. Basically freedom of speech is only against Muslims and Christians or against any non-Jewish.
Last wk, terrorist arrested in Michigan with explosives in his car but since he was going to attack on mosque he will be diagnosed with psychiatrist illness. When terrorist students to shootings in school no religion mentioned because they not Muslims so they get psych diagnosis. what a hypocrisy of media. All these Jews writer and anti Muslims dont like to read facts written by Steven Walt. have a courage to see facts.

seriously, must have triggered the Hasbara alarms when I posted. I'd just noticed the last two articles had nothing to do with Israel, and few comments.

...because Walt could post about food prices in Congo, and someone would still call him a Jew Basher.

FP readers dont have much of a sense of humor.

To a buddy of mine who worked for the college paper. It was very ironic, and if he'd seriously read it would have had to wonder about each of my self defeating points. Something along the lines of "how dare you write frankly and honestly, you must be stopped." I think I signed it with a pseudonym but put my phone number. The police called me a week later, "did you send a death threat...?" "Sure did, will you tell (my friend) hello?" He laughed when the officer called to ask about me, we're still good friends, but the dude gets enough of those he just passes them on.

--FP copy chief

I'd fully agree with your assertion that antisemitism is basically a Western/Christain phenomenon. I'd also say that antisemitism is still largely irrelevant when speaking about Muslims attitudes toward Israel, which has more to do with nationalism, culture wars, economics, and, admittedly, some major f**** ups by Israel. Also agreed that the settlers in Hebron don't offer much in the way of reasonable dialog (if it's any consolation, they seem to hate most of their fellow Jews as much as they despise everyone else).

Would have to disagree though, with the notion that Muslims in Palestine were gracious hosts to those Jewish refugees from Eastern Europe. They actually made life pretty miserable for those Jews and fought tooth and nail to keep Jews out. Again, that's not because they were anti-Semites -- they were acting out of ethnic self interest just like everyone else does. Still, no need to candycoat history.

Anyway, on the topic of the article (which had nothing to do with Israel or Jews though there is the usual mudslinging at pundits who happen to be Jewish), Walt's point vis a vis Islamaphobia is well taken. Fear of homegrown Islamic terrorism is clearly overblown and often little more than thinly vieled racism.

That said, Walt's analysis is a bit simplistic. I think both European and American governments would tell you they've been doing precisely what Gahgeer suggests -- coordinating their efforts and stepping up counterterrorism operations. And then there is that ole' War on Terror thing. As much as all the fighting has sapped American/NATO strength it also has to be having some impact on the terror groups or drawing their focus away from attacks abroad. At the very least, the wars haven't brought on the waves of new terrorists that some have claimed are being created by the GWoT. And lastly, the protests all over the Muslim world, from Tehran last year to Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen seem to point to a bit of a breakdown in the pan Islam movement, inasmuch as the Muslim world was ever monolithic in its views and agendas.

In other words, it's all pretty complicated.

Gahgeer: "And the banality to which "anti-semite" and "jew hater" has so far reached because of its misuse by the some dual-loyalty American Jews is really baffling."

It's so amusing to see people like yourself try to argue against the issue of bigotry by making bigoted comments of your own.

Then explain the rejection of Israel by South African countries, Eastern Asian countries? I'll remind you, South African countries have vociferously joined the chorus as well as Canada, the EU. Your literally without a friend in the world. This crosses all cultural, religious and legal systems. Why, irrational hatin'? Man, that's some disturbed thinking. I'm American, I know we're transgressing in a similar way. I know our history, I know how we're all propagandized from childhood. You point your finger at the Palestinians' schools, yet don't consider your own? What were the borders on the maps at your school? Cause Israel doesn't like maps, not current political maps--they like historic maps 3000 yrs old.

Yes, why do so many African and East Asian nations rush to criticize Israel? Last I checked, most of those places are hardly bastions of human rights, though they seem to have no trouble getting on the lovely UN Human Rights Council. I'd argue it has a lot to do with the banality of international politics. I'd also argue Israel catches a lot of heat simply because it's an easy target. Try slamming the United States, China, or any of the NATO countries and see how far it gets you. As I've said many times in the past, none of this means Israel is beyond reproach: clearly it is not. But the whole "Everybody says you're wrong" argument is pretty simplistic given how hypocritical and frankly off kilter the international conversation is.

As far as what's taught in Israeli schools, I can't tell you. Like you, I grew up in American public schools singing "This land is your land this land is my land, from California to the NY Island." But, yes, you could be right. Most Israelis definitely consider Judea and Samaria as well as the Golan part of Israel. They'd say they won it fair and square, in wars that grew out of Arabs' rejectionist stance. That said, most Israelis consistently support exchanging territory for peace. That support will likely grow stronger if the Egyptian peace holds.

"They'd say they won it fair and square, in wars that grew out of Arabs' rejectionist stance. That said, most Israelis consistently support exchanging territory for peace."

The whole world rejects this principle. In fact, Israel itself signed UN Res 242 which renounced this right. Why does Israeli policy contradict international law and their own treaties? You might look at this hypocrisy when trying to explain universal derision. And, the US, China, and Russia all get heaps of invective directed at them. But, not the universal rejection Israel faces from all but the US.

Interesting arguments that you raise.

"1)Is this "terrorism problem" still extant, or is it over?"

Is our close relationship with Israel extant, or is it over?

"2)If the "terrorism problem" is over, then wouldn't it point to the fact that Israel wasn't really the cause, since our relationship with them remains the same as it was when Steve wrote that.?"

True, but it's not over. How many suicide attacks have taken place in Iraq and Afghanistan this past week alone?

"3)If the "terrorism problem" has not abated (or even if it has), why is it somehow OK for Steve to point out this alleged phenomenom, but not others?"

Who made that argument?

BTW Dave, don't forget to take your straw man with you when you leave.

And as for your replies/non-replies, Neoleft:

Is our close relationship with Israel extant, or is it over?

This is both nonresponsive, and something I clearly answered in the post to which you replied.

True, but it's not over. How many suicide attacks have taken place in Iraq and Afghanistan this past week alone?

This is an interesting reply. You agree with my point ["If the "terrorism problem" is over, then wouldn't it point to the fact that Israel wasn't really the cause..."], but point out that the "terrorism problem" isn't over.

I think you are mistaken on a number of levels. First, when Steve refers to so-called 'Islamic terror' or our 'terrorism problem', I don't think he is referring to Iraqis blowing up other Iraqis or Afghanis blowing up other Afghanis. Second, even if Steve was including foreign nationals murdering their fellow countrymen in far away places when he invoked 'Islamic terror' or our 'terrorism problem', it is a very far leap to conclude that Israel has anything to do with it.

Who made that argument?

Steve did. For instance, this quote:

I know there are lot of people getting rich fueling Islamophobia, but we'd really all be better off if they would focus their attention to anarchists, or maybe separatist groups like ETA.

Steve here is calling out those who focus on so-called 'Islamic terror' as bigots. Yet he did the same when he wrote of our 'terrorism problem'. He didn't focus his attention on anarchists or separatist groups either. So, to reiterate - is there a 'terrorism problem', as Steve wrote, and if there is why is it not OK for people not named 'Steve Walt' to talk about it?

Well made point.

"I'm going to infer that the "terrorism problem" to which Steve refers, allegedly because of our relationship with Israel, isn't coming from separatist groups or anarchists"

I think that is a no-brainer.

I'll also point out that nowhere in your Walt-quote is there any indication of how big a problem he considered the "terrorist problem" to be i.e. there is no indication that he ever accepted the notion that this amounts to A Clash Of Civilizations.

"So I guess this raises a number of questions:"

"1) Is this "terrorism problem" still extant, or is it over?"

Except..... you still haven't given us any clue how big a problem Walt perceived it to be in the first place, and so you haven't given us the Walt-baseline to reach a conclusion one way or the other.

Some perspective, please...... Bee venom can kill, and so it is very important to understand that Bees can sting, but let's not get paranoid about going outside, OK?

Islamic terrorism exists, and so it's root causes are well worth examining, but let's not get paranoid about it, OK?

"2) If the "terrorism problem" is over, then wouldn't it point to the fact that Israel wasn't really the cause, since our relationship with them remains the same as it was when Steve wrote that.?"

Even if we accept your initial assumption (which I don't, see above) I have to point out that there is a logical fallacy in your question i.e. even if we accept that the "special relationship" is a root cause of Islamic terror then that does not LOGICALLY require that the the USA must sever its ties with Israel in order to prevail.

Or, put another way: states as powerful as the USA can prevail in war without dumping the baggage from the saddlebags.

"3) If the "terrorism problem" has not abated (or even if it has), why is it somehow OK for Steve to point out this alleged phenomenom, but not others? Isn't it only the Islamophobic hate-mongers who raise the specter of terrorism of this provenance?"

OK, that last paragraph is nonsense.

Walt said what he said i.e. Islamic terrorism EXISTS, but you need to place it in its proper perspective as just one amongst many other sources of Terror! Terror! Terror!, and the evidence that has been collected very strongly suggests that this sense of proportion is exactly what is lacking.

Your point (3) appears to be nothing more than a plea that you should be allowed to continue to run around shouting The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!, The Sky Is Falling! even though all the evidence suggests that the sky ain't about to fall.

May I suggest that if you want to run around like Chicken Little then you might want to ponder what happened to the little squawker.......

And a reply to Johnboy:

How big does Steve think our "terrorism problem"is? That is your main point, I think. I think it is a good point, and the question struck me too as I was writing my initial response. I will address your two smaller points first and then in another post get back to the main course.

I wasn't addressing any of Steve's policy prescriptions or making my own, I was only addressing his comments about causality. My only comment about the relationship was descriptive (that it remains the same as it was before).

Walt said what he said i.e. Islamic terrorism EXISTS, but you need to place it in its proper perspective as just one amongst many other sources of Terror! Terror! Terror!, and the evidence that has been collected very strongly suggests that this sense of proportion is exactly what is lacking.

Your point (3) appears to be nothing more than a plea that you should be allowed to continue to run around shouting The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!, The Sky Is Falling! even though all the evidence suggests that the sky ain't about to fall.

This relates back to your main point (how big does Steve think the problem is?) and makes one other. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that I want to be allowed to keep being an alarmist about 'Islamic terror'. Is that correct? If so, it is another misinterpretation. Nowhere do I say what I think about so-called 'Islamic terror' or our 'terrorism problem', going so far as to put it in scare quotes and call it "so-called" and "alleged". My comments are strictly about what appears to be Steve Walt's double standards, not what I think about the topic.

I see the formatting of the post above got messed up a bit, but I'm sure you will figure it out.

I'll also point out that nowhere in your Walt-quote is there any indication of how big a problem he considered the "terrorist problem" to be i.e. there is no indication that he ever accepted the notion that this amounts to A Clash Of Civilizations...

...Except..... you still haven't given us any clue how big a problem Walt perceived it to be in the first place, and so you haven't given us the Walt-baseline to reach a conclusion one way or the other.

Two quotes of yours from above.

First, I contend we do have the "Walt-baseline":

According to the report, a grand total of one (1) attack was conducted by Islamists. Put differently, Islamist groups were responsible for a whopping 0.34 percent of all terrorist incidents in Europe in 2009. In addition, the report notes, "the number of arrests relating to Islamist terrorism (110) decreased by 41 percent compared to 2008, which continues the trend of a steady decrease since 2006."

I know there are lot of people getting rich fueling Islamophobia, but we'd really all be better off if they would focus their attention to anarchists, or maybe separatist groups like ETA.

Steve highlighted the statistic that there was "a grand total of" 1 of 294 attacks from an Islamist group and ~280 of 294 from separatists/leftists. So the question I ask is - is someone who puts the threat of 'Islamic terror' above anarchists and/or separatist group fueling Islamophobia? That's what it reads like to me.

The "Clash of Civilizations" meme you bring up is a strawman. Steve chose to highlight certain numbers and center his essay around them. Based on those numbers one is inflating the risk of 'Islamic terror' almost 300-fold if they simply place it on par with 'separatist terror'. That in and of itelf sounds fairly Islamophobic to this reader and is indeed the conclusion Steve appears to draw based on the numbers he has selectively presented.

(Furthermore, as an aside, I don't see the reason for making gratuitous charges of bigotry in a post ostensibly meant to, as Steve puts it "inject reason and evidence into this sort of debate".)

So we have a baseline.

Second, the question is, what importance did Steve attribute to this threat in the past. He doesn't write about it specifically in his Harvard paper, but we can infer from what he did write about it. For instance, when rebutting the argument (paraphrased) that "Israel is a help in the War on Terror", if one saw the problem as insignificant, the response would likely be along the lines of:

This isn't an issue. The problem has been inflated. Because the problem is not as significant as has been presented to us by the media and government, the fact of whether or not Israel is helpful is not a compelling reason to continue the "special relationship". Just as the fact that Israel sends us a few pro basketball players a year is not a compelling reason to continue the relationship. It's nice, but not necessary.

But this is not how Steve wrote about it. He writes that our relationship with Israel makes winning the "war on terror" (Steve's words) more difficult. This is in the section entitled "A Strategic Liability". This doesn't come to the level of "Clash of Civilizations", but then again, that is a strawman. The fact that Steve attributes the level of importance to this that he does, devoting space in his paper and designating it a strategic liability, is what I based my conclusion on.

If you think otherwise, my question is -- Is the fact that Israel hinders the so-called war on terror a compelling case against the "special relationship"? Do you think this was just an argument of convenience for Steve, that he doesn't really believe it is important, but put it in there to sway others?

You haven't quoted a baseline FROM HIS ORIGINAL KENNEDY PAPER.

We therefore do not know if his shrug of the shoulders in *this* blog (and there is no doubt that he is, indeed, shrugging his shoulders) in any way represents a backpedalling, or wether it is just the latest in a long-standing laid-back attitude by Walt towards the "threat" of Islamic terrorism.

If the former then you have a point, but if it is the latter then your post was pointless.

Think of it this way....
1) He acknowledges IN BOTH ARTICLES that Islamic terror exists.
2) He insisted in the Kennedy paper that it is driven by hatred of Israel.
3) He insists in this blog article that it is no big deal.

Nowhere in those three points has he contradicted himself, and nowhere in your post have you ever caught him out in a contradiction - precisely because nowhere have you quoted him as ever saying that Islamic terror is A Big Deal, nor have you produced any quote from him saying that Israel is an unimportant issue to Islamic terrorists.

You have, in short, failed to complete the circle for *any* of your questions.

You haven't quoted a baseline FROM HIS ORIGINAL KENNEDY PAPER.

I called Steve's position in this blog entry the baseline. Whichever you want to call the baseline (and the term is just one of convenience, you don't necessarily have to call either the "baseline") is immaterial, what matters is whether or not the positions are materially different.

Nowhere in those three points has he contradicted himself, and nowhere in your post have you ever caught him out in a contradiction - precisely because nowhere have you quoted him as ever saying that Islamic terror is A Big Deal...

I answered this in the previous post, but perhaps I was too wordy. More succinctly -- Steve advocated changing the Foreign Policy of the United States in part due to the issue of 'Islamic terror'. Anything that warrants a change of that magnitude and importance is almost by definition A Big Deal.

We therefore do not know if his shrug of the shoulders in *this* blog (and there is no doubt that he is, indeed, shrugging his shoulders) in any way represents a backpedalling, or wether it is just the latest in a long-standing laid-back attitude by Walt towards the "threat" of Islamic terrorism.

If Steve's attitude was "laid back" when he wrote his Kennedy School paper, then invoking it the way he did was a disengenuous argument of convenience. I don't discount that, but there is no way to prove it.

"what matters is whether or not the positions are materially different."

What I am pointing out is that without an equivalent measure from his Kennedy paper then you simply can not conclude whether (or not) his position is materially different from THAT paper to THIS blog article.

You can't, because nowhere do you quote from his Kennedy paper Walt declaring that
1) Islamic terror is No Big Deal
2) Islamic terror is The Clash Of Civilizations

And *without* that then all you have is what you have i.e. you have *this* blog, where Walt says that Islamic terror is No Big Deal.

"Steve advocated changing the Foreign Policy of the United States in part due to the issue of 'Islamic terror'. Anything that warrants a change of that magnitude and importance is almost by definition A Big Deal."

No, that is *your* projection i.e. you are making a Leap Of Logic based only upon *your* need to make that leap in order to make *your* argument work.

Walt is perfectly happy to admit that there is Islamic Terrorism. He admits as much in BOTH his Kennedy paper and in this article.

But the quote you gave did not say that Islamic terror is A Big Deal. All that it said is what it said i.e. if America wants to win its war on terror then it has to look at the root cause behind WHY Islamic terrorism is directed against the USA, and that root cause is "Israel".

"If Steve's attitude was "laid back" when he wrote his Kennedy School paper, then invoking it the way he did was a disengenuous argument of convenience. I don't discount that, but there is no way to prove it."

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, they you have it: after all the to-ing and fro-ing we find in the last seven words of his last post that Dave has accepted my basic point i.e. he has no evidence one way or the other that allows him to put HIS words in WALT's mouth.

Thanks, Dave, but what took you so long?

...not to interrupt your exercise in bedwetting and randomized 'connect-the-dots' reasoning, but we could never have waged a single war since 1990, and you'd still be broke in Dallas, as they are in Cali and most everywhere else. And your problems with your public service workers in TX have nothing to do with Empire/the fed/gas prices/foreign military bases/Egypt.

Also = America is not an Empire (study actual empires first, then compare/contrast) and 'financiers' are not robbing drivers with a gas surcharge.

The #1 problem you fail to identify is the profligacy of US state and federal spending. Thats why you're in a hole, not because of Iraq or the joos. See, there's this thing called 'economic cycles' which Keynes proposed could be ameliorated by government spending... which in fact, has done nothing but make a hole deeper, longer, wider.

Read the vanity fair story by Michael Lewis (when irish eyes are crying); it provides a nice microcosm of how cheap money+ government ineptitude/encouragement of unsound investment+natural cyclical processes destroyed the 'celtic tiger'; all without any help from the Evil American Empire, strangely. What happened to them happened to us, but in a simpler form that is easier for the non-economically literate to grasp.

cheap money+federally mandated subprime lending+illusions of proper risk management = Bust

'Extraordinary Delusions and The Madness of Crowds' needs a new edition, with a couple chapters on 1999-2009

You've offered nothing new, and missed the principle of opportunity costs. Furthermore, the examples I provided are indeed typical examples of our profligacy--which you correctly identified. You're missing the larger picture. Furthermore, you are wrong on speculation--that is indeed part and parcel of our Fed's attempts to restart some inflation in our soft economy. You've failed to connect the dots and do the due diligence on commodities speculation. When we've had supplies as great as they are today, gas sold for less than a $1/gal. What fundamentals have changed that justifies stock prices? Again, here we likely agree on the nature of ill-advised legislation--ethanol from food has created real demand pressures on corn, but most are due to QE2 and corporate cash that's sloshing around with no demand to fulfill.

Further, you argue about business cycles but ignore that is my very point, we are presumably coming out of a recession that is driven by lack of demand. There is no way that laying off all those workers will boost demand. I admit that borrowing money to keep those salaries isn't a great solution, but it may be the best we have available.

Anyway, these layoffs will have real repercussions not just economically but politically. This will no doubt put pressure on military spending. Finally, your assertion that we are not an empire is asinine. YOU might want to study history and empires. We've basically established leaders in every country that makes up the former Ottoman Empire--and that is on the other side of the world. We don't have our puppets in all of those countries, but those exceptions are ringed with our troops. No, our empire isn't totally connected like was necessary in the days before air travel, nuclear powered navies and the like. But, 750 military bases abroad makes a pretty good case.

They aren't copying our ideas, they are our proxy forces, this is more waste of our money. If we stopped the MILITARY Aid, these states would be forced to deal with these people. Of course those insurgents are often situated in some critical valley/pass, or on some mineral rich land. Rather than demand they get compensation for their land, which would reduce terrorism threats, we snatch and grab and let the chips fall where they may. Well, many of those chips land on shoulders, and we should care about this. This, CEO is what democracy means. The rights of individuals are protected. We do a fair job of that here, and deal with the worst of the worst abroad. Have you missed our support of Mubarak and Suleiman? Have you forgotten the Declaration of Independence? Those living under tyranny have a right and duty to alter or abolish that tyranny. Further, the colonial master tyranny is the real tyranny. Why are we painting targets on our country? Why are we flying pilotless drones over defenseless people?

You should get the CAIR updates and balance those with ADL. The Muslims don't even note the repeated slurs that would have Abe Foxman taking notes, wailing, and tearing at his clothes. Plus, the official bigotry toward Muslims versus Jews--our intelligence services aren't balanced here.

I don't understand what this comment has to do with Walt's post. Pointing out that we have a problem with Islamophobia in North America and Europe doesn't equate to denying the existence of antisemitism.

This (unlike power/security...) is not a zero-sum game. There is enough hate to go around for everyone.

First let me say to the poster who decides to attack the validity of the information: if you want to go and find clear evidence that there is a different definiton of anti-semetism and Islamophobia in the government reports then please by all means post it.

Now let me go on to say that yes, both Islamophobia and Anti-semetism are problems. Yet what bothers me is this. In his "Kudos to Clemens" Walt says:

"Second, using the charge of anti-Semitism as an all-purpose weapon designed to silence any and all criticisms of Israeli policy makes it harder to deal with the dwindling number of genuine anti-Semites who still exist. Like all forms of ethnic or religious bigotry, anti-Semitism is a despicable phenomenon with a long and sordid history, and we should all remain vigilant against its resurgence and condemn it when it arises."

Take special note of "the dwindling number of genuine anti-Semites who still exist" and "we should all remain vigilant against its resurgence and condemn it when it arises".

There is not a dwindling number of anti-semetic cases, and addressing such a significantly smaller (but no less terrible) problem while brushing off anti-semetism is absurd.

there is indeed a reduction of anti-semitism and a rise in legitimate criticism of Israel. These are different, though you can't see it. I know you're blind and constructive criticism and insults and invective are the same. But, then again, your people are the ones who are the euphemism kings. Your "settlers" burn orchards, homes and farms, steal land and beat farmers and the Christian missionaries who go there to protect the farmers on the 3 days they are allowed to harvest their orchards that they've tended for 2000 yrs. Israel questions their clear title to the land, preferring the Torah. These people who ignore common law, and subscribe to a book that's over 3000 yrs old with tales of an ancient theocracy call others religious extremists. Nothing could be more upside down. So, when you write inane ramblings, that fits the model.

I wonder about this, though it is never mentioned. The decline of the West is due, in large part to the economic zero-sum game we run in the West. Turkey and other Muslim countries are doing well financially, and I wonder how much less exposure to the usery of the West contributes to that.

First off, Turkey doesn’t practice Muslim based ‘no interest’ finance, it’s banking system is integrated with the rest of the world.

Second, the other “Muslim countries” are doing pretty poorly, see reference to Tunis and Egypt. Indeed, most of the nations that make up the Arab League have poor and stagnant economies. Google “Syrian GDP” and you’ll get an interactive table that lets you chart out the Gross Domestic Product of every nation in the world over the past few decades. You can do the same thing for GDP on a per-capita basis which accounts for population. Quite eye-opening.

As for interest rates, they’ve been the lowest they have been in decades, so I’m not sure how ‘usury’ fits the pattern unless you’re talking about credit-card debt, which in that case, I think you may have a leg to stand on, but again, you’re not talking about life necessitating levels of debt if one can manage their own spending habits.

Finacialization now consumes 40% of the economy. 20 yrs ago it was much closer to 10-15%. They are gaming the system now. I don't completely disagree with your points, though you picked countries that I've singled out as resource poor and primed for turmoil. I believe among the Emirates you see some well backed examples of Islamic finance, or something much closer to it. Though, I'm sure they've struck some compromises, and all economies are sufficiently intertwined that there's protection from usury. That said, there are precepts of Islamic finance, which is the same as Christian or Kosher finance. The adherents of those faiths long ago cast aside those precepts, only the Muslims retain. The same is true in many other aspects of faith--again Jews still at least acknowledge this (shared) history, relative to fasting, diet and other dogmatic similarities that aren't practiced perfectly by anyone. As a Christian, I found both Judaism and Islam far less fantastic and more sensible traditions. I was a Christian that had serious issues with the Trinity (like no Biblical support;) Jews don't all accept conversion so I explored Islam more closely. Actually, I went to a Rabbi and an Imam, talked to both about the Middle East, tolerance and non-violence. The imam listened and agreed with me the rabbi spit in my face.

But you really miss a substantial point here. And, it's a point that you beg the question over. The first order is that the US, as part of its Middle East/Israel policy demands that leaders of foreign countries betray their people and bite their tongue and sheath their weapons regarding Israel. (there are positions that don't fall into this false dichotomy, though you wouldn't approve Turkey is a great example. They express and demonstrate their displeasure over the Pals, but still maintain a non-hostile posture and are open to diplomatic and other operational cooperation. But, we'd never tolerate that principled, non-threatening position from a client state. Then, we might also demand other betrayals of their people, like on trade concessions and security cooperation, (maybe we need black prisons or someone tortured.) So I, as an American bear some guilt in their betrayal of our ideals, and you as an Israel supporter bear twice the guilt. Why would a leader, so quick to betray their people on these issues show respect for his charge in other arenas? You see, we've sown the seeds of corruption through out the region for essentially one reason, Israel. I don't think that is worth it. We're in a pinched budget, and most people agree with me. As is, we are cutting financial aid so the poor can afford heating oil, yet keeping the payments to Israel going. We are cutting cops on the beat, and teachers in the classroom for aid to Israel. We have other stupid adventures that are costing us dearly, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, but if we'd cut our aid to Israel, those conflicts would lose much of their steam. Israel has become a great burden for the US, as it perverts our foreign policy, increases our military burden and is causing international enmity.

Scott, I don’t think you understand the ideas that go into financial projects, nor the issues surrounding securitization. To that end, I would suggest you read the book On Money and Markets by Henry Kaufman, a former director of fixed-income research at Solomon Brothers. His discussion on the increased demand for financial liquidity and the growth of derivatives is very insightful.

As for your argument about the countries I selected, you miss my point. The reality is, the vast majority of the Arab/Muslim world, are not economic powerhouses. The only nation you listed by example was Turkey, and my point to you was that Turkey’s banks don’t follow the strict guidelines of Islamic finance. Your new example of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is not applicable given two items, first and most importantly, their economic growth is based purely on oil. That’s not much of a diversified economic base to use, and second, the small population of the UAE relative to the wider Arab world (between 300 and 400 million) or the Muslim world (over 1 billion).

The issue at hand for Islamic finance was interest, namely crippling interest rates that could likely send individuals and whole families into bondage. For a discussion on those historical interest rates as well as the issues surrounding them I suggest you check out the book A History of Interest Rates, Fourth Edition, by Sidney Homer (actually a book that the above Kaufman recommends too). The interest rates described in that book start at 20% and run upwards of 50%. In essence the Torah as well as the Koran are discussing issues of usury and loan sharking, not a 5% home mortgage rate.

What you fail to understand though, is that there is a cost to capital, and regardless of its payment, there will be payment for those who require outside sources of funding for whatever venture or purchase an individual or corporation decide to take.

As for your own personal religious journey, that’s your own business. I question whether or not the rabbi actually spit in your face, but given your comments on the thread here, I can only imagine the discussion from your end to him. That said, you are incorrect that Jews don’t accept conversions. It’s simply flat out a false statement.