Nations are not alike. The differences are often imperceptible, but in the complex adaptive systems minor differences bring major results. Korea developed while Vietnam didn’t. Singapore maintains an advanced economy while Malaysia is a backward, labor-oriented economy. Japan evolved into a technological hub, but neighboring China didn’t. In retrospect, differences can be found in each of these cases. Korea has a strong culture of learning, Singapore’s excellent leadership attracted the most industrious Chinese and Indian immigrants, and Japan had a design-minded culture for a millennium. Vietnam was burdened by communist government, China is too huge to experience labor shortages and the resulting upward pressure on wages – a necessary pre-condition for the continuous upgrading of economy, and Malaysia is possibly weighted down by its Islamic culture.

Economy develops in clusters. Success builds on itself. Successful economies continuously upgrade themselves. Lackluster societies fall behind. Modern manufacturing or agriculture doesn’t require many hands, and many nations compete for primitive labor-intensive operations in the world economic specialization. Several Asian nations had an opportunity to slip into the gap in the post-WWII world economy. Salaries in the US were very high relative to other countries, the worldwide demand was huge, supply insufficient, new technologies were many, and tariff barriers – moderate. That window of opportunity is long closed until the next crisis or technological revolution.

Academics can argue forever what went wrong with Muslim societies. Hot climate, not conducive to agriculture and society-building is one obvious answer. It doesn’t answer why in the hot climate Thais are friendly while neighboring Indonesians are xenophobic. It explains the lackluster performance of Saudi Arabia but not of Iran. Iran is a millennia-old agricultural society, with development framework of statehood, relatively tolerant religiously, non-Arab. Iran is advanced well above its Arab neighbors but far below the developed Asian economies. Many explanations are possible, but who cares about them? The fact is, the Muslim societies fell behind in the world economic race and won’t rebound in the foreseeable future. Israel is surrounded with failed civilization, the global inner city.

The cravings for peace are utopian.

Islam is a very practical religion, very unburdensome. It is a nice communal religion much easier than Judaism. Judaism aims at creating a morally pure society. The goal of Islam is simply a decent society, a degree of civilization for barbarous Arabs. Islam does not regulate daily lives of its adherents beyond simple religious demands and basic ethical norms.

Islam exercises less control over the daily lives than Rabbinical Judaism and classic Pauline Christianity. Every Muslim cleric, theoretically, can issue fatwas, but so can any rabbi. Jewish Conservative Movement institutionalized that chaotic approach: every half-educated rabbi (including lesbian "rabbis") in a backwater synagogue can issue halacha, legal opinion, obligatory for his flock. On other hand, extreme centralization of religious authority in Catholicism led to scores of wars much bloodier than jihad. Fatwas of small-time clerics hold very little value in Islam. They have to come from recognized religious authorities, ideally from a (non-existent) caliph. Radicals interpret Islam to their ends, but Christian radicals similarly interpret their religion. Muslims are monotheists, do not worship images, follow reasonable laws, and substantially observe the Noahide laws for Gentiles. Islam is democratic and, beyond the core values – liberal.

Islam has a wonderful instrument of venting mob’s feelings: communal prayer-like lectures. Often politicized, they supercharge the masses and perhaps recruit a few terrorists most of whom would volunteer, anyway. Zeal of the masses escalates to unsustainable levels and soon evaporates. Muslim communal prayers are more like Western boxing matches than modern Christian preaching. Jews, with their formalized prayers, lack the psychological vent of fiery religious propaganda. Communal prayers convey powerful symbolism of their own: photos of million-strong crowds praying in Mecca are popular computer screensavers among Muslims.

Religions cannot afford tolerance but, as any corporations, erect monopolistic barriers against competitors. Zeal and a degree of violence are indispensable to religions. Polytheist religions competed like small firms – attracting others to their temples, but not attempting to put other temples out of business by legislative pressure. Monotheist Islam and relatively monotheist Christianity act as global corporations, influencing legislation to banish competitors. Islamist zeal is a natural behavior of monopolist religion. Christianity answered the encroachment of Islam into Europe with Crusades. Monopolists recourse to as much violence as they can within a given legal framework; stakes are very high, and global religions cannot be picky about means.

Just like with corporations, successful restructuring of mature religions is uncommon. Christianity reformed itself through Protestantism and survived as active religion for another four centuries. Muslims lack relative cultural homogeneity of Western Christians, and reformation of Islam is unlikely to succeed. Moderate Islam will remove the already low cultural barriers and allow assimilation of Muslims into the pop-culture. Zealous Islam is the only Islam which can survive as something other than indigenous tint on American culture in the Middle East.

Islam-baiters love to cry wolf about the alleged sign of female oppression, such as veil. In the 24th sura, women are commanded not to display their beauty – a reasonable suggestion among Bedu people, a matter of safety as well as modesty. The sura enjoins men similarly. In the 33rd sura, women are commanded to wear a cloak in order to be recognized as related to Mohammed – also a measure of safety. The purported reference to veil in the same sura is just the opposite of the Islamic tradition: ibn Malik tells Mohammed's guests to talk to his wives from behind a curtain (hijab), among other suggestions on how to avoid bothering him. It is men rather than women who need the curtain. In that case, curtain acts like a wall, protecting privacy of women in house, so that the men don't enter their space unannounced. There is no veil in Koran. It is Christianity that expressly prescribes veil in 1Cor11:6.

Islam prohibits usury, but Mohammed left the term undefined. Koran 2:282 deals at length with loans. 3:130 prohibits usury which doubles and compounds the original amount. 2:275 equals trade with usury, but allows trade. It seems that Koran bans only excessive interest rather than business loans. Judaism, more practically, prohibits interest charged to neighbors only. Classical Christianity prohibited interest altogether.

No religion differentiates between political and religious life. Islam is no exception. Jewish society was a theocracy for most of the recorded history. Vatican sought political dominance, and Protestantism shaped legal systems of its host countries. Think of how religious beliefs shape American life, from Christmas holidays to prohibition of polygamy to opposition to Islamic enemy. Iraq under Saddam was only a bit more religious than America. Egypt, Palestine, Dubai, Bahrain are hardly religious at all. Saudis like to legitimize themselves with religious nonsense, but other Muslims are skeptical about the Saudi Islamic credentials.

Rome was cynical about religion. Medieval Europeans were superstitious atheists rather than fervent Christians - look at the French cathedrals with persistent pagan themes. Renaissance swept dogmas away. Then came the religious resurgence. Something that the human psychological needs as deeply as religion cannot go away. Look at the number of books on Christianity and Buddhism at the US bookstores. Look at the many Americans’ experimentation with Hinduism and various types of Buddhism.
Christian sentiment is behind the anti-Muslim clash-of-civilizations hysteria. How are Iraq and Afghanistan different from the crusades? Both are the Christian world’s reaction to Muslim encroachment. Politically correct societies substitute "culture" for "religion" and "Islamism" for "Islam." Or witness public debates over gay marriage and abortion – a purely religious issue. Children are as much afraid of entering dark rooms in the 21st century as three thousand years ago. Religion, call it culture, civilization, psychology, or ideology is the most powerful drive of human beings, transforming a powerless individual into an interconnected part of transcendent all-powerful system, whether angelic or equally superstitious nationalist.

It's a delusion that suicide bombers feed on earthly failures and religious extremism. They are common nationalists, ready to die for their cause. Secular Russians were conducting suicide missions en masse during the WWII.

There is no Judeo-Christianity. Rabbis permit Jews to attend mosques, but never – churches. Islam is very close to Judaism in it affirming a single God and not worshiping images. And whatever the atheists say, no piece of Arab literature comes close to the language of Koran.

To people who follow Ukrainian politics, Pakistan offers a sense of déjà vu. Bhutto, like Ukraine’s Julia Timoshenko, is an ultra-corrupt female leader posing as pro-Western but heavily relying on local throngs. Timoshenko relies on Ukrainian nationalists often indistinguishable from neo-Nazis, and Bhutto relies on the Islamists.

Most female leaders are inherently weak, and have to rely on someone. Bhutto, a woman, cannot control Pakistani army directly, but needs a proxy. If she opts for a proxy general, he would soon overturn her. So she chose Islamists for the proxy function. Incidentally, Bhutto’s policy put Islamists in charge of the Pakistani nuclear weapons. Many Pakistani nuclear scientists are hardcore Muslims, anyway, but Bhutto’s supporters are Islamists-Islamists, the professional Mus ims.

The US Administration obsession with Bhutto’s pro-Western attitude is ridiculous beyond words. Western diplomats commonly show such attitude toward the Western-educated, English- or French-speaking local thugs. When they lack Western education and don’t speak English, any other affiliation goes; Ukraine’s Yuschenko became the US Administration’s darling after he married a State Department’s official. Another textbook case of deception is the West’s obsession with Ahmed Shah Masood, a ruthless Afghan Islamist warlord who speaks good French and wears Bob Dylan’s beard.

Bhutto, an example of democratic aspirations, leads essentially a monarchic clique called Pakistan People’s Party, previously led by her father and mother. There is just no way that two women can be democratically elected to lead a political party in rigidly Islamic country. Bhutto spent very short time in Pakistan, staying mostly in the US, UK, and United Arab Emirates. She had very little contact with common Pakistanis, certainly not enough for the groundbreaking rise of a woman to prime minister in Islamic country. Bhutto’s leadership of PPP proves exactly the opposite of what the US Administration ascribes to her. Bhutto ascended to power in no democratic way, and is no supporter of democracy. She is the head of a clan, somewhat short of a queen. Specifically, she is the head of Islamist clan: her support comes from Punjab, a proverbially Islamist region. Bhutto routinely acts in accord with Jamaat e-Islami, the political front for Pakistan’s Islamists. She installed Taliban in Afghanistan. PPP explicitly promotes Islamic socialism, and was very close to the Soviet Union.

Bhutto’s “commitment” to transparent government is supported by the Interpol’s warrant for her arrest on corruption charges. Bhutto was sentenced for money laundering – not in the dubious Pakistani courts, but in the impeccable Switzerland’s. During her terms as Pakistan’s prime minister, Bhutto did nothing worthy of mention, except enriching herself and her cronies. To all purposes, she proved herself grossly incompetent as a country’s leader – a natural outcome for graduates of Harvard and Oxford where the leftist education is divorced from reality.

Bhutto is not particularly popular in Pakistan; how could a woman, essentially a foreigner, and a corrupt politician be popular? PPP got only 23% of the seats in the 2002 elections, and even of that modest number, many MPs do not support Bhutto, even defected to other factions.

It is puzzling what wrong the US Administration finds with General Musharaff who staunchly supports the US Afghan invasion, abandoned Taliban and Islamic fighters in Kashmir, and represses Muslim terrorists. Musharaff staked everything on the rapprochement with America. He alienated every good Muslim in Pakistan, down to Osama bin Laden. In return, the US Administration didn’t even release to Pakistan the fighter jets which Pakistan has paid for long ago, and whose delivery was frozen since.

It would be soothing if the US Administration pursued a sensible plan of installing Bhutto in Pakistan to use her home base in Sindh province as a camp for operations in Iranian Baluchistan to sabotage the Ahmadinejad’s regime. Such strategic thinking, however, is unlikely. More probably, the Black professor in the White House sympathizes with the fellow female who holds academic degree from American university.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest opposition force in Egypt. It will not start a war with Israel immediately upon coming to power in Egypt. The West will isolate an (any?) Islamic fundamentalist regime. America will find it impossible to continue giving military aid to an Islamist regime. The Muslim Brotherhood will be unable to improve an Egyptian economy conditioned by a low learning culture and the absence of a work ethic. Foreign investors will shy away from an increasingly Islamic country. Corrupt local businessman will cry bloody murder and fly away with their capital. Liberal democrats will carp on their religious competitors and denounce Islamism vociferously, prompting the Muslim Brotherhood to suppress free speech and further isolate Egypt. Common Egyptians will soon grow dissatisfied with the Muslim Brotherhood just like the Iranians grew discontent of the ayatollahs. A corrupt government is preferable to an inept one, and Egyptians will start bringing down the Muslim Brotherhood. In the interests of Islam, the organization will curtail democracy.

The Muslim Brotherhood won’t be able to launch a good war against Israel. Such a war requires major foreign sponsors, but Russia will remain somewhat apprehensive of the Islamic regime, Iran won’t want a competitor for leadership in the Muslim world, and countries like China or Pakistan cannot foot the bill for fighting Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood will follow Iran’s path to glory with nuclear development and also copy Iran by fanning peripheral wars with Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood will support Palestinian insurgents in Gaza and supply them conventional weapons. Islamist Egypt will contest the Iranian influence in Syria and re-establish long-term military cooperation. Egypt could aid Jordan whether officially or through the Palestinian majority.

The Muslim Brotherhood is relatively moderate. They aim at establishing a just Islamic state, not a Taliban-style caliphate. Their program could work in mid-size communities, perhaps in a small country, but not in a diverse, aspiring society like Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood will fail economically and like other economically failed regimes, will seek military and foreign glory.

The Muslim Brotherhood continuously produces militant offshoots such as Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Hamas. It’s almost impossible to strike a balance between moderation and a strong sense of religious identity. The moderate Muslim Brotherhood produces a stream of hard-line Islamists – a small minority of the adherents, but enough to bug Israel and the West with terrorism. Moderate members cannot abandon their zealous brothers and give them financial, logistical, and political support. The Muslim Brotherhood will fan the war of attrition on Israeli borders.

Islamic reaction to Israel’s archeological dig near Al Aqsa shows a peculiar trait. Even more than Galut Jews, Muslims suffer from a siege mentality. Muslims’ fear unmistakably surfaces in hundreds of pronouncements, articles, and cartoons that depict a minor dig as a mine so huge that Al Aqsa invariably falls down. Some Arab editors and readers recognized that as hyperbole, but most accepted the frightening “fact”: Jews are destroying Haram ash-Sharif. The Muslim world’s reaction to quite inoffensive Danish cartoons was of the same stock: a hyper-reaction of fear.

Muslims are backward but not fools, and more practical than the West burdened with its idealistic morality. They understand they lag behind the civilized world and stand no chance in an economic race or a military confrontation. They know what they would have done if the positions were reversed: conquer, kill, and loot – and wait for the West to do the same. The West, as Muslims see it, plays devilish game with them: pays for oil rather than taking it by force, sells them weapons, shows them respect and generally behaves nicely – presumably lulling their vigilance before a major thrust. The nicer the West is to them, the more suspicious the Muslims are. Typical of their siege mentality, they hate everyone, but especially benefactors. They simultaneously suffer from paranoia and try to identify with potential executioners, thus imitating the West.

Talking to Muslim societies is useless. In their warped mentality, the best intentions look like the worst threats. They are frightened to death, thus ready to die, preferably apocalyptically. They wait to deliver a blow to the West, even a suicidal blow.

Nation-states fearfully cling to their borders, almost divinized. Bereft of religion, core nation or ideology, nation-states worship borders. To inhibit doubt about sanctity of their own borders, large nation-states guarantee borders of irrelevant entities and even enemies. Thus the concern for Middle East borders. There are no nations among Arabs. Saudis are different from Omanis no more than various tribes in Saudi Arabia differ among themselves. Lines between the Arab groups are arbitrary and often erroneous. Saudi Arabia and Iraq are unsustainable states and have to be broken into at least Shia and Sunni parts, probably more. Christians and Muslims will split Lebanon. Druzes will develop nationalism and demand a piece of Lebanon, too. Jordanian monarchy will fall, and Jordan will attach itself to the West Bank Palestinians. It takes economic and cultural development to abandon clan alliances in favor of larger statehood, and, historically speaking, mega-states still did not prove viable. Most European nation-states are hardly a century old, and Arabs lag more than a century behind Europe. They are not ready for nation-states. Arab nation-states turn quasi-caliphates like Oman or oppressive empires like Egypt; tribal differences are not yet blurred. Tribes forced to co-exist in artificial Arab countries express discontent which exacerbates economic tensions. Civil strife will not occupy the Arab enough to leave the other cultures alone. Rather, Arabs sublimate discontent on external enemies, Israel and America.

Arab states will eventually dissolve into manageable entities. That could happen through sectarian strife or due to the population increase, when oil welfare no longer suffices to buy popular compliance. The West tried to preserve the borders of Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and saw the result. Let the Arabs reshape their borders.

Denmark is a special country for me. It is the only country that rescued its Jews during the Holocaust. Unlike in Bulgaria, Danish rescue efforts came from the people, not from a few intellectuals in power.

I rarely read newspapers and don’t enjoy comics or caricatures. I don’t see, however, anything particular obscene about the Danish caricatures of the prophet. Sure, far harsher things are drawn about Jesus.

I would, however, support the Danes even if they showed Mohammed obscenely. I just owe them that much. Kissinger writes that de Gaulle refused even to look at American photos of the Soviet missile installations in Cuba and supported the United States in the missile crisis out of gratitude for their help in WWII. I think along the same lines.

I know it’s only a legend that Danes went out in the streets wearing yellow badges. But I like that legend. We all love some legends.

Now, when the Muslims find a Danish outlet for their xenophobia, we should all wear badges and post the cartoons on every site.