Only the root and branch reform of Jewish business ethics can stop anti-Semitism

THESIS: Pro's argument that Jewish business ethics are the exclusive cause of anti-semitism is invalid, unsound, and certainly stands unproven. For starters, let's break down Pro's argument a bit:P1: Three Jewish businessmen are likely guilty of theft, fraud, and greed respectively prove that a Jewish businessman is always responsible for financial scandal.P2: Jews often experience anti-semitism.P3: Jews charge interest on financial transactions.P4: Several theories explaining anti-semitism are less than comprehensive.C: Therefore, Jewish business ethics are the exclusive cause of anti-semitism Now, let's take a look at the soundness of each premise in turn.Premise: "Whenever there is a major financial scandal it always seems to be a Jewish businessman that is responsible."In order to make the case that Jewish business ethics are the exclusive cause of anti-semitism, Pro offers 3 examples of corrupt businessmen who are also Jewish. In order for these examples to be sufficient, Pro would need to demonstrate that these men were entirely representative of Jewish business ethics. Was their Judaism, for example, the only link that binds these 3? Clearly not. All three were also White, English-speaking males. All 3 were chairmen of large, international corporations. Can we find example of non-Jewish White, English-speaking corporate chairmen who demonstrate the same level of corruption? Sure we can. Conrad Black, for example, was a Canadian publisher who also stole liberally from worker's pension funds and is Roman Catholic. [1] Wendell and Alan Jacobson are two prominent members of the Latter Day Saints who have been described as the "Bernie Madoff of Utah." [2]Jamie Dimon, a Greek Orthodox, was just as complicit in hiding JPMorgan Chase's enormous losses after the London Whale as Dick Fuld during the Subprime Mortgage Crisis. [3]So, in spite of Pro's implication, there's nothing uniquely Jewish about the fraudulent business practices Pro cites.Nor can it be said that any of Pro's example were particularly religiously observant, to the extent that we must wonder why Pro provides these men as examples of Jewish faith. Maxwell, in fact, was decidedly irreligious. [4]Nor is there any evidence to suggest that these three men demonstrated any adherence to or constraint by Jewish Business Ethics. In the Talmudic tradition, the first question asked during final judgement in the Afterlife is "were you honest in business?" Why would Pro offer these 3 men as examples of Jewish business ethics when none of these 3 demonstrate any particular conformity?PREMISE: Jewish People experience anti-semitism.The premise is indisputable, although we might wonder why Pro pretends to care. Although the argument is framed as a means of abolishing anti-semitism it can't be said that there is any indication of concern, or admiration, or even sympathy for Judaism in Pro's text.For example, Pro offers several strange non-sequiturs that seem to have no bearing on Jewish business ethics:*Jewish businessmen rarely advertise their heritage.*You might not guess a Jewish businessman by his name.*European Jews avoid appearing identifiably Jewish in public.Of course, Pro makes no mention of the single most salient fact regarding Jewish life in Europe: 2 out of every 3 European Jews were exterminated in the Holocaust. [5] One might forgive any minority for trying to blend in a bit with the threat of mass extinction looming in the recent memory of fathers and grandfathers. Further, the arguments themselves have obviously little value. Ask yourself whether more than a third of Jews in Tel Aviv or Brooklyn appear "identifiably Jewish?" What does that even mean? Only 12% of Israeli Jews and 7% of American Jews adhere to the black clothes and of Haredi Judaism. In Israel, only 20% of Jews cover their head in public with the traditional kippah. [6] Ask yourself further how many Christians or Buddhists or Muslims dress in ways that identify their religion in public--more than a third? Seldom or never.Pro's brief Jewish history also has little to do with business ethics and suggests his bias with telling understatements:"[Jews] were driven from their ancestral homes in Mesopotamia and settled in Canaan (now Palestine). There they made themselves so unpopular they were driven into exile in Egypt. The Egyptians didn't like them very much either and soon sent them packing. Understandably, on returning to Palestine the Jews did not receive a warm welcome and that's why many left the Middle East and settled overseas."An astonishingly glib gloss of history. Even the order is wrong. Jews were first enslaved by the Egyptians and then enslaved by the Assyrians. Freed by the Persian invasion of Cyrus the Great, Jews remained in their homeland for nearly 600 years until the destruction of the Second Temple and the Diaspora enforced by the Roman Emperor Titus in 70 AD. [7]Are we really meant to believe that Pro has a realistic perspective on anti-semitism when he can't admit to simple historic facts regarding Jewish persecution, enslavement, and murder? PREMISE: Jews charge interest on financial transactions.As far as I can tell, this is the heart of Pro's argument insofar as this is the only specifically documented practice attributed to Jewish business ethics. OED defines usury as "the action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest." If there is any evidence that Jewish businessmen regularly lend money at higher rates than say, Christian businessmen or Buddhist businessmen, Pro fails to provide it. In fact, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions all share fairly specific prohibitions against charging any interest on any loan. Jewish business ethics only prohibit individuals, not corporations while many Muslim financial institutions go to great lengths to avoid charging interest on loans.[8] To the extent that the Christian Council of Nicea in 325 AD forbade any Christian from charging any interest in any context, we must conclude that Christians, not Jews, are the most hypocritical religious sect participating in modern Capitalism.If the charging of interest is the principle complaint of the anti-semite, then how are Jewish business ethics distinguished from the financial practices of most of the rest of the world? Charging interest is, after all, a commonplace artifact of any modern economy.On this point, Pro has offer information.PREMISE: Some theories regarding the cause of anti-semitism are less than comprehensive.Obviously, offering three popular theories regarding the cause of anti-semitism and then dismissing those theories is not of itself an argument in support of Pro's "anti-semitism is caused Jewish business ethics" theory. Pro has falsely concluded that 1) anti-semitism must have a rational basis, and 2) anti-semitism must have only one cause. As Pro's own argument proves, anti-semitism is rarely rational. Over the span of many nationalities and histories, we must expect that any deep-rooted prejudice has many complex causes, more often discovered in the inadequacies of the hater than the hated.In short, Pro has offered a wide ranging narrative with much invective and no evidence. Essentially, his case is that Jewish people have only themselves to blame for anti-semitism so it follows that the anti-semite is blameless of any bigotry. We should reject this unfounded and ugly argument.[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[2] http://www.ksl.com...[3] http://www.theguardian.com...[4] http://www.nytimes.com...[5] http://www.ushmm.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...