Sheila Musaji: Never again (after just one more time)
An article by Gil Ronen was just published in Arutz Sheva, Israel National News Europe Preparing Holocaust for Muslims. This article discusses the predictions of Moti Zisser an Israeli businessman. I looked up Moti Zisser, and he is a billionaire real-estate developer. Here is the published article:
Well-known religious businessman Moti Zisser predicted Saturday evening that Europe will unleash a second Holocaust – but this time, the victims will be Muslims, not Jews.
“I think another Holocaust is brewing in Europe,” he told congregants at Bnei Brak’s Heichal Shlomo synagogue, according to Maariv-NRG. “I said it five years ago and everyone laughed at me. Today nobody is laughing; today they only argue with me over when it will happen.”
The entrepreneur, who has businesses in Israel as well as Poland and other European countries, explained that Muslims are increasingly gaining control of the European economy, and that the Europeans are bound to lash out at them. He said that he meets businessmen in Europe who ask him how he thinks the “Muslim problem can be solved.”
“I would give you numbers regarding what is happening with Muslims in Europe,” he said. “They control things that are in people’s pockets. It is much more painful than with the Jews, and for this they killed six million Jews, so for the other things they will kill 60 million too.”
“Don’t get this wrong,” he explained. “This continent knows full well where it is headed. Today there are cities in France with a Muslim majority that do not belong to the French. For those who don’t know, the city of Marseilles, for instance, belongs to the Arabs. The new demon in Europe is the Muslims, and it is being built up just like the Jewish demon was built up at the start of the previous century.”
“This new demon is being built in the way that Europe knows how to build and annihilate something when it is defending itself against it.”
Zisser added that in Europe’s eyes, Israel is an ally vis-à-vis the Muslim threat. That is why Israel need not be concerned about the European criticism of its policies in Jerusalem or elsewhere, he explained. On the contrary, he said, “If Israel knew how to take advantage” of the fact that it is perceived as an ally against the Muslims, “there is no doubt that this could give Israel great status in the big game in the next 50 or 100 years.”
What I get from this article is that Europe is feeling threatened by the Muslim presence, just as they once were by the Jewish presence. The economy in Europe is in trouble, and just as with the Jews in the last century, Muslims are seen now as having too much control on the economy. Anti-Muslim feeling is growing, and being actively promoted. This could very easily lead to another holocaust.
BUT, and this last paragraph containing the big BUT deserves repeating: In Europe’s eyes, Israel is an ally vis-à-vis the Muslim threat. That is why Israel need not be concerned about the European criticism of its policies in Jerusalem or elsewhere, he explained. On the contrary, he said, “If Israel knew how to take advantage” of the fact that it is perceived as an ally against the Muslims, “there is no doubt that this could give Israel great status in the big game in the next 50 or 100 years.
He seems to be saying that the Jews should ally themselves with the forces that are currently moving towards this new holocaust against the Muslims and in that way improve Israel’s position in the world after Muslims are murdered. The author of this article is predicting a mass murder of Muslims, and suggesting that it might be a good thing for Israel.
Not one word in this article about how wrong any of this would be, not any concern about the victims of this possible holocaust against Muslims. No mention of NEVER AGAIN for anyone. Simply a dispassionate prediction that this will probably happen and that Jews should take advantage of the situation.
The article has been picked up by many other Jewish newspapers, including the 5Towns paper in New York This is the Jewish newspaper that back in 2008 published an article by Lawrence Kulak about which I wrote Jewish Newspaper Article Calls for Murder of Innocent Muslims in which I said:
… A few quotes from Mr. Kulak’s article:
“Moreover, the only way to deal with Islamic terrorists is the same way in which they deal with their victims. Muslims believe in the literal interpretation of the Biblical doctrine of an eye for an eye, and they do not have respect for anything perceived as a lesser standard of justice. They killed our innocents, and unless we kill theirs, they will go on killing ours. The Torah, however, preaches a doctrine which, if implemented by the West, could finally put an end to all Islamic terror: If somebody is coming to kill you, rise up and kill him first.”
“Any and all collateral damage in the form of casualties to friends, relatives, or anyone connected to the lives of these terrorists should be swiftly ignored.”
It is surprising that a religious publication would carry an article calling for the deliberate killing of civilians as a form of collective punishment, especially since such actions are considered a war crime by International law. It is even more surprising when the author claims as a matter of fact that pre-emptive warfare is taught in the Jewish Torah, and that collective punishment is a “common sense” solution “etched in the Mosaic law.”.
If such an article was published by Muslim extremists it is certain that there would be an uproar and demands that every Muslim organization (and even Muslim individual) condemn such a terrorist mentality.
The response so far to CAIR’s call for repudiation is silence for the most part. In the blogsphere there are some rumblings, but mostly of the expected sort calling CAIR anti-Semitic for making such a call.
Larry Gordon, the editor of the 5 Towns Jewish Times published a response to CAIR’s request which is more of an attack on CAIR than any sort of apology. The closest the response comes to an apology is the statement: “The editorial staff of the Five Towns Jewish Times decries the notion of any support of terrorism, and we fully support the United States government’s War on Terrorism. As an Orthodox Jewish weekly, the 5TJT also rejects the demonization of Muslims, both in this country and abroad. If any such implication of supporting the terrorization or murder of innocent Muslims who do not support terrorists or terrorist activities was made by an article in the 5TJT, it was due simply to a poor choice of words—a slip of the author’s pen, if you will. Read in its entirety, the article is clearly conveying the message that members of a community that supports terrorists and allows them to remain in its midst should not expect to escape retaliation. At the same time, the 5TJT calls upon CAIR to unequivocally denounce all of its past and current support of and for Islamist terrorism, whether that support be direct or remote. We call upon CAIR to denounce Muslim killers who act in the name of Islam, and we call upon CAIR to denounce and call for a halt of the hatred of Jews and non-Muslims that many Muslims proclaim.”
They also published a defense of his original article by Lawrence Kulak:
Dear Editor, after seeing the disingenuous way that CAIR attacked me for writing my article “The Appropriate Response to Islamic Terror” published in last week’s paper, I am even more convinced of the validity of everything I wrote. In addition, I am also proud to have exposed the way that CAIR chooses to demonstrate its jihadist philosophy by taking the sentence to which it objected deliberately out of context in a typical attempt to fan the flames of hatred.
I never advocated the wanton killing of innocent Muslims, only that Muslim terror be treated the same as warfare, with similar regard for collateral damage. Because it seems as if this common-sense approach has been cowardly sidestepped by the West and Israel—to their severe detriment—there was the need to explain it in seemingly blunt language. If Muslims or CAIR are offended by the methods of Realpolitik which I advocate, let them complain to Muslim governments, such as Pakistan’s, who routinely violate international law by continuing to harbor terrorists and permitting terrorists to use civilians as human shields.
As far as my use of the concept of “an eye for an eye,” the utility of this device was proven in World War II against the Japanese, a civilization that also utilized suicide missions as a means of warfare. The Japanese government had been using poison gas against the Chinese, but when Roosevelt threatened to do the same to them, they abruptly terminated that practice. Unfortunately, it seems that Muslims today do not yield to pure threats as readily as the Japanese did.
Moreover, the Jewish religion does not advocate the killing of innocent civilians, but apparently Islam does. What about the verse in the Koran which states that when the Muslim messiah comes, the trees will tell Muslims to kill the Jews that are hiding behind them? So much for CAIR’s allegations.
The ADL did not issue a formal statement or press release, but did send a letter to the editor of the 5 Towns Jewish Times which stated:
To the Editor: We were shocked by Lawrence Kulak’s suggestion that Jews should kill innocent Muslim civilians to counter Islamic terrorism (“The Appropriate Response to Islamic Terror,” Dec. 12).
Regardless of one’s views on terrorism, to even entertain the notion of responding in kind is morally reprehensible and appalling. It is unfair to hold innocent Muslims responsible for the radical views of an extreme minority. In the Jewish tradition, words have consequences. In this case, Kulak’s words crossed the line.
This is something, but not much for the only response to this article made by any Jewish organization. The letter is not even signed by any individual at the ADL.
The problem is that CAIR was only the organization that raised the issue – they are not the only Muslims that are distressed – and not only Muslims find this article reprehensible. Those objecting to CAIR’s concerns are attacking the messenger, but that has nothing to do with the message, and no reasonable person could find fault with CAIR’s message that ‘Such inflammatory comments have no place in reasoned public discourse’.
The theologian, Martin Marty wrote about this in Sightings:
“The mimetic principle,” most developed by René Girard, today captures the attention of psychologists, literary critics, war-and-peace makers, and experts in many disciplines. It builds on the desires and behavior of humans who see something they and their rivals both want. As they follow up, the price exacted by both keeps going up. “Keeping up with the Joneses” is matched by build-ups of negative emotions, strategies and arms. We see this in much of the conflict, including that related to religion, in the world today.
This is most visible among those who react to terrorists who are rooted in and related to Islamic groups. “They” take innocent lives, so “we” should do the same.” We have seen that practice in Palestinian/Israeli acts of escalation and vengeance. The question for some is: Should we make a principle out of the “mimetic principle” when dealing with civilians, innocents, mothers and children who are in the path of conflict?
One of the more explicit counsels for “us” to be indiscriminate in killing those who occupy the soil or live within the states in which Islamist terrorists are active, appeared in Five Towns Jewish Times (December 11). Reproduction of and reports on it quickly spread, and within a day the Times had taken it off their web-site and blocked it on others. Google “The Appropriate Response to Islamic Terror” and you will quickly find traces of it in its brief prime. We can be glad they took it down, but also can learn from what its author, Lawrence Kulak, wrote in this 20,000-circulation paper issuing from five towns in Nassau County, but aimed at all New York and reaching beyond it.
What is “The Appropriate Response to Islamic Terror?” Kulak uses the definite article as he offers “the solution to international terror”. (The underlining is mine; the stress is his.) “The only way to deal with Islamic terrorists is the same way in which they deal with their victims. Muslims believe in the literal interpretation of the Biblical doctrine of an eye for an eye…They killed our innocents, and unless we kill theirs, they will go on killing ours. The Torah, however, preaches a doctrine which…would finally put an end to all Islamic terror: if somebody is coming to kill you, rise up and kill him first.”
Kulak criticizes the U. S. presidential response to 9/11 which “labeled Islam a peaceful religion that had been hijacked by radical elements.” The president thus “all but rejected the possibility of taking drastic action…” Kulak is unsentimental in his “kill them all” approach: “Any and all collateral damage in the form of casualties to friends, relatives, or anyone connected to the lives of these terrorists should be swiftly ignored. Public opinion and what is written in the newspapers should also be ignored by nations seeking to avenge the death of its innocent civilians.”
The problem of making a principle of this principle is that the rivals, enemies, counterparts, or counter-belligerents who read this kind of editorial–and read them they do–find occasion to raise the price, engage in more indiscriminate violence, and that, in turn inspires and impels us to raise it still higher and engage in ever more violence, “women and children” be damned–or at least thoughtlessly and painlessly annihilated. We all know that in all wars, including those we call “just” or “good,” there are “collateral damages” and deaths of innocents. However, making a principle out of doing so, and especially doing so on religious grounds, only invites more violence. Then there are no eyes to trade for eyes, teeth to exact for teeth, while hatred and violence triumph.
(This article is not yet available online on Sightings, but can be found athttp://subrationedei.com/?p=859 )
As a participant in the recent Mosque Synagogue “Twinning” I remain hopeful that Muslim and Jewish Americans can come together and act as a bridge to help heal the wounds caused by anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. To do this both communities will need to speak out against those who are determined to continue to spew hatred and bigotry.
It seems that there are still some individuals in the Jewish community who are more concerned with political expediency than with Judaism. (Just as there are some in the Muslim community that are more concerned with political expediency than with Islam.) Another example of this same reasoning was a July 2010 article on David Horowitz’s News Real Blog by Jeanette Pryor titled It’s Time to Put the Coffee Down and Eradicate Islam in the West. This article included the passage “It’s time to join the war, not on “terror” (that oh-so soothing illusion,) but on Islam in the West. Most urgently, we must defend Israel as the frontline in the war against the spread of Islam.”