Thursday, November 23, 2006

Priest and Nun try out for Rachel Corrie's Darwin Award.

AP Photo of Priest and Nun from Michigan, residing in the house
(slated for demolition by the IDF) of a wanted terrorist.
Please note terrorist dressed in green in the back left.
You can't miss him, but I think the priest and nun did...

Southern Israel has been incessantly bombed by Palestinian Qassam rockets for over 2 years. Israel even "Disengaged" from Gaza, (against my better judgment) pulling out the last IDF soldier, and forcibly removing some of Israel's most loyal and pioneering citizens from their Gaza settlements. This hasn't stopped the Palestinians (Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.) from continuing to shell Israel, intentionally wounding and killing as many Israeli civilians as possible. So Israel retaliates.

Who do Michigan's Priests and Nuns run to save? Those getting shelled indiscriminately, and being targeted for simply being citizens of Israel?

G-d forbid. Turn the other cheek morality is lectured only towards JEWS.

To give us a lecture in uber-morality, Father Peter and Sister Mary Ellen of Michigan have joined the Brudi family in Jabalya (Gaza). The Brudi's were told by the IDF, that they intended to bomb and demolish their home due to their sonÂ’s activities with the Popular Resistance Committees (terrorist organization) [read: He's a terrorist, and they support hisactivitiess by giving him food and shelter in their home.]

YNET reports:
These homes have become pilgrimage sites in recent days not only for locals. Foreign peace activists have started to show interests in the phenomenon, and two Americans, a priest and a nun from Michigan, arrived at Jabalya from Michigan to take part in the human shield mission at the Brudi family home.

Sister Mary Ellen told Ynet, "We are here to find out the truth and to be with the family and these people, who are trying to prevent the demolition of a home where an entire family lives."

The Sister continued, "We are against any type of violence, whether from the Palestinian side or the Israeli side, by we are here to be with a family that may have their house bombed and demolished because of the claim that one or two members are involved in violence."

She also explained that she was well aware of the Qassam rockets fired from the northern Gaza Strip towards Sderot, and said, "I adamantly oppose and condemn the firings like I condemn all violence."
Thanks Sister. Here are some better activities for you:

1. Convince the family to stop aiding and abetting a wanted terrorist, or better yet - turn him in. He won't be killed by the IDF if you turn him in; he'll probably even be released as part of a prisoner swap. Rachel Corrie already won a Darwin award for this sort of stupidity -- do you really want this coveted award as well?

2. Why aren't you moving to Sederot? Be a human target (instead of a terrorist-housing shield) Show the world that you care about Israeli civilians. This kid (hat-tip:Kasamba) in Sederot was crying on national TV because no one was coming to his Bar Mitzva (in Sederot) -- maybe you should have dropped by to say hi.

Then again, I'd rather you didn't move to Sederot.

Your ethics match those of Gaza, perfectly.

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael


tafka PP said...

I was quite enjoying your swipe at naive internationals until the last sentence. Yes, these people are clearly functioning under a misunderstanding. But what on earth is wrong with her "ethics"? All her quotes you provide say nothing more than that she is a campaigner for anti-violence. And while Rachel Corrie got run over by a tank and various others have placed themselves in the line of fire, most of the hundreds of Internationals do very necessary humanitarian work in Palestinian areas.

(Before you all scream at me, nb I have serious problems with movements like the ISM who train and ship many of these Internationals here under false pretences and capitalise on people's will to be do-gooders and even latent anti-semitism in some cases. I've seen it for myself first hand. Yet the benefits of their activity which eases the lives of innocent Palestinians is also proven.)

Returning to the case of this nun, I would argue that you have an issue with her actions, not her ethics of anti-violence. If she had applied those same ethics and attended Dudu's Barmitzvah instead of joined the love-in in Bet Hanoun, would you have complained?

Kibi said...

No-one ever said these folks were suicidal or irrational - being a human shield for Palis (Rachel Corrie notwithstanding) is relatively safe, since Israel probably will not destroy a house with people in it.
Sitting in a house in Sderot is not going to stop an Arab from firing a Kassam - in fact they quickly justify it, since anyone sitting in a house in Sderot must have been showing solidarity with Israelis and thus encouraging the "occupation"...

I disagree with our purple friend - the ethics of these people are entirely corrupted. Ethics is (are?) a system to conduct life in a moral fashion according to some absolute standard - working by a local standard is ethos. There is no way that the same standard is being applied by the nun and priest to the Israelis and Palestinians here - the aiders and abettors of murder (in Gaza) are being given more "moral support" then the truly innocent victims (in Sderot).

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

Tafka pp: Her ethics of "anti-violence" are so warped that she sits in a house with terrorists.

There is no moral comparison between Beit Hanoun and Sederot.

One is violence against evil, trying to stop terrorists from launching weapons against innocent civilians.

One is violence against innocent civilians trying to have a Bar Mitzva in peace and quiet.

You can't seperate her actions from her ethics. They are one and the same. And even if she would come to Sederot, I wouldn't be thrilled.

Anonymous said...

Ah, let her come. It's be so long since Christians have been thrown to the lions.

yitz said...

They should earn the Rachel Corrie award by having the same fate as she...
When will we realize that the "pals" don't want peace, just a piece and another piece of Eretz Yisrael, for they maintain that the whole pie is theirs!
Jameel, thanks for alerting me to this very well-done piece...
Regards from the City of Real Fear [of G-d] and Peace - Yeru-Shaleim

tafka PP said...

Jameel. As I said, you only lost me at the last sentence. I took issue with your attacking the woman's ethics.

You can (all) call their perception of the conflict (= Israeli agressors, Palestinian victims) whatever names you want- warped, corrupted, one-sided, I agree with you. But the fact remains that these people sitting in the terrorist's house clearly are more swayed by the Palestinian narrative than the Israeli one (at least at the time of taking the picture) and even if it isn't palatable to you or to me, that doesn't make them ethically flawed. That was my point, and I stand by it.

Olah Chadasha said...

Tafka, YES it does make them ethically flawed. Not for what they stand for but for what they're protecting. They are protecting terrorists that indiscriminately target civilians. Therefore, they are ethically flawed in their thoughts and actions. You know why they're on top of a terrorist's house and not in Sderot? It's not completely because they believe one narrative over another. No, it's because they know they're safe there. The IDF is a moral Army that does NOT wantonly kill non-combatants. Beit Hanoun was an error, not an indiscriminate killing. These two people know that they're perfectly safe on the roof of that house, because the IDF WILL NOT strike a house with non-combatants around it.

However, they would get no such assurances if they were in Sderot. The terrorists AIM to kill and maim as many civilians as possible. If they were to act as human shields in Sderot, the very terrorists they're protecting would have absolutely NO problems if they were to hit the house that these two were protecting. If they killed them, SO MUCH THE BETTER. That makes their thinking ethically flawed. I can guarantee you that the terrorists they're protecting are laughing their heads off over these two. That makes them ethically flawed.

You can stand by your opinion. You're just simply incorrect in your thinking. Perception does not make reality, and perception does NOT define ethics.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

The Sister continued, "... we are here to be with a family that may have their house bombed and demolished because of the claim ..." that's it right there. To the Priest and the Nun its just some arbitrary , non existant being who 'claimed' out of the blue that one or two members are involved in violence and therefore their house is to be bombed. Its just 'someone' who made a 'claim'. The fact that Israel targets known terrorists and can back up with cold data on said terrorists activities does not come into the dialogue.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

Tafka PP: Actually, we can use absolutes here to determine what their ethics are. It's rather simple.

The priest and nun claim to be anti-violence.

Their action is to sit in a building to prevent it's demolition by IDF forces. The IDF are not targeting anyone IN THE BUILDING (except for the terrorist, who apparently isn't in the building now). So their anti-violence ethics are towards protecting inanimate structures. The IDF are not targeting anyone the priest and nun are trying to shield.

On the flip side, Palestinian terrorists are targeting people; civilians in Sederot. These people are not being shielded by the priest and the nun, nor are they attempting in anyway to shield them, or trying to stop the Qassam rocketeers to stop their actions.

So - what exactly are their ethics? Protecting structures take precedence over protecting people. (or even PROTESTING more against violence against buildings than violence towards civilians).

These ethics are identical to those of Gaza. The Palestinian Authority jumps and up down yelling when an IDF's errant shell kills civilians, screaming "genocide"..."ethnic cleansing"...etc. It was obivously an accident (and they all know it). However, they say nothing about their own targeting of Israel's civilians (And they aren't even settlers!)

The two deserve each other; those whose ETHICS favor the lives of buildings over the lives of Israeli civilians, and those who intentionally target civilians, yet scream bloody murder when they take an accidental hit (and shoot to kill every time)


are the father and nun petioners of saint pancake
more syrup please

marallyn ben moshe said...

dontcha just love it???we don't have enough crazies here, we have to import them??? chelm...we are all living in chelm...but the stakes are rising and soon none of us will be able to walk away from the insanity of it all...great blog...

Irina Tsukerman said...

Are they from Pax Christi, by any chance? That would explain a great deal!

Anonymous said...

The really unethical side of this, no matter what their motives and thoughts are, is that it encourages the Palestinians. Pure motives don't mean a thing; actions do. When those actions implicitly reward the Palestinians for being terrorists; "we stand with you"...then that is simply unethical, and any other consideration is not worthwhile.

In fact, these folks are complicit in the deaths on both sides. By encouraging the Palestinians to continue to fire Qassams...heck, they can do it and then have these Rachel Corrie wannabes come protect them..they also cause the deaths and destruction taking place in Sderot.

On no level are these deluded "useful idiots" moral. They have either not thought through the consequences of their behavior, or if they have, they are willful accomplices to terrorism.

Anonymous said...

From the title (a priest walks..) I gathered this was going to be a joke.
Turns out it was one only a very sad one.

How do those fanatics manage to convince the whole world they are the vicitms, on the other hand we should not give them credit for having attracted the help of two ignorant idiots.
anyoen could do that.

tafka PP said...

Jameel, you've handed me the best possible comeback in the world: But I'm not going to run with it. I didn't comment to pick a fight, I have nothing to prove.

For the record, I am more aware than most- I can probably say all- of your commenters as to the "Human Shields" movements in this region, what motivates them, who they are, where they come from, why they come here and what they actually do while they are here. And what they think they are doing. And how close that is to the truth. You can all feel free to carry on with your angry hypothesizing and presumptions. I won't trouble this comment thread again.

Anonymous said...

tafka - if you're still reading this thread, i'd just like to ask one thing.

where do ethics come from?
who defines morality and ethics?

is it society a large, with each society creating its own core values?

or is there a set core of ethics defined by one human being that carried us through history?

or are our ethics and morals defined for us by the torah?

as practicng jews, we know that the latter is the case. for if was not, why would have to listen to the rules and definitions of one (or a few) human being? who considered him greater than i?

however, once i know that the torah dictates to us how we should live our lives, all i need to do is look in the torah, which is the word of G-d, and see what i must do at any given point.

and according to that, i DON'T advocate for murderers, i don't risk my life for a rasha, and i can kill the one who tries to kill me before he acomplishes the deed.

That IS morality, for that is Torah.
And Torah is emes, truth, and is everlasting.

Anonymous said...

non-violence itself is an unethical doctrine-it holds that one should NEVER use violence
even if a maniac is about to kill you-NO VIOLENCE-you may not kill even to defend your life-it is preferable to die rather than kill

the non-violent doctrine is not directed at the homicidal killer-it is directed at the other person-it tells the other person that THEY should die rather than kill
that THEY should offer their throat to the killer
it cannot tell the maniac not to kill because that would be like telling a dog not to bark-nonviolence speaks to the would be victim-and persuades him to surrender-even his life

and in that way non-violence itself is becomes a weapon-a weapon that kills as surely as the weapon in a maniacs hand-non-violence aids the maniac-it makes the victim feel bad for any act of violence even self defense-it wears down the victim's will to fight convincing him that he is "bad" for killing non-violence would have would be victims surrender to homicidal maniacs-and that is NOT JUST, and if it's not just it's not G-dly

in the case of Israel-the non-violent standard Jews are held to is so extreme that even buildings must not be detroyed-the "evil apartheid wall" is given more attention than muslim murders missiles and suicide bombings and beheadings

non-violence is a kinder gentler evil

that's not to say that violence is good -violence is horrible! non-violence is the way to go whenever possible, it is like a north star-it's a good guide but it is not a perfect solution it is NOT an absolute
as Torah says-there is a time to to die and a time to kill

non-violence rejects this teaching of the Torah and claims their is never a time to kill-hence why they sit on muslim roofs and not Jewish ones

Anonymous said... might not post anymore, but what line could you possibly have been handed by Jameel for a comeback?

Whose angry? I think most of the posters here are just disagreeing, but I don't read anything horribly angry in the comments. We are all free TO disagree, and I think folks have done a good job, by-and-large, of reasoning out their positions.

Most of us just can't find any ethical reasoning in the actions of the priest and nun. Let these same folks all organize the Palis to eschew violence all together, quit firing Qassams..and then they would have a completely legitimate beef with Israel, were Israel to continue to attack Gaza. But this is not the reality.

The moral thing would be to go to Sderot ALSO, at a minimum, and to make sure to publicize it. That they do not shows a moral cowardice OR one-sidedness that belies their call for both sides to desist.

In the meantime, they shield a terrorist, and yes, he was warned at least...however terrible the destruction of the house would be, it is preferable to wholesale destruction of civilian areas, as Hezbollah attempted and Hamas et al would love to emulate in Sderot, Ashkelon etc.

And finally, the way to end the conflict is not to act as human shields...but to decry in serious fashion the Qassam firings; when these stop, the Israelis will stop targeting Palestinians.

How simple can that be? Apparantly, it whizzed right by the heads of the priest and nun. Idiots.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

Tafka PP: Actually, Id love to hear your comeback. I don't think the comments here were angry hypothosizing, and if anything, you yourself were amused by the post till the last line.

I'm curious to hear you comeback...

Jack Steiner said...

There is your next post. Each one of us can offer a "comeback."

kishnevi said...

This lovely priestly pair is from Michigan. I have to wonder if there's a Dearborn connection. (For those who may not be aware, the Dearborn Michigan area has one of the highest (if not the highest) proportion of Arab immigrants and Arab-Americans in the US).

Lion of Zion said...


"As an American, it certainly wouldn't be morally correct to protect Osama bin Laden and his clan. I wonder if these folks would do that?"

i'm willing to bet that some of them would.


it is ironic that i have to call you naive. your advice for the good priest and nun will fall on deaf ears. my advice would be that they should try and shield a suicide bomber as he blows him/herself up.

JJ said...

Sounds like the beginning to a bad joke: A priest and a nun climb atop a terrorist-infested building...

Dumbasses. Utter and complete terrorist-loving dumbasses.

The back of the hill said...

I really wish that the presence of these two individuals would not deter the bulldozers.

But the problem is that their deaths would be incredibly useful to the other side.

Rachel Corrie (zichrono kelala) has proven to be an undying symbol for the hate-Israel crowd, as have all other accidental decedents on that side.

Yes, this nun and this priest value life - but selectively.

I would have prefered that their spirit of selfless sacrifice would have substituted them for the Schijveschuurder family killed several years ago at Sbarros Pizzeria. Or any number of other victims of haphazard slaughter.

But they do not have that choice, do they? The IDF provides warning - Hamas, IslJih., and El Aqsa are not quite so considerate.

When are these two hypocrites planning to stand in front of a Qassam? Surely their loving friends in Gaza can tell them a time and a place!

... Is the Window to Our Soul said...

I recently heard an interview with President Carter about his new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Aparthied" and his empathy towards the Palestians, especially in Gaza. My respect for him instantly vanished during this interview. I could not believe what I was hearing. It was pathetic and sickening, especially hearing him accuse Israel of allowing the soldier,Gilad Shalit,to continue to be held hostage because Israel won't give in to terrorists threats and demands. Afterall, they (the Victims, oops, Terrorists)only have one Israeli vs Israel holding hundreds of the palestians women and children.


I have continued to read your blog even after the war ended with Lebanon.
I was reading here today and I saw the comment about Jimmy Carter and I have also seen him on the media circuit lately. What a sad person he is and has become EVEN MORE SO. What's even worse is I voted for him years ago when he was President. Only reason I voted for him then was that I was much younger and did not know any better and I thought it was cool that someone from my state was running for President. LOL ~I even took a trip to the tiny little town he was from and visited his brother's gas station. Ha Ha. They even had some cans of that BILLY BEER there on display.
Anyway, I just want to say that I am sorry for all Jimmy has said about Israel and I am sorry he is so misguided.
Bless you all as I think of you all often. The world is a dangerous place and it disgust me what the democrats and thier followers say about Israel and what they say about my own President all the time. It sickens me. I hope that President Bush will not be set back to much by the democrats for the next two years. I know you have all heard all the goings on here in the states and hate and evil from the liberal democrats that spews from their mouths. It's really bad. Maybe one day they will get over themselves. I try hard to hold my tongue when I see some of the vile internet sites and the things said on them. I am sure you all see it too. I do not know what think anymore about society. It's just sad.
Bless you all. I have blabbed enough.
Take care !

Search the Muqata


Related Posts with Thumbnails