Old habits die hard, I guess.

I think this is an example of trying to create news.

The Headline - "New J. Mufti calls for legitmate resistence to Israeli Occuaption" doesn't play quite so well to the target audience.

Suicide bombing is legitimate resistance to you?

There is an internationally recognised right of occupied peoples to fight for their liberation.

I wouldn't personally recommend that people blow themselves up to do so. But if someone decides that is the way that they want to attack the IDF, it's legitimate resistance.

However, if the Mufti had advocated targetting Israeli civilians (which is what you're trying to imply) as a form of resistence, that would be an entirely different matter. But he didn't say that, did he?

Are you serious? No need to answer. I suppose you are. Anyone with an opinion worth listening to knows what's meant by suicide bombing in "Palestine" and who the targets are and how the Palestinian Arabs routinely violate "internationally recognized" standards to get people to perform this horrendous, disproportionate act, including children.

Do not continue to advertise your sites here, btw.

That's simply an outcome of your asumptions. The interviewer could have asked the direct question - 'do you approve of targetting civilains?", but that would have had the unfortunate consequence of .

Your, now explicit, assumption is that Palestinian 'suicide bombers' have always and only targetted civilians. This is demonstrably false - 'suicide bombers' have also targetted the IDF.

Your statement that "Anyone with an opinion worth listening to knows what's meant by suicide bombing" is true, in that you mean "an opinion worth listening to", is one that shares the same false assumptions.

As I said, the headline was about the "target audience", as you have so neatly demonstrated.

Should have read,
"That's simply an outcome of your asumptions. The interviewer could have asked the direct question - 'do you approve of targetting civilains?', but that would have had the unfortunate consequence of leaving no room for assumtions."

It is not an assumption. It is an understanding of basic terminology based on common usage and experience. Parsing such things just sounds silly. The Mufti should have been clear with such inflamatory language. Further, I don't accept the premise that if he were only talking about targeting the military it would be OK. The Israelis would be foolish to allow such a person to continue to spread such poison in Jerusalem. Arab suicide bombing is a poison. To pretend that what they're doing is simply another choice of weapon is perverse.

Back to the title. The Mufti supports suicide bombing. You can choose to be outraged or, amazingly enough, not, but it is clearly the correct headline. Anything else is a euphamism.

"The interviewer could have asked the direct question ..." Michael

The Mufti could have specified that he doesn't favor suicide bombing, or minimally that he doesn't favor targeting civilians; the Jerusalem Mufti is not an automaton, he is not limited in his response by the question asked. But Sol's comment about parsing what lends itself to a rather simple and straight-forward interpretation is most apt.

"It is legitimate, of course, as long as it plays a role in the resistance." the Jerusalem Mufti

"I wouldn't personally recommend that people blow themselves up to do so. But if someone decides that is the way that they want to attack the IDF, it's legitimate resistance." Michael

You're attempting to have it both ways. Your "personal recommendation" is not being sought by the Mufti, hence your personal recommendation is merely an attempt to absolve yourself while green-lighting the tactic of suicide bombing, since you're delegating the decision to virtually anyone ("someone"), or at least the Mufti in this specific situation.

And again, the Mufti did not limit his approval of the tactic to the IDF. He didn't define what is or is not legitimate, rather he suggests anything is legitimate which plays "a role". Hardly a closely reasoned definition.

But do let us worry and wring our hands over the handling of detainees in Guantanamo.

"There is an internationally recognised right of occupied peoples to fight for their liberation."

Yes, and that you see their struggle in that light just goes to show how well they've framed it for the Western Leftist audience.

The "Palestinians" are not fighting for the independence of their own state; they're fighting against the independence of the Jewish state. That is the truth.

"It is not an assumption. It is an understanding of basic terminology based on common usage and experience. Parsing such things just sounds silly."

Sorry to introduce objective reality into the discussion, but the fact is that 'suicide bombers' have targetted the IDF. That your 'common usage' ignores this, doesn't alter reality.

I can see the attraction to the headline. The Mufti didn't say 'terrorism', so we'll latch onto the next best thing.

'Suicide bomber, suicide bomber, suicide bomber, suicide bomber....'. OK, got that.

"The Mufti supports suicide bombing"
The Mufti supports only legitimate resistance. Hmmm,I see why that doesn't do it for you.

Thick as a stump.