Tuesday, October 17, 2006
In the grand tradition of the office:
On October 15, The Media Line news agency conducted an exclusive interview with the newly appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Lands Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad Hussein. During the interview the mufti said he endorsed the phenomenon of the suicide bombers, as it was part of the Palestinian people's legitimate resistance.
The post of the grand mufti was never reduced to merely delving into religious issues. In the 1940s the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, was the most powerful and influential leader of the Palestinians. Politics and religion were completely mixed back then, and Al-Husseini was considered a political leader as much as he was a religious one...
...An informed Palestinian source told The Media Line that Hussein was "a simple man, born to a family of humble means." He was chosen by Abbas because of an important quality he had – an ability to avoid controversies. According to the source, Hussein fears to lose all he has gained, and "Abbas knows he will never jeopardize his position."
For three months the new grand mufti followed Abbas' expectations. People who came to listen to him preach on Fridays in Al-Aqsa Mosque never heard him inciting against Israel. His fatwas (religious decrees) also avoided such controversial statements.
Hussein explains that the authority of the grand mufti was wide-ranging.
"We discuss worship, personal issues, economic issues, social issues and political issues – everything which is related to Islam."
Hussein went on to explain that the mufti discusses all aspects of Islam, including politics.
And then he made a surprising comment.
"It is the Palestinian people's right to engage in resistance until the occupation ends. As long as the resistance is legitimate, everything related to it is also legitimate."
Asked to express his view with regard to suicide bombing, the mufti answered: "It is legitimate, of course, as long as it plays a role in the resistance."...
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.