What standards do you want to impose on the right of the Palestinians to resist occupation? Attacks on soldiers is terrorism?

There is no attempt anymore to try to introduce a working definition of terrorism which does not betray the political interests of terrorists and war criminals and occupiers.  When I first came to US, Zionist mainstream media (and all mainstream media are Zionists as are non-mainstream media in this weird country) grudgingly accepted that terrorism really refers to attacks on civilians.  This definition has been really discarded.  The working US government and media definition of terrorism is now basically a reference to violence against soldiers or people we like, and that violence against civilians and soldiers we don't like is praiseworthy "struggle" or "revolution"--as in the case of Syria. So the attack in Jerusalem was directed against soldiers.  How did the New York Times refer to the attack?  "Israel buried its latest terrorism victims on Monday".  No, notice how many times the Times referred to the armed terrorist soldiers as "children" and it gave their ages so that readers can sympathize with them.  In the last year the ratio of death between Israelis and Palestinians was close to 1-14, in favor of Israelis.  But those Palestinian unarmed victims are never regarded as victims of terrorism while armed Israeli terrorists are seen as victims of terrorism when they are targeted by the occupied.  What I like about Zionists is that they are not even trying anymore.  They are just plain propagandists in the US media. And whenever an Israeli is killed--no matter of the circumstances--the funeral pictures will appear the next day in the Times.  Rarely if ever for Palestinian victims.  How can anyone who has a sense of humanitarian concern and decency and who believes in human equality ever work for a paper like the New York Times.  It is the paper where failed and inconsistent liberals can find their lousy refuge.