"This is something natural, this is a response. [Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon] forced us to go to Netanya [to commit the Passover Massacre]. He made us go there. Are these sacred places while our children are killed by tanks? We will use all available methods and systems. When they want peace, we are ready for peace. Until then, it will be blood for blood."

These are the spine-chilling words of Brigadier General Sultan Abul Aynayn, the head of Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement in Lebanon, as quoted by reporter Charles Radin in the March 30 Boston Globe. Reporting from inside Al-Rashidiya Refugee Camp in Lebanon, Radin spoke with Aynayn the day after the end of the Arab League meeting, two days after the Passover Massacre, and on the same day that an 18-year-old Palestinian woman blew herself up outside a Jerusalem supermarket. Aynayn was referring to the Passover Massacre, but he could have been speaking about any of the suicide bombings before or since.

When the decision to blow oneself up is made by anyone — child, teenager, adult, female, or male — with the express purpose of killing civilians, and that act, no matter what its political context, is called "natural," then all concepts of rationality are ripped asunder, and all heretofore held beliefs of how to resolve any situation become irrelevant.

We Americans who are old enough to remember the Vietnam War can never forget the horror engendered by reports and images of US soldiers killing little children and women — although the soldiers had justifiably come to fear them as death-delivering human weapons of the Viet Cong. It remains completely incomprehensible to any civilized human being that, even in war, uniformed US soldiers would be driven to the point of intentionally shooting non-uniformed men, women, and children as acts of self-preservation. From many thousands of miles away, through our living-room television sets, we watched and listened to such reports and simply could not believe that we — Americans, our soldiers, our "boys" — could be so cruel and inhumane. (Just as we could never understand the Japanese kamikazes, we could not understand why the Viet Cong would send their citizens out to commit such acts in the first place. But even so, for Americans to protectively shoot civilians was beyond our understanding.) It was the war that we as a nation came to hate, I think in great measure because we could no longer see ourselves as honorable warriors in an honorable effort. Through the process of political protest, we forced our government to end our involvement. But when our soldiers returned, rather than laud them for their efforts, we shunned and degraded them for partaking in a dishonorable war and acting in the dishonorable ways we had seen.

Likewise, in Israel today, many among the general population and even in the military abhor their country’s occupation of parts of the West Bank and Gaza, decry the plight of the Palestinians, and loudly criticize their government’s methodologies of forced containment and protection. Even today, these people would give up much to achieve peace. They are not, however, willing to give up their entire nation to that end. As each day passes, they see their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children, friends, and neighbors — as they shop, or sit in a restaurant, or wait for a bus, or celebrate a wedding or holiday, or attempt to carry on any of life’s ordinary activities — killed by ordinary-appearing Palestinian men, women, and teenaged suicide bombers. With every act of such terrorism, the notion of shooting first and asking questions later of any Palestinian who might seem suspicious grows exponentially more acceptable to Israelis.

Inconceivable, impossible, this just couldn’t happen — that’s the natural response to such a thought. And yet, according to the Hezbollah brigadier general and Chairman Arafat loyalist Sultan Abul Aynayn, this form of terrorism "is something natural, this is a response."

If it were Israel, rather than the Palestinians, that had adopted this behavior and proffered such an explanation, what response might come from Washington, the capitals of our so-called Western allies, and the leaders of the 22 Arab League members who just declared their unanimous support of "a bold new vision" for attaining peace and "normalization" of relations with Israel? We can only imagine their reaction. Here’s what we don’t have to imagine: with the sole exception of President Bush’s rare, forceful, unequivocal support and expression of understanding of Israel’s actions as a means of self-defense, no other leader, from the West to the Middle East, has condemned these insidious acts. Rather, they remain silent or continue to blame Israel.

Let us also ponder what response will follow when a radical Arab Muslim, a Saudi citizen and supporter of fellow Saudi Osama bin Laden, blows him- or herself up in a downtown restaurant in Riyadh? Or it starts to happen in the capital cities and towns of Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, or any of the 22 Arab League member nations? It is probably more than safe to suggest that by comparison, Israel’s response to terrorism will appear restrained.

Finally, let us ponder how we here in the United States — who, for a while at least, were emotionally (if not physically) paralyzed by the events of September 11 — might react when confronted by the same kind of terrorist acts by these same people. After all, it is we, along with Israel, who are held responsible for the plight of the Palestinians. And if you doubt that or believe that only supporters of Al Qaeda feel such motivating hatred toward us, here are more words of Brigadier General Aynayn from Radin’s Globe article: "Only the Americans can stop this massacre. They can stop the massacre with one phone call. If there is harm to one hair of the head of Arafat, the United States should protect its interests all over the world." In the face of such threats, even the most ardent advocates of our constitutionally guaranteed civil rights might argue with the Ashcrofts of this country for, at minimum, the internment of every Arab Muslim in this country. Civil rights — forget about them. Lock ‘em up first, and figure it out later.

But, despite the Bush administration’s latest strong words of support for Israel’s actions following the Passover Massacre and the clearest US statement in recent times that Arafat and the leaders of all nations who want to end terrorism must do more to stop the suicide bombings and clearly condemn the Palestinian terrorists’ deeds, the silence of those leaders is deafening. And, perhaps most disturbing, many Americans still believe that the Palestinians are justified in their actions because Israel, as the better-armed occupier, somehow deserves it. (Given our country’s vigorous response to the attacks of September 11, it is hard, especially for Jewish Americans, not to wonder why so many here still find excuses for Palestinian behavior without at least speculating that their attitudes are molded by anti-Semitism, which credible reports indicate is enjoying newfound, worldwide resonance.)

In the end, whatever the provocation, it is unlikely that Israeli soldiers or citizens will start shooting to kill young Palestinians who merely look suspicious. But sadly, it seems equally unlikely that Western and Middle Eastern leaders will rise up, speak out, or do much more than continue the same rhetoric they have uttered for years — decrying the state of the Palestinians and condemning Israel. That is, until they are confronted by their own terrorists who kill their own civilians — and respond with their own drastic measures. Would that, too, be "something natural"?

Stephen M. Mindich can be reached at smindich[a]phx.com.