The recent violence in the Middle East has polarized many people in the world. The idea of a people searching for a home generates a visceral, gut reaction. As does a people attempting to protect itself from terrorism. As does the death of so many people in a land three major religions consider holy. So it generates strong feelings, either one way or the other, or on neither side, just hoping the violence will end.

Essentially, there are two major problems: Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and Palestine's use of terrorism against Israeli citizens. So many people who've expressed their opinions usually only consider one problem and completely ignore the other. Or, they pronounce a moral equivalence between the two.

But in this case, the problems are not morally equivalent. They are also not conjoined problems; they can be solved separately. In fact, they must be considered separately, because while the Palestinians' claims have merit, their actions do not.

People who support the Palestinians either totally dismiss the suicide bombings that have killed Israeli citizens or claim that the terrorists are freedom fighters for the worthy cause of the ending of Israeli occupation and the creation of a Palestinian homeland. For example, Palestinian Representative to the United States Hassan Abdel Rahman said on "Meet The Press" last week that the occupation is "a systematic, constant terror directed against [the Palestinians] and against their lives because it steals from them their dignity, their livelihood."

Does he have a point? Of course. But however noble the means, nothing justifies the use of terror against innocent civilians. This has been official U.S. policy since Sept. 11, echoed by all the responsible nations of the world. And the organizations responsible for the suicide attacks — Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and others — should be familiar to all of us, considering we declared war on them for associating with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda group.

The most recent intifada began shortly after Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat pulled out of the conference with President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at Camp David in late 2000. Arafat was given very generous concessions, but the poison pill was that the terrorism must stop. He walked away.

This has been the stumbling block of every major peace negotiation. Arafat and his cronies simply refuse to end the violence, hoping that civilian death will force the Israelis into giving away more land. For once, the Israelis are fighting fire with fire instead of negotiations. When Arafat did not call off the intifada, the Israelis moved in.

Let's deal with some empty rhetoric right here. First, Palestinian sympathizers argue that there is no way that Arafat can stop the terrorists while under virtual house arrest in Ramallah. However true this may be, he has not even tried. In fact, he recently encouraged more Palestinians to become suicide bombers and "sacrifice themselves as martyrs in jihad for Palestine," according to USA Today.

Second, the moral equivalency crowd counters that in the recent military action, Israeli soldiers have killed as many as 250 Palestinians, many of them innocents, women and children. However, deliberate terroristic targeting of civilians must not be confused with the accidental collateral damage that is a tragic yet unavoidable consequence of legitimate warfare. As an act of self-defense, Israel has the right to move into Palestinian land to root out the terrorists whose only goal is the destruction of the Jewish state, just as the United States attacked Afghanistan following the Sept. 11 attacks.

Third, pro-Palestinians claim that the Israelis are violating Palestinians' human rights by herding them into refugee camps and not allowing such things as emergency vehicles in. That is indeed lamentable, but it's a result of terrorism. The terrorists have so effectively blurred the lines between themselves and the innocent that the Israelis can't trust anyone. Is that ambulance going to pick up injured Palestinians, or will it be driven into a crowded Israeli village? Is that young mother really going to get food for her child, or to blow herself up in a busy town square? The current plight of the Palestinians is on the hands of Yasser Arafat, not the Israelis.

The Israelis also have responsibilities. Once they have destroyed the terrorist cells and once Palestine is ready to be ruled by a stable, peace-loving government, nothing would justify them further occupying Palestinian territory. So, they should pull out as instructed by President Bush and the U.N. Security Council, as well as the much-vaunted Saudi peace initiative. While this would leave them in a precarious defensive position, being as narrow as nine miles wide in the middle and therefore vulnerable to an attack which would cut them in two, if the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world hold to their agreements, there may finally be a lasting peace in the Holy Land.

Mike Marchand, class of 2001, an analyst for RealClearPolitics and a contributor to The Politix Group, thinks "Ariel Sharon" isn't nearly as cool a name as "Benjamin Netanyahu." His e-mail address is Marchand.3@nd.edu. The final "Undistinguished Alumnus" appears April 29.

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Observer.

• Even in the Middle East, the ends do not justify the means
  
• Petition confirms student voice
  
• Quote of the Day
  
• Donor drive supports Domer