"They aren’t people, they’re animals!" cried a young woman to a television reporter immediately after another suicide bombing in Jerusalem. We can understand her outburst and sympathize. Bombing civilian men, women, and children is a beastly act, one that deserves the strongest possible ethical condemnation. Even in the conduct of war, some deeds are morally wrong. No matter who does it or how often, intentionally attacking noncombatant citizens is one of these. Enough!

Nevertheless, although we can understand this young woman’s cry, we should not endorse what she said. The Palestinians are not animals. They are people too. They love their homeland, cherish their children, and long for peace. When their friends and relatives are wounded, they suffer. When those they treasure are killed, they struggle with sorrow for the rest of their lives. They find the dark hours between sundown and sunrise when they should be sleeping especially difficult. One way or another, either in suicide or in less dramatic surrenders, some die just to escape their unending grief. In all these ways and many others, they are just like us. We cannot deny their humanity without denigrating our own.

What the young woman cried might be somewhat worthier of our support if it pertained, not to all Palestinians, but only to those who attack noncombatant citizens, just as it might apply to those members of other groups who also act so terribly. Even here, however, we are usually on safer ground if we condemn deeds instead of those who commit them. It is much easier to realize that some actions are wrong than it is to know that those who perform them are evil.

In order to be certain about the second possibility, we would have to understand the inner lives of those whose actions we rightly deplore. How do they perceive the world? What are their intentions and motivations? What are their dispositions and affections? Could they be honestly mistaken? Because good people sometimes do wrong things, just as bad people sometimes do right things, reliable answers to these questions are rare among men and women. "The Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart" (1 Sam. 16: 7 NRSV).

It is an unsettling irony that this young woman’s cry echoes the deceits of those in another time and place who justified the Holocaust partly because they believed its victims were not really human beings but dirty and dangerous vermin. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot protest the defilement of own humanity while simultaneously degrading the humanity of others. Unfortunately, some political leaders around the world leave the impression that this young woman’s spontaneous lament is their studied policy. Her cry is understandable, their creeds aren’t.

It is wrong for Palestinians to continue speaking in favor of driving Israelis into the Mediterranean as though expelling snakes. It is wrong for Israelis to continue evicting Palestinians from their villages and fields as though banishing rodents. The most formal of all moral rules still applies: equals in equal circumstances ought to be treated equally.

In view of all that has happened, genuine perplexity must taunt those who are fostering peace in that part of the world. Of this we can be certain, however: things can only worsen as long as many Israelis and Palestinians remain more devoted to avenging past injustices than they are to forging new alliances that will give them all genuine opportunities to flourish. Sometimes the only way forward is to stop looking backward. This is one of those cases.

Scripture teaches that it is a good idea to give up the hope of getting even. "’Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ No, if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink: for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12: 18-21 NRSV). Following this advice would be more effective and efficient than many current policies.

We know what happens when every reprehensible deed prompts an equally pathological response. Why not support a different approach?

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE