We have all learned the ritual. First come the explosions, the grief, the unbelief. How could anyone do such a thing to innocent men and women? Then, as predictably as the sound of emergency sirens follows a terrorist blast, come the calls for Muslim leaders to condemn the bombings.

When will Muslims rise up against terrorism, Westerners ask on both sides of the Atlantic. This will end, we are told, only when Muslim leaders make it clear to their people that suicide bombings constitute an affront to their humanity and their God.

All true, no doubt. But there is a secret about terrorism that nobody dares to mention: Westerners themselves, for all their sound and fury, have not wholeheartedly condemned terrorism. Not really. Not with the unequivocal conviction they now demand of Muslims.

The secret we have all heard with our own ears is that until now, terrorism, in its most frequent guise - against Israelis and Iraqis - is analyzed, explained, and all but forgiven by Europe's mainstream, by more than a few people in North America and by Mudcatters like CarolC and Dianavan. Terrorists are absolved as long as they are seen as weak or desperate, and their enemy is viewed as a cruel Goliath.

How could a young British Muslim growing up in Leeds, England, come to believe that a suicide bombing is an appropriate way to express a grievance? Very simple. He would watch the news. He would listen to the way British thinkers respond to bombings of Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorists, and to how terrorist attacks in Iraq are described.

In much of Europe, suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians do not receive anything remotely resembling the blanket condemnation demanded of Muslims after July 7.

This is not to argue that Israeli tactics must be embraced, or that the objectives of Palestinians must be rejected. But if the British want to tell the world - especially people living within their borders - that terrorism is wrong, they have to declare without nuance and equivocation that attacks designed and executed for the deliberate purpose of murdering civilians for political goals are morally wrong and completely unacceptable - always - no matter the victims, the perpetrators or the political views of either side. That is plainly not what has happened until now.

When the wave of suicide bombings slaughtering Israelis reached its most gruesome depths in 2002, with almost weekly bombings shattering lives and leaving human body parts strewn in cafes, buses and restaurants throughout Israel, the British took to the streets, and CarolC posted endlessly on Mudcat, to condemn Israel and express their sympathy for Palestinians. The terrorist bombings, by all appearances, were a huge success.

One year later, Mohammed Sadiq Khan travelled from London to Tel Aviv and helped organize a nightclub bombing that killed three Israelis. Then he returned to London and blew himself up in the July 7 attacks.
After the London bombings, British Home Secretary Charles Clarke told an emergency meeting of European ministers that the right not to be bombed to bits outweighs any other civil liberty.

That's now. But in April 2002, when Israelis were going out of their minds with grief and fear, the European public reacted with massive street demonstrations condemning Israel's admittedly draconian efforts to stop the bloodshed, and demanding that Israelis give in to Palestinian demands. Condemnation of anti-Israel terrorism was not high on the agenda.

What message would a young impressionable Muslim glean from such an event? If you feel strongly about a cause, blow yourself up. People will pay attention. They will agree with you, and your cause will benefit.

Paul Berman has a theory about the demonization of Israel in the face of the terrorist slaughter. For those who believe a rational logic governs the world, he argues, the only way to make sense of such acts is to portray Israel as deserving the punishment. And so, terrorism is explained and forgiven. Just look at the thousands of posts by CarolC on the topic over the past several years on Mudcat.

The British, and much of Europe, have grown so tolerant of terrorism that they refuse to call it by its real name. The policy of the BBC, and the London-based news agency Reuters, is not to use the word "terrorist" unless quoting someone else's words.

Even if you don't label it, bombing a train full of commuters is terrorism. And if you want to tell the world terrorism is wrong, you have to say exactly that. Otherwise, you'll find yourself wondering, how could it happen here?