Few things are more despicable than moral equivocation. Yet ever since the social revolution of the 1960s took hold, the citizens of Western nations in general, and America in particular, have slowly grown accustomed to “splitting the difference” between good and evil. The latest incarnation of this abandonment of principles is the so-called "truce" between Hamas and Israel. It represents nothing more than a reiteration of Albert Einstein’s immortal definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result each time.

This time, like every other time, the script was written long before any of the current machinations took place. Here is the standard formula that never changes, not even one iota:

1.  Hamas, Hezbollah or some other terrorist entity perpetrates some form of violence against Israel until they reach a breaking point.

2.  Israel first responds with surgical strikes.

3.  The terrorist entity ramps up the violence, and Israel responds in kind.

4.  The terrorist death toll mounts, due in large part to the reality that they put their military ordinance among the civilian population.

5.  The mounting death toll is exploited by terrorists, who enlist the aid of the useful idiots in the media.

6.  The media willfully cooperates, publishing “heart-breaking” pictures of terrorist casualties (real or faked), and begin disseminating columns and articles about Israel’s “disproportionate response.”

7.  The so-called International Community picks up on that motif, and begins to condemn Israel, even as the terrorist violence becomes irrelevant.

8.  The resultant pressure forces Israel to back off, and a “truce” is secured.

9.  The negotiators pat themselves and each other on the back for averting a “greater crisis.”

10. The International Community once again urges a “jump start” to “peace talks” that involve concessions from Israel, and nothing in return from the terrorists.

11. The International Community stops paying attention.

1. After a period of faux-calm, terrorist activity resumes against Israel, and the whole cycle begins all over again.

This formula is so rigid, that even when evil clarifies itself succinctly, it can be swept aside. In this case, the Hamas military wing known as Izzedine al-Qassam made it crystal clear that the summary execution of six of their fellow Palestinians accused of “spying” for Israel – absent anything remotely resembling due process – can be studiously ignored by those for whom splitting the difference dictates such an imperative.

Not that Izzedine al-Qassam made it easy for the moral midgets. Four masked men pulled the six “collaborators” out of a van at a public intersection, where they were made to lie face down on the street. Each one was shot in the head and killed. After that, one of the dead men was cabled to the back of motorcycle and dragged through the streets. 24-year-old Ashraf Maher illuminated the feelings of his fellow Palestinians. "They should have been killed in a more brutal fashion so others don’t even think about working with the occupation,“ he contended.

Initially there was a YouTube video depicting the savagery. The website removed it, citing their policy of not disseminating "shocking and disgusting content.” The Daily Mail was less sensitive, publishing these pictures of the atrocity. In the comments section underneath the story, one person neatly summed up the position of the moral equivocators. “110 Palestinians to 3 Israelis. Need I say more? shame on all of you zionists,” read the comment.

This then, is the ultimate destination of  “fairness.” It is no longer enough that the living must be subjected government-enforced rigors of equal outcome. Casualties of war must now be totted up in order to determine who is good and who is evil, and whether or not Israel is “justified” in defending itself against those who yearn for its annihilation – and make no secret of the fact.

No one illuminated the bankruptcy of such “fairness” better than MSNBC correspondent Mara Schiavocampo, who asked this question during an interview with Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. "Living under the threat of rocket attack is certainly a psychological trauma. But what would you say to those who argue that the rockets are essentially very ineffective, they rarely do damage and that the response from Israelis is disproportional to the threat they’re under?“ she asked. In other words, Israel’s response to the barrage of 12,000 rockets and mortars lobbed at their civilian population since 2009 is disproportionate – because an insufficient number of Israelis have been killed or wounded by them, due their ineffectiveness.

Yet time, and technology marches on. Israel’s Iron Dome antimissile defense was deemed a "game changer” due to its 90 percent success rate in shooting down Hamas’s Iranian-supplied Fajr 5 missiles, some of which were aimed at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. That means ten percent of the missiles got through. It also means that both of Israel’s most populous cities are now in missile range.

Perhaps a technological breakthrough will provide Hamas or some other terrorist entity with their own “game changer,” as in the kind of advanced missile technology, or warhead capability, that ensures the next time they ramp up their bloodthirsty ambitions – and make no mistake: there will be a next time – that the kind of “fairness” sought by the moral equivocators in government, the media, and the International Community, will be achieved.

All Israel bought itself was time. And time is not on its side. Yet for those utterly bereft of integrity and moral character, time is more than enough.

Arnold Ahlert is a columnist for FrontPage Magazine.