Tuesday, July 22, 2014

What The Press Isn't Reporting About The MH17 Disaster

Just days after the tragic crash of a Malaysian Airlines flight over eastern Ukraine, Western politicians and media joined together to gain the maximum propaganda value from the disaster. It had to be Russia; it had to be Putin, they said. President Obama held a press conference to claim – even before an investigation – that it was pro-Russian rebels in the region who were responsible. His ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, did the same at the UN Security Council – just one day after the crash!

While western media outlets rush to repeat government propaganda on the event, there are a few things they will not report.
They will not report that the crisis in Ukraine started late last year, when EU and US-supported protesters plotted the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych. Without US-sponsored “regime change,” it is unlikely that hundreds would have been killed in the unrest that followed. Nor would the Malaysian Airlines crash have happened. 

The media has reported that the plane must have been shot down by Russian forces or Russian-backed separatists, because the missile that reportedly brought down the plane was Russian made. But they will not report that the Ukrainian government also uses the exact same Russian-made weapons.

They will not report that the post-coup government in Kiev has, according to OSCE monitors, killed 250 people in the breakaway Lugansk region since June, including 20 killed as government forces bombed the city center the day after the plane crash! Most of these are civilians and together they roughly equal the number killed in the plane crash. By contrast, Russia has killed no one in Ukraine, and the separatists have struck largely military, not civilian, targets.

They will not report that the US has strongly backed the Ukrainian government in these attacks on civilians, which a State Department spokeswoman called “measured and moderate.”

They will not report that neither Russia nor the separatists in eastern Ukraine have anything to gain but everything to lose by shooting down a passenger liner full of civilians.

They will not report that the Ukrainian government has much to gain by pinning the attack on Russia, and that the Ukrainian prime minister has already expressed his pleasure that Russia is being blamed for the attack.

They will not report that the missile that apparently shot down the plane was from a sophisticated surface-to-air missile system that requires a good deal of training that the separatists do not have.

They will not report that the separatists in eastern Ukraine have inflicted considerable losses on the Ukrainian government in the week before the plane was downed.

They will not report how similar this is to last summer’s US claim that the Assad government in Syria had used poison gas against civilians in Ghouta. Assad was also gaining the upper hand in his struggle with US-backed rebels and the US claimed that the attack came from Syrian government positions. Then, US claims led us to the brink of another war in the Middle East. At the last minute public opposition forced Obama to back down – and we have learned since then that US claims about the gas attack were false.
Of course it is entirely possible that the Obama administration and the US media has it right this time, and Russia or the separatists in eastern Ukraine either purposely or inadvertently shot down this aircraft. The real point is, it's very difficult to get accurate information so everybody engages in propaganda. At this point it would be unwise to say the Russians did it, the Ukrainian government did it, or the rebels did it. Is it so hard to simply demand a real investigation?

Monday, July 21, 2014

Passenger Jet Shot Down, Russian Military Returns to Cuba





On July 17, 2014, AlertsUSA issued the following
related Flash messages to subscriber mobile devices:


7/17 - Malaysia Airlines 777 w/295 aboard crashes in Ukraine near Russian border. Flt from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.

7/17 - Interfax news agency reporting Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down from altitude of 10km by ground-based missile.

What You Need To Know


On multiple occasions this week AlertsUSA subscribes were notified via text messages to their mobile devices regarding the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH-17) in Ukraine near the border of Russia in the troubled Donetsk region. The aircraft was a Boeing 777-200 twin-engine passenger airliner that was en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur carrying 298, which includes passengers and crew.

U.S. intelligence sources state that the aircraft was shot down using a surface to air missile and both the Ukrainian and Russian governments are pointing their fingers at each other as being responsible.



To add some clarity to the blame game and to save readers time wading through the disinformation and redirects of the mainstream media, there is a high likelihood that the militaries of both the US and Russia knew within seconds of the launch of the missile, the location of the launcher, as well as the moment the missile's flight terminated with an impact on or near the aircraft.

While not spoken of widely in public forums, the U.S. and Russia both maintain extensive satellite surveillance capabilities and are constantly on the lookout for what are referred to as "special infrared events," which are the superheated exhaust plumes indicative of a missile launch. This, along considerable ground-based and airborne long-range radars deployed throughout the region, makes it extremely difficult to fly above a certain altitude and NOT be detected, even more so given this is a war zone. Both Russia and the NATO alliance go to great lengths to keep a close eye on what is happening across the three dimensional battlespace and there are few airborne surprises.

With this in mind, it is also safe to assume that while the national command authorities of the U.S., Russia and key NATO member states likely already know most of the details surrounding the event, comparatively little will be shared with civilian authorities or the media as to do so would reveal highly sensitive sources, methods and capabilities. It would also reduce options if, say..., explanations other than the truth were needed.

For instance, while most fingers are pointing toward Russian backed separatists as being responsible as they are already known to have downed multiple Ukrainian military aircraft in just the past few weeks (see this and this), there is another side to this story and as we have shown in the past, the standard mainstream narrative is often far from accurate.

That said, on Wednesday, just one day before the attack on the airliner, the Pentagon publicly expressed deep concerns over the renewed buildup of Russian forces on the Eastern border of Ukraine.

According to Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren:

“We believe there are now between 10,000 and 12,000 Russian troops on the border. A few weeks ago, about 1,000 Russian soldiers were along the border. I can’t speak for what they intend to do. Certainly, it is intimidating.”

Suffice it to say this incident and other recent events dramatically compounds tensions in the region and globally. NATO member states are now operating at heightened states of alert, increasing defensive patrols and civil aviation authorities worldwide are directing commercial airlines to completely avoid Ukrainian airspace.


RUSSIAN MILITARY TO RETURN TO CUBA

With tension between the U.S. and Russia at their highest point since the days of the Cold War, this week Russia announced a new agreement with Cuba to reopen a powerful electronic surveillance station on the island near the city of Lourdes located approximately 20 miles South of Havana.



Before it was mothballed in 2001 due to a closer relationship with the U.S., the station was Russia's largest signals intelligence facility abroad, measuring 28 square miles in size and hosting upwards of 3000 intelligence, military and engineering personnel. Given the decline in relations with the U.S. over the last several years and Russia's increased military presence in this hemisphere, the decision was made to reopen the facility.

The agreement finalizing the move was reportedly signed late last week during Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to the island.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Obedience and Responsibility

By John MacArthur and originally published at gty.org  
Sanctification is work. Hard work. But whose work is it?
For the biblical answer to that question, we’ve been examining Paul’s teaching in Philippians 2:12-13, in which he highlights the cooperative nature of sanctification. 
So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
Clearly the believer bears the responsibility for his spiritual growth. But that work is impossible apart from the power of God. Paul’s point is that it is cooperative work, and he highlights several vital truths that sustain believers as they “work out [their] salvation.”
Last time we looked at the first two of those sustaining truths that growing believers must understand. Today we’ll consider two more.
Understanding Obedience
The third crucial element of believers’ working out their sanctification is understanding the need for obedience to the Lord. Paul encourages the Philippians to continue in faithful submission to God’s will. “Obeyed” translates a compound verb composed of the preposition hupo and the verb akouĊ, from which we get the word acoustics. The compound verb has the basic meaning of placing oneself under what has been heard, and therefore of submitting and obeying. A believer obviously must listen to God’s Word if he is to be obedient to it, so this is indirectly an appeal for believers to continue to study and obey Scripture (cf. Matthew 28:19–20).
God’s command to Peter, James, and John on the mount of transfiguration is His command to everyone: “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!” (Matthew 17:5). To preach the gospel is more than merely sharing one’s faith and offering an invitation; it is to call sinners to obey God, “to bring about the obedience of faith . . . for His name’s sake” (Romans 1:5). To be saved is to “obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thessalonians 1:8), a point emphasized by Christ’s exhortation in John 3:36: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (emphasis added).
Believers are to “be careful how [they] walk, not as unwise men but as wise” (Ephesians 5:15). Paul wrote to Titus:
Concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men.” (Titus 3:8)
The writer of Hebrews charges fellow believers: “Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience” (Hebrews 4:11). Jesus’ Great Commission includes the command to teach converts from “all the nations . . . to observe all that I commanded you” (Matthew 28:19–20). Obedience is essential to sanctification. True spiritual growth cannot take place without it.
Understanding Responsibility
In addition to understanding the need for obedience, believers must also understand to Whom they are responsible.
Because believers are sinful, they are inclined to be self-justifying, blaming circumstances or other people for their problems and failures. Paul commends the Philippians for their faithful pattern of obedience to Christ while they were in his presence. But he goes on to say that they were just as obligated to obey during his absence.
The believers at Philippi enjoyed the great privilege of knowing Paul intimately. He was perhaps the greatest teacher of God’s Word the world has ever seen—except, of course, for the Lord Himself—but Paul was also their friend. It’s safe to assume that many of the Philippians developed an exceptionally strong dependence on him.
But at the time of this writing, Paul was hundreds of miles away, incarcerated in Rome. The only means of contact were letters (including the epistle before us), and occasional reports from mutual friends. But as disappointing and challenging as the situation was, Paul reminds them that their spiritual responsibility was not to him but to the Lord. Paul expected them to obey in spite of his absence.
The apostle repeats an admonition he made earlier.
Conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel. (Philippians 1:27)
His point is that there is never a time when a true believer is not responsible to obey the Lord. Believers must never be primarily dependent on their pastor, teacher, Christian fellowship, or anyone else for their spiritual strength and growth.
That dependance on God is the essence of the cooperative nature of sanctification. We can’t manufacture true spiritual growth on our own. Only through His power can we break old sinful habits and grow in the likeness of His Son. And these five crucial truths from Paul’s charge to the Philippians help sustain us in that self-disciplining work. Next time, we’ll look at the last sustaining truth.
 

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Malaysian Jet Shot Down, Israel Invades Gaza, U.S. Border Crisis


4.jpgBy Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com  
Only three stories in the Weekly News Wrap-Up, but they all have something in common.  They all will have cascading effects that will go on for some time to come.  First up, the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over Eastern Ukraine.  Nearly 300 people are dead; and of that total, nearly two dozen are reportedly U.S. citizens.  Everybody is pointing the finger at the other side.  The Ukrainians say it’s Russia’s fault.  The Pro-Russian separatists say it’s Ukraine’s fault, and so does Russia.  No matter whose fault it is, new sanctions and war tensions are mounting.   The President has already ratcheted up more sanctions this week because of Russia’s continued support of the separatists.  More sanctions on Russia are surely coming.  The missiles that shot down the Malaysian jet were from Russia.  Other planes were shot down by the separatists with Russian missiles.  Now, the situation is being elevated up to a whole new level.  Sanctions are likely going to increase; and this time, maybe even the Europeans will level meaningful sanctions.  Putin has already stated that any new U.S. sanctions“will boomerang and cause very serious damage.”  I think the damage Putin is talking about is damage to the U.S. dollar and Western economies.  This could not come at a worse time.  The U.S. economy is weak and just suffered negative 3% plunge in the first quarter.  Banks in Europe are already defaulting on debt, and most are in big financial trouble.  War and sanctions can cause a daisy chain of defaults that can go global.  There are the hundreds of trillions in interest rate derivative exposure in the global system, and the entire financial system can crash and crash hard.  That’s just the financial risk.  The war risk is also very real; and even if we do avoid war, the fear of war can be an economy killer.  A realtor friend told me as soon as one of her clients heard of the downed jet, they called and cancelled plans to buy a new home.  Multiply that all across the country.
The second story that has the potential to cascade out of control–the war now taking place in Israel.  The Israelis invaded Gaza and have called up nearly 60,000 troops.  I told you last week I thought Israel was going to try to knock out Hamas and stop them from firing hundreds of rockets into Israel.  That is what is happening now.  When I heard of an Egyptian brokered cease-fire, I thought the crisis would end.  Much to my surprise, Hamas did not stop firing rockets; and after several hours of rocket attacks, Israel continued its offensive called “Protective Edge.”  The U.N. brokered another cease-fire later in the week; and once again, Hamas started firing more rockets after just 2 hours.  There are reports that Hamas is shooting rockets from schools and hospitals.  Of course, when the Israelis respond, they end up killing women and children.  Even the U.N. admitted this week it found Hamas rockets hidden in a U.N. school.   I do not know what Hamas is trying to do?  Are they just turning up the body count to garner global sympathy?  Are they trying to bait the Israelis into a trap similar to what happened in Southern Lebanon several years ago?  (The Israelis took heavy losses in Southern Lebanon.)  I do not know what Hamas is trying to accomplish, but I do know that the relative peace we have had for the past few years has ended.  This will be an ongoing war that could cascade out of control and spread to the rest of the Middle East.  This is going to get much worse before it gets better.  There will be heavy losses on both sides in this latest ground campaign.  There will be no winners—only losers.
Finally, I go to the Southern border of the United States.  According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Southern border is “secure.” Senator Reid must be delusional because illegal immigrants of all ages are flooding across the border.  Gang members, drug runners and even suspected terrorists are making it across the border.  This is a full blown national security issue, and the President and his minions refuse to send the National Guard to help seal it off.  On top of that, ABC News is reporting the numbers of illegals flooding the border makes it impossible to medically screen them.  ABC says there immigrants with “high fevers, flu-like symptoms and contagious diseases.”  The government is shipping people all across the country, which is a way to fast track sick and diseased people everywhere.  There are also reports of “chicken pox, pneumonia and swine flu.”  What is going to happen in six weeks when school starts again?  Former Border Patrol agents say the border crisis is the result of Obama Administration policies.  They also feel it is orchestrated.  The crisis is nowhere near resolved, and this too can cascade out of control, weaken the country and might even help cause the next terror attack on U.S. soil.  The Ukraine crisis, Israel/Hamas war and the border crisis are all happening at the same time.  Do something Mr. President, and tell your fellow Democrats to please stop lying to us.
Join Greg Hunter as he talks about these stories and more in the weekly News Wrap-Up.

Friday, July 18, 2014

Was Flight MH-17 Diverted Over Restricted Airspace?

Originally published at zerohedge.com
While there are various questions that have already emerged from what was supposed to be Ukraine's "slam dunk" proof confirming Russian rebel involvement in today's MH-17 tragedy, perhaps one just as gaping question emerges when one looks at what is clearly an outlier flight path in today's final, and tragic, departure of the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777.
Perhaps the best visualization of what the issue is, comes from Vagelis Karmiros who has collated all the recent MH-17 flight paths as tracked by Flightaware and shows that while all ten most recent paths pass safely well south of the Donetsk region, and cross the zone above the Sea of Azov, it was only today's tragic flight that passed straight overhead Donetsk.

Why is the diversion from the traditional flight path and passage over the highlighted zone a concern? Because as the following map from the WSJ shows this is precisely where the restricted airspace is.

So perhaps before coming to "certain" conclusion about the involvement of this rebel or that, the key questions one should ask before casting blame, is why did the pilot divert from his usual flight plan, why did he fly above restricted airspace, and just what, if any instructions, did Kiev air control give the pilot in the minutes before the tragic explosion?

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Robbing Peter

By Jeff Thomas and originally published at internationalman.com

“A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” – George Bernard Shaw
“Since the beginning of recorded history, the business of government has been wealth confiscation.” – Ron Holland
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” – Vladimir Lenin
On 16th March 2013, the banks of Cyprus, with the approval of the Cyprus Government, the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, confiscated private savings of accounts exceeding €100,000.
At the time, there were two readings of the unanimous approval by four bodies. As the confiscation was presented to the public, the unanimous approval implied that the confiscation was above board. To those who looked a bit deeper, however, the unanimous approval meant that, not only had the four bodies clearly been working on the plan for some time, behind closed doors, but it also demonstrated that all four bodies colluded to steal a significant amount of privately owned money.
For those of us who took the latter view, the confiscation meant that there would be more to come—that Cyprus was being used as a test case. If successful—that is, if the world did not immediately express outrage over the theft—a precedent would be set whereby the EU, the IMF, and presumably any of the banks and governments of the world could assume that it was alright to confiscate private funds, so long as there was an “emergency.”
As it turned out, they got away with it. There was no great outrage—very possibly because so few people in the world were directly impacted, so they were not especially bothered.
However, the precedent had been set, and at the time, I predicted that this was a test case and that the Cyprus model would spread.
I subsequently wrote a follow-up article, when Canada wrote into its 2013 budget that the Canadian banks could perform their own bail-in, should they find themselves in a state of “emergency.”
But, in fact, this did not begin with Cyprus. It began in November of 2010 in a meeting of the G20 countries, all of whom agreed to the concept of a bail-in. Since then, under the UK Banking Act 2009, legislation allowing bail-ins was passed in the UK. The US followed with the Dodd Frank Act of 2010. Switzerland followed in 2013 with a revision of the 1934 Banking Act. Other countries followed—some having completed legislation, some still in the works.
Now, on 4th July, Spain announced that it would impose a blanket taxation on all bank accounts at the rate of 0.03% for the purpose of “Harmonizing tax regimes and generating revenues.”
Spain may defend its decision by pointing out that it has one of the lowest tax takes in the European Union, which is true. However, what should be the issue here is not the amount of tax being imposed, but the principle upon which the tax is being taken. Let there be no doubt about this bail-in or any other—it is pure theft.
There will be those who are shortsighted, who may point to the tax rate of 0.03% being low. But history shows us that, over time, once a taxationconcept is accepted by those being taxed, the rate tends to be increased over time. (All taxes start out small.)
The measure in Spain is also an advance on the concept that, as long as an emergency is perceived to exist, confiscation is justified. In Spain, no emergency situation is being pretended; they simply want the money and have decided to take it.
There are a number of points that the reader may wish to consider, even if he does not reside in Spain:
  • Since the initial confiscation in Cyprus attracted the approval of the EU and the IMF, it should not come as a surprise if the EU passes bail-in legislation. (Indeed such legislation is now in the works.)
  • It is unlikely that people who bank in any G20 country are safe, even if they do not as yet have bail-in legislation, as they may be next.
  • Should the US and /or the EU replace their paper currencies with plastic debit cards, as has been suggested, those who live in those jurisdictions will have no choice but to rely on banks as the clearing houses for all monetary transactions, once paper currency is eliminated. This, coupled with bail-in legislation would render allpersonal and corporate funds open to confiscation.
It does appear as though the table is being set for the citizens of all the G20 countries to be subject to legalised theft by their banks and/or governments. The question then to be asked would be, “How can I steer clear of this outrage, either in whole or in part?”
First, it might be wise to establish banking in another jurisdiction where, at the very least, confiscation legislation does not appear to be under discussion.
Second, it might be wise to establish a home base of some sort in another jurisdiction, in order to further diversify your risk.
Third, should you choose to remain in your present jurisdiction either full or part time, it might be wise to retain only three months expense money in banks in that jurisdiction, to minimise the possible loss-level.
Fourth, it might be wise to move a significant portion of your cash into investments that would be difficult, if not impossible, to confiscate. (Those who advise on internationalisation tend to recommend real property and precious metals as the two safest choices. Such investments should be outside of the endangered jurisdictions.)
Fifth, other types of confiscation are planned by some jurisdictions—notably with regard to retirement funds, through the demand that retirement funds be invested in government treasuries and/or bank debt. (It might be wise to move these funds elsewhere internationally as well.)
Sixth, it might be wise to resolve all of the above issues as soon as possible. Once legislation is in place, exiting from confiscatory laws may become impossible. Certainly, as in Spain, there will be no warning offered by governments. One day, you will own your deposit, the next day you may not.
One last note: In robbing Peter, the individuals performing the robbery will not be dressed like the individual in the photo above. They will be wearing suits, and they will present themselves as legitimate authorities, carrying out the law. Unlike a customary robbery, there will be no authority to complain to; there will be no means of recourse. Your wealth, however large or small, will be lost.

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

A Game Changer in Gaza

By Daniel Greenfield and originally published at sultanknish.blogspot.com
Terrorism is a game. The rules are simple. You have three choices. 1. Destroy the terrorists. 2. Live with terrorism. 3. Give in to the terrorists.

There are no other choices.

The first choice comes from the right. The third choice comes from the left. The second choice is 
what politicians choose when they don’t want to make a decision that will change the status quo.

Despite all the explosions in Gaza, Israel is still stuck on the second choice. The air strikes aren’t meant to destroy Hamas. They are being carried out to degrade its military capabilities which will buy a year or two of relative peace. And that will be followed by more of the same in the summer of 2016 when Hamas will have deadlier Iranian and Syrian weapons that will terrorize more of the country. 

That doesn’t sound like much of a deal, but these kinds of wars have bought more peace than the peace process ever did. The peace process led to wars. The wars lead to a temporary peace. 

This status quo became the mainstream choice ever since Israelis figured out that the peace process wasn’t going to work and that their leaders weren’t about to defy the UN, the US, the UK and all the other U’s by actually destroying the terrorists.

When Netanyahu first ran against Peres, the difference between the center-right and the center-left was that he campaigned on security first and appeasement second, while Peres campaigned on appeasement first and security second. The center-right has dominated Israeli politics because most Israelis accepted Likud’s security first as a more reasonable position than Labor’s appeasement first.

Living with terrorism was a viable choice in the 80s. It stopped being a viable choice after Israel allowed terrorist states to be set up under the peace process. It’s one thing to manage terrorism in territories that you control. It’s another thing to deal with entire terrorist states inside your borders. Even physical separation isn’t enough. Not when terrorist groups can shell all your major cities. 

Israel responds to that that threat with light air strikes which damage Hamas’ military capabilities. Hamas loses a few commanders, fighters and rockets, but scores a PR victory. Israel buys two years of peace while encouraging its enemies to attack it as a bunch of racist baby killers. Then Hamas replaces the rockets and fighters and launches a new operation and the whole thing begins again.

The left’s argument, framed by Washington Post pundits, Israeli leftists, Obama, assorted diplomats, retired security chiefs, activist busybodies funded by radical billionaires and the entire gang of foreign and domestic enemies, is that Israel has no choice except to default back to choice three; appeasement. 

Israel has to gamble on appeasement because its situation is constantly worsening, they argue. What they neglect to mention is that the situation is worsening as part of their pressure on Israel to appease terrorists even though the current problems exist because of earlier appeasement. 

“Drink this poison,” the doctors of diplomacy say. “It’ll cure you of all the aches and pains you’re suffering from the last time we told you to drink poison.”

“If you don’t drink more poison, you’ll get sicker and die,” they say. And if you do get sicker after drinking more poison, they’ll say it’s your own fault for not drinking enough poison. If only you had given away all of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the terrorists wouldn’t be attacking you again.

Israel has been caught between choices two and three, either live with terrorism or make concessions to terrorists, and it has been bouncing between these choices. 

People and politicians choose the option that causes the least pain at any given time. Israel chooses appeasement in response to international pressure. And when appeasement leads to terrorism, it does enough damage to Hamas to serve as a temporary deterrent, without leading to too much international outrage, again choosing the least painful option.

This is the true cycle that Israel is caught in. It’s not a cycle of violence. It’s a cycle of expediency. 

The first choice, destroying the terrorists, is the most painful option in the short term, but the least painful option in the long term. The third choice, appeasing the terrorists, causes the least pain in the short term, but the most pain in the long term and the medium term. The second choice, living with terrorism, is slightly more painful in the short term, less painful in the medium term, but still quite painful in the long term. 

Israelis have accepted short term and long term pain in exchange for a certain amount of relief in the immediate future. The occasional terrorist attack and the more ominous escalating conflict, an example of which we are seeing now, is accepted in exchange for a year or two of relative quiet.

It’s easy to criticize Israel for not finishing off Hamas, but let’s look at what is really standing in its way. Israeli Prime Minister Rabin deported 400 Hamas terrorists, including many Hamas leaders. In a Knesset speech he warned that, “We call on all nations and all people to devote their attention to the great danger inherent in Islamic fundamentalism. That is the real and serious danger which threatens the peace of the world in the forthcoming years.”

Instead the international community decided that the peace of the world was threatened by deporting Hamas terrorists. The media spent months covering the “suffering” of the deported Hamas terrorists. The United States voted for a UN resolution condemning Israel and ordering it to “insure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.”

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations said that deporting Hamas terrorists does "not contribute to current efforts for peace."

In 1988, Israel had deported a handful of Hamas and PLO terrorists. One of them, Jibril Mahmoud Rajub, vowed that if Israel didn’t let them back in that they would “infiltrate in as human bombs with explosives belted around our waists.”

Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead warned Israel that if it didn't reconsider the 
deportations "damage to our bilateral relations will occur."

If that was the reaction by the Reagan and Bush administrations to deporting a few terrorists, imagine the reaction by Obama and the EU to a comprehensive effort to force Hamas and the PLO out of Israel. And yet the inevitable can’t be postponed forever.

If Israel had not folded in the peace process, it might have been able to maintain the status quo of the intifada. But the second choice is no longer a viable long term option. The attacks have long since passed the point of mere terrorism and are taking place on a military scale. 

Tolerating terrorism has ceased to be a long term strategy. That is something that both the left and the right agree on. The attacks are pushing Israel into choosing either large scale conflict or large scale appeasement. Appeasing terrorists has failed every time. Only destroying them can work.

Israel has a left that is eager to embrace the destructive policies of appeasement without regard to the consequences. It needs a right that is equally heedless of consequences when it comes to war to overcome that pain threshold which prevents it from doing the right thing and reclaiming the future.