"Law and Order" is not just a television show - it is a building block of society
Rockets may still be going off in Sderot, but that hasn't stopped Prime Minister Ehud Olmert from conjuring up new concessions to make to the Palestinians.

Media reports indicate that Olmert is now considering doing away with yet another Israeli "red line" by releasing Palestinian terrorists with "blood on their hands".

Or, to put it somewhat less delicately, it seems the premier is ready to let murderers go free.

On the one hand, this move is hardly surprising. After all, the government has made clear just how desperate it is to get an agreement with the Palestinians, seemingly at any price. And if Olmert and his colleagues are ready to expel hundreds of thousands of innocent people from their homes, divide our capital city and forego our nation's historic heartland, then is anyone really shocked at their readiness to perpetrate still another moral outrage?

And yet - there is something so elementary, so fundamentally wrong about setting killers free that one would have hoped that at least on this issue some shred of humanity and decency would have prevailed.

Swinging open the jail cells and letting killers walk is not an act of compassion or even political savvy. It is showing kindness to the cruel, and broadcasting a dangerous message to all of our foes: namely, that they can act with virtual impunity.

What Mr. Olmert seems to have forgotten is that "Law and Order" is not just a television show - it is a building block of society. And it weakens us all when those who commit the most heinous of crimes are allowed to escape the punishment they so justly deserve.

Are we really prepared to allow the tyrant of Teheran to threaten our very existence?
With Iran moving ever closer to obtaining nuclear weapons, there are some worrisome indications that the US and Israel may have suddenly developed cold feet about confronting the tyrant of Tehran.

1. An Iranian nuclear arsenal would transform the strategic dynamic of the entire Middle East, shifting the balance of power squarely in the direction of radical Shi'ite fundamentalism.
   
   An atomic Iran will be able to threaten the region and the world with nuclear blackmail and destruction, and they will use that leverage to further their fanatical and revolutionary aims.
   
2. A nuclear-armed Iran will pose an existential threat to Israel, and ultimately to the West too. Iranian leaders have repeatedly and explicitly promised to wipe Israel off the map and to strike at the United States.
   
   Teheran has been backing up its words with actions by steadily improving its ballistic missile capability. The Shihab-3 missile, with a range of 1,200 km, can hit all of Israel as well as US military targets in the Middle East. Iran is busy developing the Shihab-4, with a range of 2,000 km, that will put parts of Europe within striking distance. Teheran is also striving to build even longer-range intercontinental missiles that can hit the US as well. All of these weapons have the ability to deliver atomic warheads.
   
3. If Iran goes nuclear, it will inevitably tilt the neighboring Arab states further in the direction of extremism, as they seek to mollify the nuclear-armed ayatollahs. Whatever limited chances there might be of drawing at least some Arab states into the moderate camp are likely to be stymied rather quickly.
   
4. Failure to take action against Teheran will trigger a region-wide nuclear arms race, as countries throughout the Middle East will seek to achieve strategic and military parity.
   
   A number of states, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have already announced plans to build their own nuclear power plants, and others will undoubtedly do so as well out of fear of being left behind. Permitting Iran to go nuclear essentially paves the way to a Middle East that will be brimming with atomic weapons.
   
5. If Iran were to develop "the bomb," what is to stop them from putting it into the hands of one of the myriad anti-Israel and anti-American terrorist groups that they support, such as Hizbullah or Islamic Jihad? Do we really want to take a chance that terrorists might at last be able to get their hands on nuclear weapons? This is not some "neocon nightmare scenario" or "warmonger wishful-thinking."

--- from the November 21 Jerusalem Post

Once again, Israeli weakness has only served to encourage further Palestinian aggression
The Palestinians demonstrated once again yesterday just how truly interested they are in peace, when gunmen belonging to Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah faction murdered a 29-year old Israeli in a drive-by shooting in Samaria.

A spokesman for Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade proudly claimed responsibility for the act of terror, boasting to journalists that it was "a response to Israeli crimes".

The attack, not surprisingly, came just hours after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with Mahmoud Abbas to offer him still more concessions prior to the upcoming Annapolis conference.

And so, once again, Israeli weakness has only served to encourage further Palestinian aggression. After all, the Palestinians see that they can resort to violence with impunity, and use the threat of terror to pressure the Jewish state into still further capitulation.

The government barely even reacted to the incident, mumbling something about the need for the Palestinians to fight terror - as if after 14 years of Oslo, there is any chance of that happening......

And that is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all - namely, that it doesn't seem to occur to anyone in power that by giving away vital strategic assets, they are merely rewarding the murderers for their acts of violence, as well as setting the stage for still more to come.

Who in their right mind walks into a tough negotiation having already conceded the other side's point?
The Annapolis conference hasn't even convened yet, but Israel's government is already making concessions.

Unnamed government sources cited by the Ha'aretz newspaper say that in advance of the gathering, Israel will announce " a freeze on settlement construction... and will also declare its willingness to dismantle illegal West Bank settlement outposts".

These steps, according to the report, "are meant to make it clear that Israel does not intend to remain in the territories, and understands that its presence there is only temporary." Furthermore, Israel hopes that by making such a "gesture", it can convince Arab states such as Saudi Arabia to attend the conference.

Even if one puts aside for a moment the various ideological, historical and security reasons why Israel must retain control over Judea and Samaria, the Government's behavior is remarkably obtuse.

Who in their right mind walks into a tough negotiation having already conceded the other side's point? What possible logic is there in agreeing in advance to your foe's demands, without getting anything - anything! - in return?

It is this point which should disturb every single Israeli, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum, because it goes straight to the sheer incompetence and downright inanity of our current leadership. They are "negotiating the peace" the same way they handled the war in Lebanon: hastily, sloppily and ineptly.

And that most certainly does not bode well for the outcome.

If committed peace-processors such as Yossi Beilin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak were unable to solve the "core issues" in the decade after the Oslo Accords, then what makes Olmert think he can do so in just 12 months?
There is a big headline in the Ha'aretz newspaper today, and it's the kind of headline that makes you scratch your head and wonder about the sanity of those in positions of power.

"Olmert seeks accord on 'core issues' within a year", says the paper, noting in its report that, "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hopes to reach an agreement on all the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within a year, the premier said in conversations with both Israeli officials and foreign diplomats over the last few days."

Behind the rather innocuous-sounding term "core issues", of course, lie various matters such as the future of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees. If committed peace-processors such as Yossi Beilin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak were unable to solve the "core issues" in the decade after the Oslo Accords, then what makes Olmert think he can do so in just 12 months?

Moreover, it is astonishing just how Mr. Olmert's optimism is so radically disconnected from the reality on the ground. Even as he was busy having those conversations with Israeli and foreign officials, the Palestinians were ratcheting up their daily rocket attacks on Israel's southern cities.

And just with whom does Olmert plan to forge a deal? He is negotiating with Mahmoud Abbas, whose control over the Palestinians doesn't extend much beyond the desk of his secretary. So even if Olmert were to finalize matters with Abbas, what value would such a deal have in the first place?

Sometimes, it really, truly does seem that the Emperor has gone mad, as I'm sure many citizens of ancient Rome used to mutter to themselves from time to time. The only problem is that as he descends into madness, he runs the risk of taking the future of Israel with him.