"We have achieved Peace with honour. I believe it is peace in our time.*" These words, spoken by the former British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain on October 10, 1938 were meant to soothe an anxious Europe. Desperate to avoid bloody confrontation, at almost any cost, Chamberlain and Daladier of France negotiated this "Peace" with Hitler's Germany by agreeing to let Germany occupy "only part" of Czechoslovakia.

Of course, history was to prove the words both naive and foolish, as less then a year later, Germany would break this agreement, occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia and turn its hungry eye towards Poland, thus igniting (officially) World War II. Chamberlain's diplomacy, indeed the very "Munich agreement," became mockingly known as the policy of "Appeasement," in order to punctuate the futility of appeasing expansionist totalitarian states.

In the 50 years following the Second World War, we have seen the rise of several "expansionist totalitarian states." These include the USSR swallowing the Baltic States, China swallowing Tibet, and Iraq swallowing Kuwait. Each time had its own "appeasers" hoping that "if we just give them what they want, maybe they'll leave us alone," and each time the appeasers have been proven just as naive and foolish as Chamberlain's Britain.

Today, another contender threatens world peace and stability: Iran. With a barely veiled drive towards nuclear armament, Iran has both the desire and soon the ability to transform vast parts of the world in its own image. Claiming to want only "peaceful atomic energy" the world's second largest oil supplier is not only being disingenuous, it is outright daring the rest of the world to do something about it. Never mind that for less than the money spent on its nuclear program, Iran could have supplied electricity for its people for years, if not decades. Iran is bellicosely asserting its "right" to nuclear production while at the same time offering nuggets of wisdom to the Muslim world such as "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury" and "we will wipe [the Jews] off the map." While scary enough from a fringe group, these comments are coming from Iran's head of state, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Today's Iran is becoming eerily reminiscent of 1930's Germany. The difference is that with Nuclear weapons, Iran would have the power to finish off what Hitler's holocaust could not; which is ironic as Ahmadinejad is on record declaring the original holocaust a "myth and an exaggeration."

The chorus of warnings regarding the waning window of opportunity to stop Iranian nuclear weapons research in the press has hit a new crescendo. Iran is now threatening to cut off its supply of oil to the world if we so much as talk about stopping proliferation at the UN Security council. They further threaten to accelerate their nuclear program if anyone tries to stop them. In short, they are doing anything possible to delay any action by the rest of the world until their "nuclear deterrent" is ready and can be presented as a fait-accompli.

Of course, the appeasement of Iranian militancy is not new; it has a long and troubling history.

On October 23, 1983, a delivery truck loaded with explosives drove straight into the Marine Barracks building in Beirut, Lebanon killing 241 US Servicemen. The orders for the attack were traced back to the Iranian revolutionary guards. On June 25, 1996 terrorists belonging to the Iranian sponsored Hizballah drove a truck bomb into the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia killing 19 US Servicemen and wounding 372 others. On October 12, 2000 the USS Cole was docked at the harbor at Aden, Yemen for refueling when a small craft exploded off its hull killing Seventeen sailors and injuring 39 others. Once again, evidence of the explosives used and personnel involved led back to Iran.

Following the USS Cole attack, Bill Clinton declared "If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable." Unfortunately the strong words were little more than bluster. Clinton did little more than launch a missile from an unmanned drone against just one of the operation's planners in the Yemeni desert. Iran has never been held accountable for any of these actions. Nor has Iran been taken to task over its sponsorship of Hizballah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or the many other terror organizations that have wreaked bloody mayhem throughout much of the world.

Britain's current prime minister, Tony Blair has said that "There are people in Iran, in the leadership, who believe that the world is sufficiently distracted with everything else that we can't really afford the time to focus on this issue. I think they will be making a very big mistake if they do that... their attitude towards Israel, their attitude towards terrorism, their attitude on the nuclear weapons issue; it isn't acceptable."

As in the 1930's we live in an anxious and dangerous time that threatens our way of life. Are we really willing to hand the keys to Armageddon to a country who has expressed the desire, ability, and history to take us there? We can not let a policy of appeasement in our time lead us down the road to World War III; the stakes are simply much too high this time around. Iran can be stopped if we take decisive action quickly.

Let's hope that instead of following Chamberlain's path of appeasement, we will choose to follow a path paved by another British Prime Minister that history remembers more fondly: Winston Churchill, who once answered "You ask what is our aim? I can answer that in one word, victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."

----------------------

* Chamberlain's "Peace in our Time" comment was actually meant to evoke an earlier triumph of a previous British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli proclaimed having achieved "Peace in our time," following the Congress of Berlin in 1878 which actually did secure a peace in Europe that was to last 35 years, until the onset of World War I.

When it comes to protecting the environment, I've been called a Democrat. When it comes to protecting the country, I've been called a Republican. When it comes to protecting ourselves from an overreaching government, I've been called a Libertarian. I mention all of this, in the interest of full disclosure, because if we are ever going to begin to solve the immensely complicated problem of health care in this country we are going to have to overcome all of these labels and ideologies and get back to reality.

Before we get into what can be done, first we need to break through a few myths:

1.) The U.S. doesn't have socialized medicine

Medicare and Medicaid account for almost a third of our tax spending on the Federal and State levels (see previous column, Health Carelessness for statistics.) While covering approximately 24% of the population, they amount for almost half of the health care dollars spent in this country. Established to cover the elderly and the poor, Medicare and Medicaid necessarily take the least desirable patients (from an actuarial perspective), leaving the less expensive young and able-bodied to the private sector. In essence we already have socialized medicine, but only for a quarter of the population and operating in one of the least financially expedient ways.

2.) We can never afford to insure the entire population

The U.S. spends over 15% of GDP on health care and yet approximately 14% of the population is uninsured. Most European countries with socialized systems spend between 7-12% of GDP to insure their entire populations. It is true that current Medicare and Medicaid spending are growing faster than our economy and as such are unsustainable. As designed, Medicare and Medicaid take the least economically desirable people thereby ensuring long term financial problems.

3.) Universal health care would create a massive new Federal bureaucracy

We already have a massive federal bureaucracy that administers Medicare and Medicaid. Even so, it is estimated that most HMO's spend 12-15 cents of every dollar in administration costs while Medicare and Medicaid spend less than 5 cents.

In order to solve the health care problem, much of the current system needs to be broken up and reorganized. This means no less than the moth-balling of Medicare and Medicaid, which are unsustainable anyway in favor of a system that can work for everyone. Some basic principles of a new national health care framework can look like this:

1.) National health insurance should compete with the private sector.

Instead of Medicare and Medicaid, we should establish a single government insurance plan that will compete in the marketplace. In order to prevent the current problem that the government insurance only receives the least desirable enrollees, we can pass a law making it illegal for insurances to "skim." By mandating that insurance companies must take anyone who wants to enroll we'll be eliminating the disadvantage that government insurance currently faces. Consumers would then be able to choose between government insurance and private insurance, and competition will ensure that the highest quality of care is being offered so as not to lose membership.

2.) Keep employer funding of health care.

Most health insurance in the U.S. is currently provided by employers to their employees. While many people are unhappy with their health coverage, some people are not. Employees should have the option of sticking with their company's plan or opting for the national system. Some companies have recently been gaining competitive advantage by hiring part time workers and not paying them benefits. Congress should pass a law similar to the "pay or play" proposals being offered in some states. The playing field needs to be leveled so that the burden of health care is borne by the entire economy and not by part. In this way companies who are happy with their health insurance can choose to keep things as is, while being offered a government sanctioned alternative. Companies who choose not to offer health insurance will "pay in" to the government insurance who will then cover their employees. The unemployed will be covered by the government insurance by default through the current tax system. No longer will we have so many "health care" bankruptcies that people are forced into so that they can qualify for Medicaid by losing everything they have.

3.) Keep health care providers private.

The U.S. health care network is, in many ways, the envy of the world. We have some of the best hospitals and some of the best doctors. Nothing should be done to jeopardize the quality of care. The government health insurance will be more insurance, less HMO. Furthermore, people will always have the option of paying more to receive care outside of the system, just as they do now.

4.) Tort reform - Reign in the lawyers

Besides huge administrative expenses, one of the biggest problems with our health care system is the massive cost of litigation. Laws must be passed to shield doctors and hospitals in what is, at best, the inexact science of medicine. Too many doctors' choices are influenced by a fear of lawsuits and not by good medicine. Removing some of that fear will not only bring down costs but allow for universal information systems and other good ideas that don't see the light of day in today's lawsuit crazed environment.

5.) Emergency Care

Some of the most expensive care offered by hospitals is care in the emergency room. Under our current system, emergency rooms are prohibited by law from turning patients away. With a national health insurance we can change that so that emergency rooms can take in those with insurance (which will be the vast majority since all will be covered in some way). In order to deal with the small number who are not covered (illegal immigrants, foreign uninsured, etc.) we can certify "authorized clinics" that can receive these patients at a fraction of the cost of our emergency rooms, thus lowering overall costs and significantly decreasing emergency wait times.

It can be possible to provide Universal Health Insurance to all Americans. Doing so, however, would require breaking through some sacred myths and cherished programs. Unfortunately most people when offered the possibility of change and uncertainty opt instead for continuity despite the problems. As Clinton's failed health initiative proved, it will be impossible to enact such a sweeping change in our system of government without very strong bi-partisan support. Health reform cannot be a pet project of one party or it is doomed to failure. Only together can we break through the entrenched bureaucracy and create a better system for all of us.

As anyone who has watched, read, or heard any media in the past few days undoubtedly is aware, Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke on Jan. 4, 2006. As doctors update the world on his condition and pundits speculate on his likelihood of remaining in politics, pragmatists in Israel and the rest of the world look forward and ask "what now?"

'Arik' Sharon was often known as "the bulldozer" for his blatant disregard of anyone who disagreed with him. As the name suggests, he would simply bulldoze over the opposition and press his will, whatever the cost. Sharon is currently being hailed as Israel's (and the Palestinian's) best hope for peace, however to understand how that came about, one must first understand the history that shaped the man.

Early in his career, Sharon's impetuousness as well as military acumen made him a war hero. In the 1967 "six day war," he captured the strategic Mitla Pass, enabling the capture of the Suez Canal from Egypt.  This determined Israel's Western frontier until Begin bartered the Sinai to Sadat in exchange for a peace treaty. In 1973, Sharon crossed the Suez Canal and surrounded the Egyptian Third Army, leaving literally nothing between the Israeli Defense Forces and Cairo. His actions helped turn the tide of a particularly vile sneak attack that the Arab countries launched against Israel on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, Yom Kippur. He resigned from the army shortly after the end of that war and entered political life. In 1982 he was influential in convincing Prime Minister Begin to launch operation "Peace for the Galilee" in response to the PLO's incessant attacks on Northern Israel from Lebanon. While the brief war was successful in ousting the PLO from Lebanon, it also exacerbated the Lebanese civil war and ironically resulted in a significant weakening of Israel's Christian allies in that country. Perhaps one of the most remembered repercussions of that war on Sharon was the 1983 Kahan commission's report that held him "indirectly responsible" for failing to stop the Lebanese Philangist militia from tit-for-tat massacres of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shetila refugee camps. Although not directly involved in the affair, the event led to his resignation as Defense Minister and would stay with Sharon throughout his career.

Although influential in forming Israel's Likud party, Sharon was not considered a viable candidate for party chief (and thereby Prime Minister if the party controlled parliament) due to his tarnished image. It was not until Ehud Barak resigned his post as PM, after failing to achieve a comprehensive peace treaty with Bill Clinton and Yassir Arafat at Camp David, that Sharon emerged to become Prime Minister. Winning the election against Labor's Shimon Peres by the largest margin in Israeli history, Sharon was given a clear mandate to fight terror and stop the Palestinian "intifada" from raining blood on the streets of Israel.

Ironically, following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1994, the man most reviled by the Palestinians, emerged as the man most likely to make peace with the Palestinians. The reason for this was a pragmatic understanding that only a figure trusted by Israel's hawks could possibly be given enough latitude to make (what he called) "painful concessions" for Peace.

Sharon was no admirer of the Oslo accords. He did not believe that a negotiated Peace with the Palestinians was possible. This was not because he believed "Peace" to be impossible, rather he understood that there was no one on the Palestinian side with enough power, respect, and gravitas to make it happen. He believed that Oslo was a gamble on a man, Yassir Arafat, rather than on a nation. He believed that that gamble failed with Camp David when Arafat said "no" to a deal that offered him 97% of the territory in the West Bank and Gaza. According to Bill Clinton, after the negotiations broke down, "Arafat did not disagree with the details of the plan at Camp David. Arafat was unwilling to sign an end to the conflict." When Arafat proved unwilling, and everyone else proved unable, Sharon finally decided that what Israel could not do with the Palestinians, he would do alone.

Sharon accelerated the construction of a fence to stop the infiltration of Palestinian suicide bombers into Israel. He fortified the most strategic of Israel's settlements (80% of Israeli settlers live on 3 settlements representing less then 3% of the West Bank). And in a decision that he is most remembered for, he decided that it was time for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and literally forced his will through Israel's parliament, despite a vote by his own party against the plan.

Withdrawal from Gaza was a gut-wrenching affair for Israelis who witnessed families being forcibly pulled from homes that some had lived in for 3 generations. Sharon stated that "It is out of strength and not weakness that we are taking this step. We tried to reach agreements with the Palestinians which would move the two peoples towards the path of peace. These were crushed against a wall of hatred and fanaticism. The unilateral disengagement plan, which I announced approximately two years ago, is the Israeli answer to this reality." Yet, despite huge political infighting and vehement disagreement from Israel's right, Sharon managed to withdraw from Gaza with virtually no violence and to International accolades.

Palestinians viewed withdrawal from Gaza as step one towards their eventual state. Sharon viewed withdrawal from Gaza as the ultimate test to see whether Palestinians could achieve peaceful self-government. Though only a few months into their test, Sharon viewed the rampant anarchy in Gaza as an abject failure and vowed to continue disengaging from the Palestinians on his own terms.

The majority of Israel's political center agreed with Sharon's view that "As one who fought in all of Israel's wars, and learned from personal experience that without proper force, we do not have a chance of surviving in this region, which does not show mercy towards the weak, I have also learned from experience that the sword alone cannot decide this bitter dispute in this land."

Many are now afraid that without Sharon there is no one powerful enough in Israel to take on the right and continue separating from the Palestinians on the West Bank; and that there is no one with the background of Sharon who can take on the left and maintain a strong, safe Israel with a united Jerusalem who can take on the Palestinians. Sharon showed that it is possible to fight terror while forging ahead, despite fanatics from either side. Now a new leader must take up his mantle and continue the separation until a reciprocal Palestinian leader emerges who is willing and able to make peace -- however long that might take.

Only the rare director or producer in Hollywood carries the weight necessary to be able to create the works he wants without a studio executive vetoing the prospect. One of the few, Steven Spielberg, struck a bargain years ago with Universal whereby he directed 'Jurassic Park' in order to be given the green light to make 'Schindler's List.' Twelve years later, in the last hurrah for his own Dreamworks studio, he does it again, with 'Munich.'

Munich, West Germany was host to the 1972 Olympics; an event best remembered not for great feats of human performance and achievement, rather for the depths of inhuman brutality and depravity. On the morning of Sept. 5, with six days remaining in the games, Eight Palestinian Black September terrorists infiltrated the Olympic athletes' village and killed two Israeli team members, seizing nine more as hostages. Germany had attempted to host an "Olympics of Peace and Joy" (ironically to differentiate it from the last German Olympics, Hitler's 1936 Berlin games) and found itself mounting a hostage rescue operation that ended in disaster. Those old enough may remember ABC news' Jim McKay uttered his infamous words "They're all gone," proclaiming to the world what the terrorists had accomplished.

Spielberg's 'Munich' is not about the terrorist attack on the games, rather the controversial (and unconfirmed) decision by Israel to launch a covert International operation to bring those responsible for the Munich massacre to justice. Based on George Jonas' book 'Vengeance' the story is about a young father who is asked to give up his identity and nationality in order to lead a team that will track and kill the leadership of Black September*.

The film, one of Spielberg's most gripping, is at once as disturbing as it is engaging. The central question in the movie is first brought up by Prime Minister Golda Meir when she states that "every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." Unable to go after Black September and bring them to trial in Israel, she decides to send special covert groups to hunt and kill them. You watch her wrestle with the decision and eventually decide that the terrorists can not go unpunished for the horrors at Munich. This central equivocation resurfaces often in the main character, Avner, who at first enthusiastically embraces his mission only to later question his actions and their inevitable results.

Spielberg famously stated, in the only interview he gave prior to the opening of Munich, that "We don't demonize our targets, they're individuals. They have families." Therein lies the central quandary of both the director and the film itself, a quandary that mirrors itself on the International stage as responses to terrorism continue, whether the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York on Sept. 11, 2001 or the bombing of a Passover Seder at the Netanya hotel in Israel on Mar. 27 2002. If we try and understand the perpetrators of terror, view them as human with families, and try to understand their causes, all we are doing is legitimizing their tactics and that is something we can not afford to do.

It is a peculiarly Western trait to agonize over one's actions and debate the effect on one's soul. This particularly Judeo-Christian value system rears itself often among the central characters of the Israeli hit team in Munich. Interestingly, the same self reflection, the lamentation of losing one's soul over the potential immorality of one's action is absent from Spielberg's "humanized" terrorists. The Palestinians lament the loss of "home" often, but never seem troubled that their actions might bring about the loss of soul or morality. If Western society is to overcome the current "Age of terror" then it is imperative that we delegitimize terror in whatever form it embodies. We must make clear that for a cause to be legitimate, its proponents must be non-violent; anything less will only propagate terror. Moral Equivalence between terrorism and justice, bomber and soldier can not be tolerated. This is the point that Spielberg's film seemingly misses as it struggles with the righteousness of its cause.

Perhaps the only terrorist planner of Munich not to make it onto the assassination lists is none other then Yassir Arafat, whose group Al-Fatah (the same Fatah that runs the Palestinian Authority to this day) provided both the funding and the orders to Black September. Can Arafat be blamed for continuing the tactic of terror until his dying day? After all the embattled Palestine he lead was no more then a dream until terror made it a reality. While terror continues to be an effective way of propelling a cause onto the world stage it will forever tempt those who wish to die for what they believe.

Perhaps Spielberg should have used another famous Golda Meir quote: "We will someday forgive the Palestinians for killing our children, but we will never forgive ourselves for killing their children."

Munich is a well done film that holds its audience spellbound throughout its 148 minutes, leaving your neck and shoulders sore with non-stop tension. The film is worth seeing as the questions it asks are some of the most poignant of our times. While watching, it is worth asking yourself however what kind of a world we would be living in if terrorists were not brought to justice.

-------------------------

*Black September was named for the events of September 1970 in which Jordan's King Hussein decided to once and for all end the Palestinian violence in his country and brutally expel the PLO, killing 10,000 to 20,000 Palestinians in the process. Prior to this event, Palestinians were fond of remembering the Palestine of the British mandate of 1922 which encompassed the whole of what is today Jordan and Israel. Following Black September, the Hashemite king proclaimed once and for all a separate Jordanian identity that would hear nothing of "Palestine" and sent the problem to exile in Lebanon, thereby exacerbating that Civil war. Only in the 1995 Oslo accords was a resurgence of the idea of "Palestine" brought back to the world stage when Israel agreed to let the Arab refugees of 1948 rule themselves in parts of the West bank and Gaza.