The Israeli-Palestinian peace talks could just have well been held using carrier pigeons. People with good, and bad, intentions are shuttling back and forth between Ramallah and Jerusalem; occasionally they make a detour to Washington, to report on where the two sides stand. They always have the same unexciting news to report: "that side has no willpower," "that party has no power," or, at times, "that leader has no willpower and no power." Israel is determined to ensure settlement construction continues unabated; even when its friend, British Prime Minister David Cameron implored it to make a gesture by freezing activity, Israel refused; the Palestinians have refused to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people -- and that is no coincidence. Their rejectionism underscores their realization that if they acquiesced, they will have met another Israeli demand: declaring an end to the conflict and making the Arab states integrate the Palestinians in the refugee camps, despite the fact that they are only descendants of the original refugees who left the newly created Jewish state in 1948. Are the "shuttlers" relaying anything of value? Perhaps they are just carrier pigeons that carry the brinkmanship Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority Leader Mahmoud Abbas have been displaying? The diplomats have apparently failed to see where the two leaders are coming from. I met one of the mediators this week right after he had visited Ramallah. He looked overwhelmed. But brinkmanship may sometimes spiral out of control. Even if it nothing more than a negotiations tactic, it is a dangerous maneuver that could go a step too far and lead to a clash, be it for a legitimate reason or for some other casus belli. Israel is tormented by the prospect of yet another group of terrorists walking out of prison; this time we are talking about Israeli Arabs too. If Abbas hunkers down and refuses to make even minor concessions, he must be prepared to see Israel hold back on the upcoming prisoner release, even though Netanyahu is determined to deliver on his pledge in good faith. In fact, the public is already against the release of Israeli citizens who committed deadly terrorist acts. Israelis have so far withheld their criticism because they were told it would be contingent on progress being made in the peace talks. But if U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is right, and the trust level on both sides is at a record low, how will Netanyahu make the case that the prisoners should be released? The carrier pigeons should carry this thought the next time they go to Ramallah. Rightfully rejected The opposition was right to boycott the fast-track legislative session that culminated with the swift passage of three separate bills: the haredi conscription bill, the governance bill (which included electoral and constitutional reforms), and a bill that would make it harder to forgo a referendum on territorial concessions (Opposition Leader and Labor Chairman Isaac Herzog erred when he used a special Knesset session honoring Cameron to lash out on the government's decision to expedite the votes and limit the debate). The bills had their merits. Like every piece of legislation, they too had some good and bad clauses. But by invoking Article 98 of the Knesset Rules of Procedure, which is normally reserved for emergencies, the government made a mockery of the underpinnings of the democratic system. It acted like a superintendent who takes advantage of the fact that he has the master key to all the condominiums: instead of using the key to stop a gas leak in one of the tenants' homes he decides to make an unannounced visit when the tenants are away at the movies. The Knesset Rules of Procedure was designed to protect minorities. It was not supposed to make the majority's life easier. The righteous indignation coming from Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Coalition Chairman Yariv Levin, who keep saying that the majority rules, is just mind-boggling, not to mention outrageous. When the majority passes a bill in the Knesset plenum, it becomes the law of the land, and rightly so. But at its core, democracy is about having a fail-safe mechanism that would prevent a "majoritarian dictatorship." If one were to adopt Lieberman's approach, lawmakers could unilaterally decide to extend their term by another four years; they could ostensibly pass it through the Knesset plenum and it would become law. What prompted them to use Article 98? Because of the lack of trust in the coalition, lawmaker figured this article would ensure all three bills would be sent to the floor at the same time and that all could be passed in an expedited session before uncommitted lawmakers could change their mind. It is no coincidence that those who invoked Article 98 are the very same people who want to make it harder to petition the High Court of Justice. They are also the very same people made sure State Comptroller Yosef Shapira would not apply the same scrutiny of his predecessor, Micha Lindenstrauss. They were also the ones who orchestrated the appointment of Yehuda Weinstein as attorney-general after Menachem Mazuz left. All these developments are part of one big project. Article 98 is designed to prevent a scenario in which a technicality would make the Knesset dissolve -- for example, when a plenum debate runs into the night and unintentionally skirts the legal deadline for the passage of a new budget (under the law, when the government fails to pass a budget within a set time frame, new elections must be called); "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil," Jewish scripture wisely says (Exodus 23:2). The ruler's freedom of action must be checked, and the government has the responsibility to exercise self-restraint. This all brings me back to the early 1980s and Operation Peace for the Galilee. Then Prime Minister Menachem Begin had appointed a state commission of inquiry to investigate the Sabra and Shatila massacre Israel's Christian allies perpetrated in Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut. Begin was anxiously awaiting the committee's report, the wait clearly taking its toll on him. Then-Cabinet Secretary Dan Meridor told him the government does not have to adopt the committee's findings. Begin said that when it comes to the part dealing with the conduct of the prime minister, the prime minister must comply. He was the one who commissioned the report, and therefore he could not overrule the committee's findings. This week, as the drama in the Knesset unfolded, and with opposition parties boycotting the plenum debates, The Economist ran a big piece on the crisis of democracy. The article mentioned Willy Brandt, the former German chancellor, who, in the 1970s said "western Europe has only 20 or 30 more years of democracy left in it." It is like a company that goes out of business: democracy is gradually losing steam in a slow, barely noticeable decline until it goes under. As John Adams, the second U.S. president, once said "There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide." The majority is duty-bound to act responsibly, to make sure democracy stays afloat; it must take note of the "handle with care" label. Why is that such a sin- In the wake of the interception of the Klos C and the seizure of its Gaza-bound arms, some Israeli journalists have watched with gleeful delight, even schadenfreude, as Netanyahu's tries, unsuccessfully, to rally the world behind his anti-Iran message. A "farce," "bizarre" and other adjectives have been used left and right. The most outlandish accusation was that he was extracting political mileage out of the commando operation. Why is that such a sin? The efforts to prevent Iran's nuclearization has become the linchpin of Netanyahu's foreign policy. There is no doubt that he views Iran's nuclear program as a major threat -- for Israel and the international community. Naturally, he has channeled all of his efforts to make this case. But what if he decided not to go to Eilat and not to showcase what had been captured, figuring Israeli journalists would take great pleasure at watching him fail to impress the Western media? If he were to act on this fear, he would have not been true to his convictions. He may have failed to get the message across, but why celebrate that-
