They are used to complaining -- especially in regards to how long the passengers have had to wait. Questioning of procedures and sarcastic remarks are part of the Israeli daily life. I have a feeling that if somebody did not complain, question procedures, or make at least one sarcastic remark and/or joke the security people would be afraid that he is a foreign spy.

How the irate passenger would be handled would depend on how he expressed his anger. If he did it with physical threats he would not be allowed on his flight -- and probably arrested. If he did it with "My cousin is a big shot and I am going to get you fired" he would be told that his cousin, too, would be subject to the same security.

In response to several of Bart's points:

What I was attempting to do was apply the Israeli model to American security screening and tried to focus more on the civil liberties implications.

I don't know if civil liberties are really impacted. I do know, for example, that people with criminal records are allowed to fly (assuming they don't have some current legal problem which prohibits them from leaving the country.)

I read that each and every passenger's background is checked at least against the Interpol database.

I would imagine that Israeli security has a list of suspected terrorists that includes the Interpol database but goes far beyond it. Passengers may well have their names run against that list, but it does not include everyone wanted everywhere.

Meyer Lanksy was one of America's most wanted organized crime figures but was allowed to fly into Israel. (He was deported at the U.S.'s request, but only after a long legal battle.) A wanted French white collar criminal was allowed into the country, got citizenship, and even with his known background ran for, and was elected to, the Knesset.

Car searches: well, again, the article made it sound like every one of them is checked. However, if what you say is true about the checks being cursory and random checks being rare, then I'd have to ask what's the point of having vehicle searches?

If you arrive in a taxi, the driver is expected to let the border policeman know if there is something particularly suspicious about you. If you arrive in your own car, the policeman will say a few words to you. If you respond in unaccented Hebrew, you will be allowed in. If you respond in accented Hebrew, or in a foreign language, he will ask to see some identification. If you answer in Arabic, you may well get a cursory inspection of the car.

The car, however, is not a major worry. It is not allowed near enough to the terminal to cause a lot of damage even if it does explode.

And let's face it, no matter what sort of system is devised, someone is going to feel singled out due to race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or any of the other multitude of reasons that people believe they are being discriminated against.

That is an unfortunate weakness in the American system. It is like saying that if you lose your key in Parking Lot A, you have to search for it equally in Parking Lot B, C, and D. True, somebody might have picked up the key, carried it to another parking lot, and dropped it there -- but you dedicate your efforts to the most likely area.

Homosexuals have no more of a record of being terrorists than heterosexuals. Hence, sexual orientation would be a very foolish factor in profiling. Most terrorism in Israel has been at the hands of Arab Moslems (as opposed to Arab Christians or Turkish Moslems) so, yes, Arab Moslems should be looked at the closest. Given the fact that 674 Israeli civilians have been killed in terrorist attacks in the past 3 1/2 years (this does not include soldiers), and that Israel receives 50 terrorist warnings each day (according to a report in today's Jerusalem Post), it would be criminal to ignore these facts.

Still, there are people who believe that since the 9/11 attackers were Middle Eastern Islamic fanatics, it is a waste of time to place anyone else under the additional scrutiny of selectee screening.

Japanese Red Army terrorists shot up the arrivals lounge of Ben Gurion Airport a number of years ago. German terrorists helped hijack the Air France flight to Entebbe. Nobody here argues that non-Moslems should be exempt from screening -- but at the same time it would be foolish to waste time and effort giving secondary screening to people who have been questioned and showed no signs of being suspicious. It would be even worse if by giving them this screening you were diverting resources from those who do warrant a closer look.

I'm sure you're not suggesting that jokes about Hezbollah or al Qai'da are something that security officers should take lightly.

Of course they should. Jokes are jokes, nothing more. Threats are something else. There is a big difference between somebody who says "Gee, if I pass through two more security checks safely I will get my Al Qaeda Merit Badge" and the guy who announces that "Flight 101 has a bomb on board."

I don't believe American culture, or at least the legal system, could accept such jokes without prompting additional suspicion and scrutiny.

On a recent flight, I asked a Delta FA if she could show me how "I can tamper with the smoke detector in the toilet so I can grab a cigarette." She laughed along with me, realizing that I was very obviously not seriously asking for her help. Wouldn't it have been ridiculous for the legal system to get involved in this instance?

Wouldn't it be equally ridiculous for the FBI to show up at your home because you asked your bank manager for the combination to the safe "so I can come in tonight and empty it"?

Don't know what you meant by the Andy-Barney analogy. I would hope the people who perform security screening DO take their jobs seriously. Not so sure you want to employ anyone who doesn't really care about the job you hire him or her for.

Both Andy and Barney had jobs requiring them to protect the people of Mayberry. Both took their jobs seriously. Andy, however, applied common sense, never went overboard, and had everyone's respect. Barney was very impressed with himself. He felt that his uniform made him a god. If Aunt Bea were to double park he would be so busy reading the riot act to her that he wouldn't notice the bank robbery that was in progress.

When I was in the U.S. Army, I was told about officers that "You respect the uniform, not the man." In the Israeli Army, I was told just the opposite. The concept of respecting the uniform allows the man wearing it to feel that he is right simply because of his clothing. This results in too many Barney Fifes.

The TSA has both Andys and Barneys. The Barneys should be sent back to their old jobs at Burger King. This will not only help the travelling public, but it will also make life a lot easier for the Andys.

Dovster,

Well, first of all, thanks for the exchange; I truly enjoyed it.

Secondly, you have the unique vantage point of experiencing two cultures with different perspectives of freedom and the security measures used to protect that freedom. I would think you'd agree that Americans aren't prepared for the type of security practiced in Israel. Judging from comments posted in this forum, removing ones shoes is but a minor convenience compared to the extent and intensity security measures in Israel can go to. And this discussion was just limited to airport security; we haven't even touched on the security measures that are quite common in Israel at shopping centers, markets, along certain roadways, at public buildings, etc.

By the way, my comment about sexual orientation wasn't exaggerated. I have actually had individuals complain to me that they felt they were being singled out because of their sexual orientation. I even had one individual who complained she was being singled out because of her sex change. This individual apparently neglected to have the state change the gender on the driver's license from male to female. Otherwise, there was absolutely no way you could tell that this person had been a male. Point being that somebody will always believe they are being discriminated against or unfairly singled out whenever you have some sort of selection system for security screening. If we were to use the Israeli model, I believe a lot of Americans, or at least the ACLU, would scream bloody murder. Again, that's the tricky part of American culture: trying to find the delicate balance between sound security measures and respect for one's dignity and civil liberties.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

Well, it depends on how tight the jeans are. You could conceivably bend or squat and a rivet could pop out and hurt somebody :D