There is a difference between an irrational fear and the realization that that a real and present danger exists. To ignore that danger -- to walk down the middle of a busy highway with your eyes shut -- is sheer stupidity, not "impoverished thinking".

No smoke. No mirrors. Just very obvious facts -- but to some people, what is obvious simply can not be true, especially if it runs in the face of their preconceived Political Correctness.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't negate the fact that they may really be out to get me.

If that guard duty didn't exist in places like Dov's community, do you truely believe there wouldn't be an increase in the number of residents of those communities who were murdered each year? Yes, of course it is a response to fear, but it is a measured fear based on an absolute reality. And in response they have found a way to increase safety and to still go on with their normal lives. To me that is a very sane and balanced response.

You mention the comparison with India. You'll probably label me as racist for stating this, but IMHO the government and people of India are more willing to accept a certain level of civilian casulties than are the gov't and people of Israel. Also,given the different population levels, the deaths of 10 Israelis is a much higher proportional impact on the nation than the deaths of 1000 Indians. (since the population of India is 2000 times greater than that of Israel). *

*note that I do agree with an old Zen buddist in San Francisco who once told me that every human being is an entire universe. The death of that human is the destruction of that universe. I'm not comparing the value of human life in India and Israel, just the proportional impact on society of each individual.

I hope we're not slipping OMNI here...

Well, let's not forget Tim's little jaunt to the Philippines. Before he goes his bombs don't work, when he comes back they're lethal.

Right about the time Yousef was over there too......;)

The other thing that strikes me is the contention that somehow the racial profilers have assigned a value to a race, rather than profiling in response to actions.

In other words, some people imply that if you racially profile you are somehow taking it upon yourself to label a group dangerous as if it was independent of their actions.

And, at the end of the day, race is just the quick identifier. It is not some "Oh thank god now I finally have a reason to justify my long-held hatreds...."

If the Red-Headed League started worldwide campaigns of terror, we'd be looking at them in the same way. 99% of red-headed people would be innocent and 99.999999% of the time nothing would happen, but if something did happen, it would involve a red-head almost 100% of the time.

Which would make it silly to ignore this fact.

There's a combination of irrational fear and the realization that a real danger exists. What I said does not ignore that, actually I had already internalized that -- and consciously considered that -- when making my comment.

The new preconceived Political Correctness run amok is that racist profiling is necessary and works. Aviation security can be delivered without racist profiling, but the angry, the scared, the ineffective plagued by impoverished thinking don't find comfort in that; they find comfort in racist profiling.

When 10% of an ethnicity have had a member of their immediate family killed by terrorists of one sort or another in the past c. 20 years, I have to say that they've been hit harder and more frequently than Israeli civilians have been by terrorists. And yet the dominant establishment isn't advocating racist/tribalist profiling at airports across the country despite many plots against the airports/planes.

I happen to think the mentioned Indians are no more willing to tolerate being victimized by terrorists than Israelis. After all, India is a country where a terrorist attack killing people in one village several hundred miles (or thousands of miles away) results in the deaths of hundreds/elsewhere .... because of those who also advocate racist/tribalist profiling. Life really isn't as cheap in India -- nor is it seen as such in India -- as many elsewhere think may be the case.

GUWonder quote, slightly edited-
With regards to wearing seat belts, that's a product of fear, an environment where a siege mentality exists. And as noted earlier, "wearing seat belts gives comfort to the angry, the scared, the ineffective trapped by impoverished thinking". To claim that wearing seat belts in the manner you noted is not the result of fear, at least in part, would strike me as dingenuous.

99.999999% of the time when I drive nothing happens. I should not wear my seat belt.

When I was on patrol I often did not wear my seat belt because often I would have to fly out of the vehicle into a foot pursuit. When I did not wear my seat belt I was not "falling out of the sky", to borrow GUWonder's quote. I didn't get in lots of wrecks because I stopped wearing my seat belt, which leads me to this conclusion.

Face it people, if you wear your seat belt you are kowtowing to the interests of paranoid fear-mongers. The likelihood of getting into a wreck is exceedingly small. Life is not without risk and if you're so afraid of a big scary wreck you should just stay home.

Folks, any possible way we could get this thread back on the topic of TLV security and away from Tim McVeigh, India, tribalists/racists and the dozen other slippery slopes that are developing?

Thanks for your cooperation.


__________________
Cholula
Travel Safety/Security Forum Moderator

I hope a full reading of my post will show that is not what I was stating or implying. I did state that the Indian gov't may be willing to accept more civilian deaths than the Israeli gov't can accept, when they factor in the complexities, cost/benefit ratios, and balance between tightened security and higher safety (and whether the later will give the former in their situation).

In a small country like Israel it is more possible to tighten the security in a way that creats greater safety; in a huge country like India there are too many gaps in the fence. There are a lot of justifiable reasons for higher security at TLV than at other places, and I'm sure you and Dovster will agree that the best one is that it keeps Spiff out. (don't recommend that to the Indiana authorities, they may institute the same policies) :D :D :D

The Israeli security process is a double-edged sword. I've read various comments in these forums how Israel has the best airport security in the world, how TSA should strive to be more like the Israelis, blah, blah, blah, yadi, yadi, yadi, bada-bing, bada-bang.

Americans would never tolerate that type of security process. I don't know how accurate this article is; pretty difficult to write an objective article with security officials refusing to contribute. But I do believe this is an honest effort to address Israeli security; just have to keep in mind that this is based on the opinions and views of those who have had negative experiences as well as the off-the-record views of those who apparently have a keener insight.

The biggest difference between the challenges faced by Israel and by the United States is that Israel can afford to make some assumptions based on ethnicity, race, religion and culture. The terrorists who murder Jews are predominantly Arab or are non-Jew such as European mercenaries who were pretty active during the 70's. As a melting pot of various cultures, customs, traditions, religions and creeds, the United States faces a completely different challenge. We cannot simply point the finger at Arabs or Middle Easterners and label them as would-be terrorists. Furthermore, while most people have a picture of what an Arab terrorist looks like, upon further inspection, it is difficult to tell the difference between an Arab and a Mexican, a Spaniard, a Frenchman, an African, an African-American, a Haitian, a Nicaraguan, a Canadian, and the list could continue. To illustrate this point a little more blatantly, google pictures of Zacarias Moussaoui and try to point out how he looks "Arab." He doesn't.

The flip side of that coin is that terrorists do come in all shapes and colors, and radical Islamic-based terrorism is not the only terrorist threat facing airlines nor is it the only threat. The first recorded terrorist attack against a commercial airliner was done by a man hoping to kill his own mother so that he could collect on the insurance policy he had on her. And there are a host of other ethnically-based groups pissed off enough at us to attempt a terrorist attack against US airliners that have no connection whatsoever with al Qai'da or any other Islamic radical fundamentalist group.

Add to that the fundamental principles of American law that are based on acts towards the commission of a crime. In other words, pulling someone aside for additional scrutiny has to be based on something more than just a hunch or gut feeling. While I don't agree with the pre-selected passenger screening policy, I do have to acknowledge that it is based on certain patterns associated with previous terrorist activities. Perhaps they are based on "the last war" rather than the current one, but my point is that TSA and the federal government can point to certain indicators and cite them as the basis for selecting certain passengers for additional screening AND denying them access into the sterile area or delaying them without further scrutiny. Unlike Israel, we cannot act based on a person's accent, dialect, habits or other cultural subtleties. If that person has a prohibited item or is violating a law, then we cannot detain or delay them until we "sweat 'em out."

And TSA does not conduct strip searches. Israeli security apparently does.

For those of you who say that TSA conducts a dog and pony security show, think a moment about all the legal restrictions that limit the extent of security screening. I'm not complaining; I think these restrictions are sound. I'm just pointing out that when you look past the rhetoric and hyperbole, there are laws and policies in place that limit the extent of a TSA search, including the so-called "strip searches."

For this reason, I have mixed feelings about the Behavior Detection Officer position. I have visions of that bugged-eyed inspector looking at ballots for hanging chads back in the 2000 election. Not that I think behavior detection is a bad thing; I think it is an extremely effective security tool. I just don't trust TSA to properly train a cadre of BDOs and then deploy them effectively throughout the roughly 460 airports TSA supports. And no matter who is selected, someone is ALWAYS going to claim they are being racially profiled. Happens enough already whenever we respond off the SSSS on the boarding passes. And I've seen black passengers accuse black TSOs of racial profiling as well as any combination of other ethnicities make the same claim. I see this as a minefield that will explode in the courtroom once a complaint turns into a lawsuit even in those cases that are solidly based on documented characteristics associated with terrorist behavior patterns. It takes a very unique personality and well-trained person to pull it off. Even so, as this article points out, there are still those who feel that they've been unjustly singled out and unfairly treated.

From this perspective, I applaud the OP for introducing this article and hope it opens some eyes on both sides of the issue.

Be careful of what you ask for.....you just might get it.

Something new every day here on FT. This has to be the first time in my life that anyone has mistaken me for right wing. I'm assuming by right wing you mean someone who believes Israel has the right to defend herself?

As Bart points out, Israel has a unique situation, very different from what we have in the US, and has survived this long by carefully analyzing the situation and developing a protective mechanism based on survival, rather than one based on being sure everyone else approves.

We can learn a lot from studying Israeli security measures; in so doing we'll find some that we don't like, and some that are way better than anything we do in the US and Europe. (I can't speak for Asia or S.A., haven't travelled there, but I suspect they're willing to be much less polite than either the Americans or Israelis when they actually feel threatened)

By the way, one of the things I find most interesting about the article cited by the OP is that it was published in the Jerusalem Post. I only wish we could see similar articles in papers of equivalent national stature in the US. It both gave vivid anecdotes of the harm done by the current system and thoughtful explainations of the reason why things are done than way, and the difficulty of finding a balance. The sign of a true democracy, where the press can publish things like that, and the sign of an educated society, where people will listen to both sides.

With two or three exceptions, the articles here on airport security are quite shallow, generally of the "think of the chidren" or "trust the TSA, they're implementing new technology and adding more people to make it all better" variety.

Did this article actually hit the print version of the Jerusalem Post newspaper itself (i.e., not just the online addition or some magazine supplement)?

...From firsthand experience they are...

Magazine supplement which I find to often have better articles than the paper...

It is a weekly supplemnent akin to the Sunday New York Times.

This thread's closed.

Please continue to follow the other active threads.

Thanks.


________________
Cholula Travel Safety/Security Forum Moderator