I'd feel safe with a quarter of that. People wildly overestimate the security risks of air travel.

Well, until Israel gets its act together as far as a reasonable amount of safety while preserving civil liberties, I am indeed quite pleased to spend my money elsewhere. I'm just funny that way too.

I really don't care. If someone wants to do me harm, they can try all those things at the mall, in the park, etc. I'm not going to live in fear of the remote possibility of an attack by a not-properly-armed assailant on a plane who has been screened for real weapons. I'm also not going to spend my life looking over my shoulder in fear of an unknown assailant shooting or stabbing me in the park. That's a sure ticket to an early grave - via hypertension/stroke/etc.

They could have done that in any US city - without flying first.

If you are satisfied with the civil liberties enjoyed in Egypt, fine. I don't think, however, that many Egyptians would agree with you -- especially Ayman Nour, former head of the liberal Al Ghad party.

But they didn't. Instead, they got on a plane from Japan, flew to Paris, and then got on another plane and took it to Tel Aviv. This is a good indication of just how much more acute the situation is here.

Nor was this the only instance where foreigners decided to murder Israelis. Those who took over the Air France flight included two members of the "German Revolutionary Cells".

It is interesting how many people from throughout the world are concerned about Israel "preserving civil liberties". Frankly, I would consider being allowed to continue living to be among those basic civil liberties.

You are complaining about words that you read as "loaded". Just because you think a word is "loaded" does not mean the words are incorrect, particularly when my selection of words are correct. When the treatment is more extensive, it's a form of badgering. When a principal component used to make a "judgment" about who gets badgered is based on race, it makes it racist.

Just because someone doesn't publicly categorize something in a particular way, doesn't change the underlying reality of what does happen: racist stereotypes are in play to determine who gets badgered the most.

A lot of people tolerate racism. Some even advocate on its behalf in a variety of situations. And a number of those who tolerate racism, whether directed at them or others, try to ignore/downplay the presence of racism by denying that it exists in rather akin situations, even when personally impacted.


The ivory tower and La-La Land is where most of the advocates of racist profiling find themselves without even knowing it. They find comfort in taking the morally cheap (i.e., dehumanizing) way -- particularly when it's cheaper and puts on a good smoke & mirrors show that sells to the dominant audience -- while ignoring (or dismissing) how a litany of such practices is self-defeating.

The above situation is irrelevant to this situation: investigating a past happening involving a particular known/recognized individual is different than preventing a future happening not involving a particular known/recognized individual.

Airport security doesn't preserve civil liberties but it can do something other than violate them while providing actual security. Does airport security preserve life? Not very often, regardless of a small number of anecdotes that ignore the bigger picture. Has airport security preserved lives without the racist profiling? Yes. Could airport security preserve lives without racist profiling? Yes, except in the minds of those who are captives of cheap measures, dependent upon cheap thinking. Could airport security preserve lives without the questions? Yes.

Firstly, there was no badgering. Secondly, something is only racist when race enters as a negative factor.

That was not the case here. Her race entered as an unusual factor -- as did her rank, her sex, her NATO credentials, and the fact that she began the itinerary in Rome.

If a white man by the name of Irving Goldstein tries to get on an El Al flight in Milan and says he is doing so because he is part of a group from an African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church in Mobile, Alabama, he is going to get a lot more questions than a Black member of that church boarding at JFK.

Does that make El Al anti-white or do you think they just don't like people named "Goldstein"?

So only white male officers with credentials connecting from the US wouldn't be a flag, but the above is? :confused:

I personally think that's ridiculous. Sex, skin color, are ridiculous to consider when even shown with those credentials. Verify the credentials if they desire, sure. But I think the other factors for getting the business are :td:

Big difference there. NATO isn't primarily a black or white organization as many people from many nations with different backgrounds work for it. Of course someone white would be unusual for an AME church, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that they belong, nor would I think it relevant.

Anything out of the usual raises questions. That is why El Al verified Traveller's story but did not call me about those who flew directly here from their home countries or who had simply made a connection in Europe.

(Indeed, if Traveller had just said that she was doing some touring and wanted to visit both Turkey and Israel, there probably would have been no problem. Throwing in the FlyerTalk Meet was just enough to put it over the edge.)

It is not a question of what is or is not relevant. It is simply a matter of what stands out from the crowd.

Firstly, per your own narration of events, there was badgering, in the form of more extensive questioning/investigation.

Secondly, with security questioning on the FCO-TLV LY flights, the security person's perception of race often enters as a negative factor; that is, certain ethnicities, particularly when the persons are not jewish, more routinely get chosen for more extensive questioning. Per your own narration, race entered as an "unusual factor" -- really a "negative factor" in the eyes of the security screeners.

Remove those racist factors and the the treatment would not be racist. And terrorist plots could and would still be foiled without the application of racist stereotypes.

Everyone in the world is unusual when you dig deep enough. ;) It's just when some see certain "types", the jump-start alarm button goes off for them and they start looking for "a matter of what stands out from the crowd" in a way that they wouldn't do for other "types" with whom they more closely identify. Racist stereotypes are in play often enough there.

Again, what about the white man with a Jewish name who says he is part of a Black Church group? Is the further questioning he gets because El Al is racist when it comes to whites or to Jews?

Is the above part of the ivory tower and La-La Land scenarios you were talking about above?

The questioning is not necessary to secure the flight. (The questioning has even failed to prevent terrorists from flying on LY and to/from/via TLV, and still the planes didn't fall out of the sky.)

What other hypothetical scenarios do you want to ask questions about here? Why not also ask about martian bodysnatchers taking over the body of a TLV security screener? Or perhaps for a less "fantastic" situation, why not ask about the hypothetical scenario of a Gulf of Tonkin-type aviation security incident?

They don't need to ask him questions based on his not-criminalized associations (or lack of associations) to secure the flight.

The questioning resulted in Richard Reid being searched thoroughly before being allowed on his El Al flight -- and somebody from Security being placed in the seat right next to him.

Had he intended to have the plane fall out of the sky he would not have succeeded. Only pure luck stopped him when he tried it on a flight to the US.

And anyone contemplating a visit to Israel should take that into account. Which does not mean that it is relevant to the US situation; special-interest groups notwithstanding.

Your first point is correct.

Your second point is not one I follow. What "special interest groups" are fighting for more accurate methods of providing security in the US?

An anecdote I too remember.

And at CDG, even on the actual day of his now notorious (i.e., boarded and mostly flown) flight, he was also questioned and cleared by a person who used to work security at TLV.

And his shoe bomb wouldn't have brought the plane falling out of the sky either. It probably would have maimed him -- perhaps killed him -- and wounded a row or two of passengers .... if it could even go off, with or without passenger or crew intervention.

A proper screening for explosives would have prevented that too, without hoping to get lucky by way of questioning.