Will the West now adopt Israel’s anti-terror strategies?

I’m watching TV on Monday afternoon in an America that sounds distinctly rattled, a few hours after an Islamic State thug has threatened to strike at the US as a follow-up to the massacre of innocents in Paris. And like I always do when I’m away from home, I’m thinking a lot about my vibrant, embattled and demonized Israel. The CNN screen blares “US cities step up security after Paris attack,” and “New ISIS threat of attacks includes Washington,” and the network is showing and interviewing a stream of politicians and military chiefs and security experts. They tell viewers that protecting every cafe and concert hall from potential terror attack is just impossible. They describe Islamic State as the worst terrorist scourge they can recall. They argue about whether President Barack Obama is right to insist that he will not be putting boots on the ground to tackle IS in Syria and Iraq.

The talking heads, from the president on down, it seems to me, are rather lost. Dianne Feinstein, a senator for more than 20 years who has sat on powerful foreign affairs and intelligence committees, has just mumbled something incoherent about the need to “get the Western world together” to “provide some elements of safety.” A succession of Republican would-be presidents are urging the tough-sounding but thoroughly generalized smashing of IS on the ground. “We should destroy them,” declares Jeb Bush. “I want to fight them in their backyard, so we don’t fight them in our backyard,” barks Lindsey Graham. The president has just slapped down his critics at a press conference, dismissing their suggestions in much the same way he used to brush off Benjamin Netanyahu’s objections to his Iran-empowering nuclear deal: “Folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do? Present a specific plan,” snaps the president. (Netanyahu did precisely that on Iran, of course, not that it helped.)

Statespeople and commentators have called the November 13 bloodbath “France’s 9/11.” In many ways, though, it was the day Paris sustained a terrorist assault that resembled, indeed dwarfed, the kind that Israel has endured for years. Not even in the course of the Second Intifada, the strategic onslaught of Hamas and Fatah suicide bombers that battered and bled Israel in the early years of this century, did our terrorist enemies manage to massacre 129 of us in one evening. It just took them a little longer: In March 2002 alone, some 120 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinian terrorists.  As bombers and gunmen targeted our buses and our shopping malls and our hotels and our colleges and our restaurants, we did two things that France, the US and the rest of the free world will have to do if they want to defeat this latest, particularly despicable Islamist terror iteration: We learned how to reduce our vulnerability to terrorism, and we tackled the killers in their centers of operation. Short-sightedly, hypocritically, and abidingly, the international community, including most of the Western world, barely understood the need for the former strategy, and castigated us for the latter.

We made it harder for terrorists to kill us by doing what those CNN experts are saying is impossible: yes, protecting all our cafes, and restaurants, and shopping malls, and hotel entrances, and buses, and every other public place where our citizens gather, with barriers and metal detectors and security guards; all these years later, suicide bombers still can’t just walk into our theaters and concert halls. We bolstered our intelligence-gathering in the viciously hostile Palestinian territories, notably including the West Bank cities from which we had withdrawn years before in the vain quest for peaceful coexistence. And to the ongoing fury of misguided critics everywhere, we built a security barrier — a mix of fences and sections of wall — so that Palestinian suicide bombers could not just drive into Israel and blow us up. We became a nation of domestic security analysts, gauging where to shop and whether or not to take the bus as we sought to minimize our exposure to the killers. And we toughed it out.

We also took the offensive, notably after that black March 2002, when we launched a major West Bank military operation to destroy the “infrastructure” of terrorism in the West Bank — the bomb-making factories and the bomber-indoctrinating production lines. Much of the international community, ill-served by some particularly pitiful journalism, misrepresented the operation, echoed false Palestinian claims about the death toll, and — notably led by then president George W. Bush — insisted that we stop and get out. But we didn’t. And that’s why, in 2015, when the current Palestinian political, spiritual and media leadership is stirring up its people to again kill the Jews, we’ve been enduring murderous stabbers and car-rammers, rather than mass-murderous suicide bombers. So far, at least. France, the United States and the rest of the West are now grappling with many of the anguishing dilemmas we have lived with for years. How do you maintain your liberties, the West is asking itself, while tackling enemies who abuse all freedoms? What kind of laws need to be enacted? Who do you allow across your borders? Under what circumstances should preventive arrests be made, and suspects held without trial, and the internet surveilled, and incitement constrained? Not easy, is it?

There is no absolute defense against terrorism. And there are no offensive panaceas either. But there are effective strategies.
Israel would not have survived without them

How do you minimize the murderous threat to your citizens without getting too many of your soldiers killed? And without killing too many of the (often terror-supporting) civilians among whom your enemy is embedded? That’s another one we’ve long wrestled over. We left Gaza in 2005, Hamas seized power in 2007, and three times since then we have been drawn into conflict by the Islamists’ relentless attacks on Israel. But we know we can’t destroy the extremist ideology by force. And we don’t want to get dragged back into the Gaza quagmire. A man once said: “We can retake territory. And as long as we leave our troops there, we can hold it, but that does not solve the underlying problem of eliminating the dynamics that are producing these kinds of violent extremist groups.” That man was President Obama, speaking on Monday, about Syria and Iraq. You’d want to think, right now, he’s understanding just a little bit more of the challenges we’ve been facing.

You’d want to think, right now, that he and the other well-intentioned world leaders who have been telling us to take risks for peace, telling us that we can securely relinquish adjacent territory even in our treacherous Middle East, telling us that we don’t know where our best interests lie, are internalizing that maybe, just maybe, it’s not so simple. Maybe we Israelis, stubbornly resisting internationally prescribed policies that we fear might constitute national suicide, aren’t such fools after all.

I’m not holding my breath.

In fact, I’m waiting to see how many more prominent figures who should know better will follow the lead of Sweden’s foreign minister and contort themselves to somehow partly implicate Israel for the evil actions of a death cult that has persuaded its followers to kill and be killed in the name of god. That argument is so risible it can hardly be articulated: If only we’d done what the international community told us to do, the claim apparently insinuates, and given up the West Bank like we gave up Gaza (placing our entire country at grave potential risk in the process), Islamic State might not have massacred 129 people in Paris and would not now be threatening the United States.
Honestly, words fail.
At the very least, however, I do recommend that the leaders and security chiefs of France and the rest of Europe and North America reach out to those Israeli counterparts they’ve so often judged and critiqued, to benefit from our bitterly accumulated experience in fighting Islamist terrorism.
There is no absolute defense against terrorism. And there are no offensive panaceas either. But there are effective strategies.
Israel would not have survived without them. Friday in Paris signaled that the rest of the free world needs to adopt many of them too.


http://www.timesofisrael.com/will-the-west-now-adopt-israels-anti-terror-strategies/

In Israel from what I have seen, the shopping malls have security on every entrance searching peoples belongings before they are allowed in.
Armed guards are ever present.

I dread to think of the havoc that could be caused by a suicide bomber wandering into the Trafford centre, or the many other huge shopping malls that we now have here.

I would certainly put up with the inconvenience of queueing to get in anywhere if it meant safety was improved.

If they strike here, in London, the police and the army and the military won't even get into London.

London is gridlocked night and day, by Cameron's and Boris's stupid decisions which have caused almighty traffic problems.

Mark my words

More security and building terror-proof infrastructure?

Sounds good for the economy. But when the Tory government are cutting spending in the Police force and not really doing any capital spending, I doubt this will happen here.

Some might jump on me for saying this, the only way to defeat ISIS is "boots on the ground" we will never defeat them with piddling little bombing raids or taking out the odd terrorist with a rocket. We need to put 2 or 3 hundred thousand troops on the ground with all the support they need and forget the "rules of war"go in and kill them all. We must be prepared to take casualties as we surely will. If we want to remove this scum we must "bite the bullet" and DO IT

Syl wrote:In Israel from what I have seen, the shopping malls have security on every entrance searching peoples belongings before they are allowed in.
Armed guards are ever present.

I dread to think of the havoc that could be caused by a suicide bomber wandering into the Trafford centre, or the many other huge shopping malls that we now have here.

I would certainly put up with the inconvenience of queueing to get in anywhere if it meant safety was improved.

The last time I visited Harrod's there were police at ever entrance, also searching peoples belongings.  I guess whatever is meant by Israel anti-terror measures, the Brits have already gone there.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:In Israel from what I have seen, the shopping malls have security on every entrance searching peoples belongings before they are allowed in.
Armed guards are ever present.

I dread to think of the havoc that could be caused by a suicide bomber wandering into the Trafford centre, or the many other huge shopping malls that we now have here.

I would certainly put up with the inconvenience of queueing to get in anywhere if it meant safety was improved.

The last time I visited Harrod's there were police at ever entrance, also searching peoples belongings.  I guess whatever is meant by Israel anti-terror measures, the Brits have already gone there.

Not even close to adopting them or in anway similar.
I just wanted to see what people thought if that was the situation, how they would feel. As most do not want the lives effected by such measures, but if more attacks happen, then who knows what then people would think is best.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The last time I visited Harrod's there were police at ever entrance, also searching peoples belongings.  I guess whatever is meant by Israel anti-terror measures, the Brits have already gone there.

Not even close to adopting them or in anway similar.
I just wanted to see what people thought if that was the situation, how they would feel. As most do not want the lives effected by such measures, but if more attacks happen, then who knows what then people would think is best.

I don't fully know what Israeli security measures are. Are they listed and discussed somewhere?

I'm particularly interested in sites that discuss search and seizure...and rendition. They seem to blend into one another.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Not even close to adopting them or in anway similar.
I just wanted to see what people thought if that was the situation, how they would feel. As most do not want the lives effected by such measures, but if more attacks happen, then who knows what then people would think is best.

I don't fully know what Israeli security measures are.  Are they listed and discussed somewhere?

I'm particularly interested in sites that discuss search and seizure...and rendition.  They seem to blend into one another.

If you do not know, then how can you begin to make a comparrison?


Anyway as stated it was more as to how people would feel if they came to being adopted

Didge wrote:If you do not know, then how can you begin to make a comparrison?

Admittedly, I can't.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:If you do not know, then how can you begin to make a comparrison?

Admittedly, I can't.

Fair play Quill.
As I say I doubt many would wish such strict security measures as it would very much disrupt their lives.
As I say was just interested to know posters views

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:In Israel from what I have seen, the shopping malls have security on every entrance searching peoples belongings before they are allowed in.
Armed guards are ever present.

I dread to think of the havoc that could be caused by a suicide bomber wandering into the Trafford centre, or the many other huge shopping malls that we now have here.

I would certainly put up with the inconvenience of queueing to get in anywhere if it meant safety was improved.

The last time I visited Harrod's there were police at ever entrance, also searching peoples belongings.  I guess whatever is meant by Israel anti-terror measures, the Brits have already gone there.

I cant speak for London, in Manchester there is no security on the vast majority of public buildings.
There was for a while after the IRA bombings.....nothing for years though.

nicko wrote:Some might jump on me for saying this,  the only way to defeat ISIS is "boots on the ground"   we will never defeat them with piddling little bombing raids or taking out the odd terrorist with a rocket.  We need to put 2 or 3 hundred thousand troops on the ground with all the support they need and forget the "rules of war"go in and kill them all.  We must be prepared to take casualties as we surely will.   If we want to remove this scum we must "bite the bullet" and DO IT

agree and unfortunate that we didn't send in special forces straight away (I did suggest it)
i think your strategy is lacking and can easily be manipulated by a force like ISIS, you have to keep in mind they know they woudl last minutes in a conventional war they are going to stick to guerrilla warfare and thus too many troops on the ground gives them too many targets plus if those troops are lacking in moral caliber then you can easily encourage locals to 'prefer' ISIS.

My suggestion is SAS, combined with drones, and 'charity stations' where food etc is distributed to civilians.
SAS are the best boots on the ground and ISIS has nothing that can match them.
drones allow targeted strikes a far, they are the ultimate instrument of terror, make ISIS leadership fear the sky.
that leaves 'Charity stations' as our main 'target' we are giving them in the region, and no one wins the war for hearts and minds by attacking civilians lining up for bread.

We do not have enough SAS to put together a big enough fighting force, perhaps about a couple of hundred who are trained to the highest degree. The SAS work in "bricks" of four, they are not meant to be used as an attacking army, their job is to get in, do the job and get out quickly or to "laser mark" a target for accurate bombing.

Plus Ours, Canada and NZ nicko Plus other nations have special forces, Putin is pissed off he might lend some spetsnaz

combined there is enough since they are not meant to be seen, new tech for a new war, the drones tell us where and weaken the target the SAS go in a finish the job. the effort has to be in concert and constant for a few years. 

And the 4 man unit (deploying multiple simultaneously) is exactly what is needed, they are guerrilla warriors, guerrilla warfare is their specialty and they are the best at it. let ISIS have the large groups of troops to be the targets, the strategy is to put the shoe on the other foot. let them be seen as the occupying force.