« Mugabe invites Kofi Annan | Main | Cleaning up our act »

July 25, 2005

Israeli comparisons

Since the tragic killing on Friday of an innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, there have been repeated comparisons in the media with Israeli policy towards intending suicide bombers. Tom Gross attempts to set the record straight:

Israel has taken enormous care in its "targeted killings" of "ticking bombs," almost never killing anyone in a case of mistaken identity.

Contrary to the absolute lies told in British media in recent days, the Israel Defense Forces have not instituted a shoot-to-kill policy, or trained the British to carry out one. For example, on Friday, at the very time British police were shooting the man in the Tube, the IDF caught and disarmed a terrorist from Fatah already inside Israel en route to carrying out a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. Israeli forces didn't injure the terrorist at all in apprehending him and disarming him of the 5-kg. explosive belt he was wearing.

And yet, for taking the bare minimum steps necessary to save the lives of its citizens in recent years Israel has been mercilessly berated by virtually the entire world.

He has some other pertinent observations. (Hat tip: SL/JG.)

See also this piece on adaptation to terrorism:

Terrorism is a useless tool for changing people's behaviour and "has hardly any effect on anything," an Israeli sociologist told the World Conference on Disaster Management last week in Toronto.

Alan Kirschenbaum, a professor at the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology [-] was presenting a study based on information gathered from 800 Israeli households. It showed that people simply learn to live with recurring catastrophes such as suicide bombings or hurricanes.
.....
"Eventually, terror, like natural and technological disasters, will have less and less of an impact on our daily behaviour. The secret of our survival is behavioural adaptation, and we do it very well."

I can see what Alan Kirschenbaum is saying, but the way he's reported here either does him no favours, if it has left something important out, or he's left something important out. 'Hardly any effect on anything' isn't the full picture. And the adaptation is not one anybody should have to make.

Links