Handling Terrorism

I have been told that the safest airline to fly on (in terms of terrorism) is El Al, the Israeli airline.

They allegedly have implemented a two pronged response to terrorism.

  1. They will absolutely not give in to any terrorist demands at all, even if it means total loss of life. Indeed they would prefer to storm the plane anymore.

  2. They will always retaliate.

I have no way of knowing if this is true or not.

At first glance this seems like a heavy-handed appoach, pretty much assuring loss of life.

The upside is that nobody tries to hijack an Israeli plane anymore because the results are “preordained.”

After one or two horrible and bloody incidents where you prove you mean business, lives are ultimately saved, and terrorism goes way.


Often wrong… NEVER in doubt

At least part (and in my mind, most) of the reason that El Al is the safest airline in the world is the tight security surrounding each flight. All luggage is searched by hand prior to boarding. IIRC, armed men are on each and every flight. It may simply be too difficult, compared to a car bomb, or a European flight.

The successful storming of a hijacked French airplane in 1976 by Israeli special forces at Entebbe probably had more effect, as well, than a policy announcement.

Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.

Let’s give this thread a kick up to the top.

IMHO, I wouldn’t want to be on a plane and hear that nothing would be done to save my life if the plane were to be hijacked.

So then no one will fly on the airline.

So there are no hostages for potention terrorists.

So . . wait, this could go on forever. Does anyone know about the popularity of this airline? Do people go on their planes knowing this policy?

We must blame them and cause a fuss before somebody thinks of blaming us.
Sheila Broflofski

I would rather fly on a plane in which terrorists know ahead of time that there will be no negotiations. That said, terrorists, if they could get by security, are more likely to simply blow it up.

But recently some folks hijacked the Indian jet and the Indian government, after first saying they would not negotiate, did exactly that. They released some prisoners, etc. So what did the terrorists learn by this? That they can get their way. Hmmm. Wonder why most governments don’t negotiate with terrorists…

hansel said[qoute]It may simply be too difficult, compared to a car bomb, or a European flight.


Actually, it’d be far easier to bomb a US flight, as it appears to still be possible, in the US, to fly with baggage and subsequently leave the aeroplane en route while the luggage continues to the ultimate destination. This is certainly impossible in the UK (I know this as I have, on two occasions, had to sit on a 'plane on the runway while the cargo hold is unloaded to retrieve the luggage of a person who has checked in but not, for some reason, boarded), although i’m not absolutely certain about all European countries.

If El Al is the safest airline, I would think it is because of their security procedures rather than their policy of non-negotiation.

Since the main source of terrorism comes from the fringes of the Islamic world - outside of Rabin’s assasination has there been any other source of terrorism w/in Israel? - why would non-negotiation be effective? It’s my understanding that Islam looks kindly upon acts of martyrdom.

Why not hijack a plane when you have an end result of martyrdom preordained?