Just read this book (me girlfriend thought she might be proving summat to me by making me read it!) and altho there are some good points (civil liberties for example) I dont think our Benni has a clue! For a start, how can a right wing Israeli politician lecture anyone about how do deal with terrorism when their theories blatently dont work (for those that are unaware, Israel has a slight problem with terrorists) His chapter on the prospect of nuclear terrorism is very scary indeed and makes you think tough measures need to be taken against Iran. That chapter also contains no references what so ever (or in laymans terms, he made it all up off the top of his head) Not only that, he takes personal credit for eradicating terrorism throughout the world durig the 1980s!!!

Ok, onto the nitty gritty...

He states the obvious. He says, using America and the Oklahoma bomber as an example, that (domestic) terrorism cannot succeed if it does not have the support of a significant proportion of the population. He says it was easy to catch the bomber in a society that supports the notions of freedom and liberty, and also rejects outright the methods used by terrorists. No shit Sherlock!

He then says that it is harder to defeat terrorism in places like the Basque region of Spain (ETA) and Northern Ireland (IRA) where the terrorists there enjoy sympathy from the population or significant parts of the population which allows them to commit their acts of terror, then disappear into the safety of their communties. However, he offers no ideas how to defeat this kind of terrorism (which is a bit odd when you consider the fact that Palestinian terrorism would fall under this category, and which he spends half the book talking about!) This kind of terrorism is the kind of terrorism that needs addressing - when the terrorists have the support of a large part of the population. After he singled out the UK as an example of where terrorism has been more difficult to defeat, he stopped there. He paid no attention to the fact that the UK has not suffered an attack on the mainland from the IRA for nearly a decade. Surely this deserves some attention and discussion? This terrorism that is nearly impossible to defeat, yet has been kept at bay in the UK? No because we gave Sien Fein seats in Parliament, began a gradual withdrawal of troops from Ulster and oh yea, the big one, people in Northern Ireland, whatever their background or beliefs, are all full UK citizens, just like me, with all the democratic rights that come with that...

Onto the Palestinians. He says that terrorists must be considered criminals no matter what their motivations are (fair enought) but then he also says that you must not look at why terrorists do what they do. There are no excuses. I think in a paragraph directly following one where he talks about terrorists enjoying sympathy from their respective populations, he makes reference to the blockades Israel imposes on the Palestinians...

Can I get a reeeeewind?!

Right, so Benni cannot give us any clues on how to deal with terrorism where the terrorists enjoy support/shelter from sympathetic populations, but he makes reference to an issue why populations may support terrorism (apart from the Islamic fascism that affects most Muslims that is... ) And that is where I find Benni's book a little hard to swallow.

I think Mr Netenyahu's book would have considerable more weight if he looked at why populations support their chosen terrorists. But he cant cos he has already stated in his opening chapter that you must not do this out of fear of finding justifications for what terrorists do. A legitimate concern fair enough, but it is obvious he cannot investigate why populations support terrorism as this would involve a massive criticism of Israeli actions against a population (and summat tells me a right wing Israeli is not prepared to do this!)

It is obvious to me, from what Benni tells me about terrorism, that defeating terrorism involves eradicating the support for terrorism from certain populations, and that I'm afraid involves investigating why they support terrorism or why the terrorists commit the acts of violence they do...

But I think I am being a little hard on our Benni here. I did enjoy the book and thought it was very useful but there are areas that he needs to expand on, and other areas that in my opinion need totally revising

So, anyone else read it and disagree with what I have said above in my criticism?

(BTW, this aint no Israel bashing thread* and is designed for discussion of this book and his theories)

*not that I mind if it turns into one like!