Reflections on Yet Another War Between Israel and Hamas

This blog has been on hiatus for several years (for reasons that I’ll one day discuss in more depth), but the current situation in Israel has motivated me to lift my head out of my burrow, at least for the moment. I don’t want to rehash (or completely rehash…) the many ideas that I’ve talked about, often at length, between 2008 and 2017. Look up the Israel and Anti-Semitism labels on this blog and you’ll find plenty of articles, many of which remain sadly relevant today. (Note that in recent years, I’ve begun using the more modern “antisemitism” in place of the hyphenated “anti-Semitism” but that label has been in use for a long time.) However, there are a few thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head over the last few days and this blog seems to be the perfect outlet.

Before I continue, I want to make it clear that I think it is possible to support Israel and the right of Palestinians to live in peace, with dignity, and the right to self-determination. These are not competing views. I believe in that a two-state solution is the only viable solution, but that it will take a lot of work – by both parties – to find the courage, common ground, and trust to make that happen.

Justification

First, one of the recurring themes that I’ve heard from those who oppose Israel and/or support the Palestinians generally or Hamas in particular is that Hamas’ actions are justified because Israel is an occupying colonial power that has been waging war on the indigenous people of the region (or some variation on that theme). This view (let’s call it the “Historical Justification” worldview) has several serious flaws (some of which I’ve addressed in the past), but I’m not going to use this time to rehash history or the reality of who Israelis are (with the exception of a brief discussion of the point, below) or whether the Arab inhabitants are “more” indigenous than the Jewish population (made up of European Jews, Arab Jews, Persian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, and Jews from many other ethnic backgrounds). Rather, I want to look at the hypocrisy of those who take espouse Historical Justification or what that position might really mean if equitably applied. So, solely for the sake of argument, let’s presume that Historical Justification is correct and agree arguendo that Israel is an occupying colonial power, that Israel has “waged war” on the Palestinians and in so doing has deprived them of self-determination and the ability to live share the same human rights as others (though it may be worth asking whether the human rights Palestinians desire – and are absolutely entitled to – are extended to the populations of other Arab and Muslim countries…). Again, I’m agreeing to the Historical Justification worldview solely for the purpose of argument and discussion.

I presume (perhaps incorrectly) that those who do advocate Historical Justification do so in good faith and would agree that a similar framework for Historical Justification should apply not only to Palestinians but also to other groups who are “oppressed” by “occupying colonial powers”. Thus, I take it, that those who condone the actions of Hamas because of Historical Justification would also condone Native Americans bombing busses in Minneapolis, firing rockets at Tulsa, and kidnapping babies from Phoenix, right? No? Please explain, with specificity, what is worse about the Palestinian situation than the Native American experience (from colonization to conquest to genocide to reservations and residence schools to loss of language to forced sterilization to broken treaties and on and on and on…) and then tell me why Palestinian use of force against a civilian population is acceptable but Native American use of force against America (or Canada) is not. When you’ve completed that assignment, please take a step back and apply the same rationale to other ethnic, cultural, or religious groups all across the globe who believe that they are oppressed or lacking in self-determination. Aboriginal Australians? Basque and Catalan people in Spain? Tibetans? Muslims in India or China? I’ll wait. And before you answer with something like “because Israel drops bombs on Palestinians” or builds a security fence, query whether violence directed towards Israel and Israelis plays any role in that aspect of Israel’s conduct.

Proportionality

I’ve written extensively in the past about the idea of a “proportionate response” and what exactly that means (for example, see What Is a “Proportionate Response” to Terror? (Repost) and Again, I Ask: How Should Israel Respond). Feel free to go back and look at those posts again and then consider how the idea of proportionality applies to the current situation. What is the proportionate response to an armed incursion that was directed at a civilian population and to whom apparently no quarter was given. Tossing grenades into bomb shelters? Check. Dismembering babies? Check. [Note: I recognize at the time of writing that there is some question as whether babies were actually dismembered or just burned and shot from point-blank range.] Kidnapping women and children and elderly Holocaust survivors? Check, check, and check. Taking refuge, hiding munitions, and then firing rockets from heavily populated areas where civilians have no choice but to act as human shields? Again, check. So, again I ask, how should Israel respond and what is the proportionate response? Should Hamas essentially benefit from hiding in and acting from heavily-populated civilian areas? Should Hamas benefit from hiding weapons in schools, from firing rockets from schools, from digging tunnels under schools? If so, what will stop this from happening again and again and again. Is Israel supposed to just shrug its collective shoulders and so, “Oh, well, nothing we can do other than build better bomb shelters or flee from our homes and return to Ukraine and Iran?” and then just await the next barrage of rockets, paragliders, and suicidal jihadis? Try telling that to the parents whose children were dismembered, to the husbands and wives whose spouses are currently being held somewhere in Gaza, to the residents of villages and kibbutzim that no longer exist. Or is Israel free to take such military action as may be necessary to once and for all eliminate Hamas as an effective fighting force?

After writing the initial draft of the preceding paragraph (news keeps happening…), I came across a quotation from Israel’s President Isaac Herzog who spoke about proportionality during a press briefing:

Herzog also got visibly agitated when responding to a similar question at the same briefing. Matt Frei, from UK broadcaster Channel 4, asked the Israeli president whether Israel is holding ordinary Palestinians in Gaza responsible for not removing Hamas. “With all due respect, if you have a missile in your goddamn kitchen, and you want to shoot it at me, am I allowed to defend myself?” Herzog retorted. “That’s the situation. These missiles are there. These missiles are launched, the button is pressed, the missile comes up from a kitchen onto my children,” he continued.

(Israel’s president says it is abiding by international law, when asked by CNN about war crime accusations, internal paragraph breaks omitted; story apparently no longer available because it was part of a running “live” news ticker. The quotation can be found elsewhere.)

Agency

I find it troubling that while everyone feels bad for the innocent in Gaza (as we should), there is no assignment of agency to any of the population of Gaza for any acts committed in the name of Islam, the Palestinians, or Gazans, as if that population plays no role whatsoever in Hamas’ actions, strength, or role within Gaza. Contrast, for example, how Jews – even across the globe (not just Israelis) are blamed for the actions taken by Israel.

Do Gazan mothers encourage their sons to join Hamas and praise them when they do join Hamas or do those mothers try to convince their sons to stay away from Hamas and find productive ways to work toward peace? Do international organizations staffed by Gazans (UNRWA among others) take affirmative actions – including telling their parent organizations – about Hamas weapons caches in or around their facilities or do they keep their mouths closed (see further discussion on this below)? Do Gazans push for Hamas, as the de facto ruling power, to build bomb shelters and other infrastructure to improve life in Gaza or do they just look the other way when Hamas uses donor funds to buy weapons, dig tunnels, and leave the civilian population in squalor? Do Gazans spend their days training for war or working to improve their own living conditions and infrastructure? Why hasn’t Hamas built its own water desalinization plant? Do Gazans march in the streets to demand more freedom from Hamas, to have elections, to engage in dialogue with Israel or do they sit by and allow Gaza to be run by a terrorist organization and willingly allow themselves to be used as human shields each time Hamas elects to open new hostilities? Do Gazans not aligned with Hamas and/or who want to live in a better environment, perhaps with peace as a realistic hope, have any obligation to make even minimal efforts to bring those ideas to fruition? Think about it: The people of Gaza are willing send their children off to die in order to “free Palestine” from “Zionist control”. They’re willing to die to kill Jews. They are willing to die to free Palestine but don’t seem willing to die to free Gaza from Hamas.

When Israel told Palestinians in northern Gaza to relocated to southern Gaza (where there is a fair amount of open space and farmland), even dropping leaflets telling Palestinians where to go and where not to be, did Hamas arrange for an evacuation of its citizens out of Gaza City? Of course not. Instead, Hamas told the people of Gaza City not to follow the Israeli instructions; Hamas told people to stay in Gaza City. Why do you suppose Hamas would rather that people stay in Gaza City rather than relocate to southern Gaza? Hmm. Could it be that the goal is to make it harder for Israel to target terrorist infrastructure, weapons caches, rocket launch sites? Could it be that the goal is to make it harder for Israel to engage in targeted assaults aimed at rescuing hostages? Could it be that Hamas knows the value of using the civilian as human shields? I saw a video of a woman in Gaza complaining about the Israeli airstrikes and noting that Gaza had no early warning system (air raid sirens) or bomb shelters. Why, do you suppose, Hamas has not built an early warning system or bomb shelters? Israel is castigated for inflicting “collective punishment” on the Palestinians of Gaza yet no similar castigation seems to be aimed at Hamas for using the entire population of Gaza as human shields. Collective punishment vs. collective sacrifice?

Language

Another thing that has been forefront on my mind is the language that has been used to describe aspects of the current conflict. As you listen to or read about what’s happening, pay attention to the vocabulary both used and unsaid. For example, are the members of Hamas who shot concert-goers at point-blank range, who dismembered babies (or at least burned and shot them at close range), who threw grenades into bomb shelters, and who kidnapped women, children, and the elderly referred to as “militants” or “terrorists”? For example:

The BBC has defended its decision not to describe Hamas militants as “terrorists” in coverage of the recent attacks in Israel. UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said the policy is “verging on disgraceful”. A BBC spokesperson noted it was a long-standing position for its reporters not to use the term themselves unless attributing it to someone else. Veteran BBC foreign correspondent John Simpson said “calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides”. But Mr Shapps said the BBC needs to locate its “moral compass … I actually think it is verging on disgraceful, this idea that there is some sort of equivalence, and they'll always say, well there’s two sides,” he told LBC.

BBC defends policy not to call Hamas ‘terrorists’ after criticism.

I don’t know about you, but to me there is an important distinction between a militant and a terrorist (and if there wasn’t, why would the BBC have a policy on the wording?). Pay attention to which word is used and by whom. Furthermore, in all of the discussions regarding Hamas’ actions, in particular the kidnapping of Israeli (and non-Israeli!) civilians and transferring them back to Gaza, there is a great deal of contempt being expressed – appropriately so – but how often have you heard those actions actually described as “war crimes”? The Geneva Conventions specifically identifies the taking of hostages as a war crime. I’m not talking about soldiers who may be captured and who are deemed “prisoners of war” (but for whom specific protections are mandated, such as from mistreatment, yet we’ve seen video of captured Israelis being beaten by their captors or even Gazan civilians), but soldiers appear to be a small percentage of the hostages taken by Hamas. And now Hamas is threatening not only to kill hostages (more on that in a moment) but to even do so in the brutal manner “popularized” by ISIS and to broadcast the executions on social media. Israeli parents are being warned to keep their children off of social media for fear that their children may inadvertently see Hamas commit war crimes and show them to the world. Ask yourself why, even as Hamas’ actions are being condemned, they are not being explicitly labeled as war crimes.

Another interesting word choice that I came across comes from the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), headquartered in a suburb of Indianapolis. ISNA published a letter on Twitter (sorry, but I refuse to call it X), but oddly not on its website, that largely blames Israel for the violence and demands that the United States stop its “one-sided and unconditional support for Israel.” No great surprise there. The parts of the letter that I found interesting were the opening where ISNA expresses deep sadness for the “recent outbreak of war and violence in the Holy Land and Gaza” before going on to express solidarity with their “brothers and sisters in Palestine” and conclusion where ISNA calls on “all parties and governments around the world to exert pressure on Israel to cease its violence and war on the Palestinian people.” It’s not surprising that ISNA puts all of the blame on Israel. But, at least according to ISNA, Hamas didn’t attack Israel and Israeli citizens. Nope. Instead, in ISNA’s worldview (and you’ll see this sort of language frequently), there was simply an “outbreak” of war. You know, everyone was sitting around having a lazy Saturday morning when suddenly, out of nowhere, war and violence just broke out, the same way a thunderstorm or an earthquake might. In ISNA’s worldview, no blame is assigned to Hamas for actually – well, anything. Israel is to blame for all sorts of wrongs and because of those wrongs, war and violence just … happened. Note further where ISNA thinks that the war broke out. Yes, in Gaza, but not in Israel; rather, according to ISNA war broke out in the “Holy Land”. Apparently, ISNA can’t bring itself to acknowledge that the land on the other side of the Gazan border belongs to Israel and was included as a part of Israel as far back as the UN Partition Plan in 1947. Which of course begs the question when ISNA states that it expresses solidarity with its “brothers and sisters in Palestine”. What, precisely, does ISNA mean when it says “in Palestine”? Is ISNA expressing solidarity only with its Muslim brothers and sisters in Gaza and the West Bank? Or is it also expressing solidarity with Muslims (what about Arab Christians?) who live in Israel and are Israeli citizens? Are they included or excluded from that expression of solidarity with those “in Palestine”? If they’re included, that would appear to suggest that ISNA is denying the very existence of Israel. Now, consider this while remembering that the Hamas emblem depicts all of “Palestine” rather than the region divided into two states: Israel and Palestine.

Oh, and the swords just scream “peace” don’t they?

Threats

Do you think that any mosques or Islamic centers in America are worried that they might be attacked by angry Jews? Are supporters of Hamas or the Palestinians worried that they’ll be attacked by a mob of Jews as they walk down the street or take their children to school? Yet virtually every Jewish installation across the country has had to increase security (and security at Jewish facilities has already been dramatically increased after all of the attacks perpetrated in recent years including the Tree of Life massacre in Pittsburgh and the 2022 hostage-taking at a synagogue near Dallas by a Muslim man). Once again, to quote Arsenio Hall, “things that make you go hmmm.” And just a few hours ago, fear began to spread online after the former head of Hamas appeared to call for – well, it’s unclear exactly what he called for and whether it’s limited to the Middle East or across the world. But many are interpreting his statements as a call for terrorism or violent demonstrations. Can you imagine if the head of a Jewish organization called on Jews to attack mosques? No. You can’t. Because it doesn’t happen. But my daughter did call to ask me if she was safe in the large American city where she now resides.

Threats and Warnings

Beyond kidnapping civilians and taking them across the border back to Gaza, “The spokesman for Hamas’s military wing, Abu Obeida, said the group would execute a civilian hostage every time an airstrike hit Gazans ‘in their homes without warning.’” Israel Orders ‘Complete Siege’ of Gaza and Hamas Threatens to Kill Hostages. Did you notice anything interesting or unusual about that threat? Hamas didn’t threaten to execute a hostage for each airstrike; rather, the threat was limited to airstrikes that hit Gazans “in their homes without warning”. A few things. First, does Hamas give warnings to Israelis before rockets rain down? I believe that the general warning to civilians in Ashkelon a few days ago was a first. Did Hamas warn people at the open air festival or having breakfast in their homes on the kibbutzim? And, I suppose, you could read that threat as explicitly exempting Israeli airstrikes that either: (a) don’t hit homes; or (b) for which a warning is provided. Right? Remember as I’ve discussed previously, in the past Israel has directly warned occupants of buildings that are being targeted for airstrikes:

Israel often tries to warn civilians of an impending attack. Israel will often drop leaflets warning civilians to avoid a particular location because it will be targeted. And prior to targeting certain buildings, Israel has begun using a “door knock” or “roof knock” warning. Israel launches a non-explosive missile at the building to warn those who might be hanging around (or acting as human shields) that a more serious attack is imminent. Even the United Nations (not known as a friend of Israel) recognized that “In most cases, prior to the attacks, residents have been warned to leave, either via phone calls by the Israel military or by the firing of warning missiles.

Gaza

I’ve also heard repeated, almost ad nauseum, that Gaza is the “most densely populated area” in the ___ (fill in the blank; I’ve heard “region,” “Middle East,” and even “World”). Much of the reporting is likely to give the impression that Gaza is densely populated from north to south, east to west, with barely any room to breathe. However, like so much else, the truth is a bit more nuanced than that. First check out the following map of population density in Gaza:

(From Maps show the extreme population density in Gaza). Only the area in purple is densely populated (and the darker the purple, the denser the area). Another map from the same article is also instructive:

The article also includes a comparison of the density of Gaza City (the darkest purple at the northern end of Gaza) with other cities: Dhaka, Bangladesh, Tel Aviv, Los Angeles, and Washington.

But why not compare Gaza City to any of the 235 (!) urban areas (from the same source) that are denser than Gaza City (including Jerusalem (!), Istanbul, Cairo, Seoul, Mexico City, Berlin, and New York City)? See db-worldua.pdf (demographia.com) (Schedule 4 beginning on page 61). But I guess providing closer comparisons or examples from within the region doesn’t lend itself to the propaganda point quite as well.

Putin

Another thing that caught my attention and made me laugh (in that sort of morbid laughter that horrible situations sometimes require):

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday urged “both” sides in the fighting between Israel and Hamas to “minimize or reduce to zero” civilian casualties. Speaking from Moscow on the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Putin suggested the lack of a two-state solution has led to the current “explosion of violence,” saying, “Israel, as we know, was created, but Palestine as an independent sovereign state was never created, it did not happen…. We understand that the bitterness on both sides is very great, but no matter what the level of bitterness on both sides is, we still need to strive to minimize or reduce to zero losses among the civilian population, among women, children and the elderly,” Putin said. “If men decided to fight among themselves, let them fight among themselves. Leave children and women alone,” he added.

Putin calls to ‘minimize or reduce to zero’ civilian casualties in expanding conflict (internal paragraph breaks omitted). This caught my attention for two reasons. First, with regard to Putin’s suggestion that women and children should be left alone and that civilian casualties should be minimized or reduced to zero, one has to wonder whether Putin: (a) has looked at the civilian casualties caused by his military’s targeting of civilians in Ukraine (estimated at 9,806 as of October 8, 2023, including 560 children [Ukraine: Civilians endure ‘unbearable’ toll amid ‘unrelenting’ attacks], (b) is aware of the continued war crimes committed by his military as they kidnap Ukrainian children and transfer them to Russia (Deportation, Treatment of Ukraine’s Children by Russian Federations Takes Centre Stage by Many Delegates at Security Council Briefing), and/or (c) is familiar with the word “hypocrite”. But perhaps more troubling is Putin’s attempt to rewrite history (or his unfamiliarity with actual history). Putin claims that “Israel … was created, but Palestine as an independent sovereign state was never created, it did not happen…”. But we have to remember that the United Nations Partition Plan created both a Jewish and Arab state. The Jews immediately accepted the plan and announced the creation of Israel. The Arabs rejected the plan and attacked. So if “Palestine … was never created,” who is to blame? I bet I can guess who most people will blame.

Black Lives Matter

I want to touch on something that may be a little more controversial, but seems important. After the murder of George Floyd in 2020 and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, American Jewry was front and center advocating for the Black community. More than six hundred Jewish groups signed and published a letter supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, just as Jews had been actively involved in the civil rights movement, including being among the founders of the NAACP and the Freedom Riders to the south in the 1960s. The bond between Jews and the Black community has a long and vibrant history. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously said, “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!” Yet, even with all of that, it seems that some Black civil rights groups have become, if not fully antisemitic, at least anti-Zionist and/or supporters of the Palestinians (rather than supporters of a two-state solution and a peaceful resolution of the conflict). Now, in the wake of the recent attack by Hamas, some groups associated with Black Lives Matter appear to have amended a caveat to their view. Recall the anger when those on the right suggested that saying “Black lives matter” meant that “White lives don’t matter”? “Of course,” the Black community (and other communities of good will), answered, “all lives matter, but we’re not talking about all lives, we’re talking specifically about Black lives that don’t seem to matter to some.” Well, now it seems as if some in the Black Lives Matter community are amending that view to something more like “all lives matter … except Jewish lives.” How else to explain posts like this from a Black Lives Matter group:

Even when BLMChicago took down the post (quietly and under pressure) and then (finally) tried to walk it back, the best that they could come up with was (emojis of Palestinian flag and colors omitted):

Yesterday we sent out msgs that we aren’t proud of. We stand with Palestine & the people who will do what they must to live free. Our hearts are with, the grieving mothers, those rescuing babies from rubble, who are in danger of being wiped out completely

No condemnation of Hamas or the slaughter or kidnapping; no hope for a mutual peace. Just recognition of the plight of Palestinians and a green light for them to “do what they must to live free”. I can’t help but wonder if BLMChicago knows that the Jewish population of Israel includes about 133,000 Black Ethiopians (around 2% of the population) who were rescued from Ethiopia by Israel or that approximately 45% of Israel’s Jewish population is comprised of people of color (Mizrahi Jews from the Middle East and North Africa). So do groups like BLMChicago believe that Black lives (or the lives of people of color) in Israel don’t matter or that they matter, but just not as much as Palestinian lives?

Condemnation of Israeli civilians being slaughtered by Hamas should be the end of a sentence; it shouldn’t be followed with “but what about…” Condemning the actions of Hamas does not mean that Israel actions or responses are being condoned or that Israeli lives are more important than Palestinian lives.

UNWRA

One more quick point that I want to make on a subject that I kept meaning to discuss in more depth but never got around to (and which I alluded to above): UNRWA. As you follow coverage of the conflict, you’ll likely see or hear references to UNRWA (pronounced “un-ra”), the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which is the United Nations organization created to address Palestinian refugees after the 1948 War and administer Palestinian welfare efforts. Yes, UNRWA remains actively involved in Palestinian lives seventy-three years after it began operations in 1950. Among other functions, UNRWA operates schools in Gaza; schools where Hamas has been caught hiding and firing rockets and building tunnels and which uses textbooks that incite violence. UNWRA has also been caught employing staffers who post antisemitic messages on social media. But, perhaps, the craziest part of all of this is that UNRWA exists solely for the relief and works of Palestinians. It has no part to play with regard to Jews who became refugees after the 1948 War. More importantly, all other refugees in the world come under the auspices of the UNHCR (United National High Commission for Refugees) which has a very, very different definition for “refugee” than the definition used by UNRWA (the UNHCR definition is far narrower and doesn’t generally include descendants of a person who fled conflict). Thus, the literally millions of refugees of wars across the globe after 1948 (estimated to be as many as 35 million by Refuge Point) are subject to a far more restrictive and limited regime than the Palestinians. (If the definition of “refuge” applied to Palestinians were expanded to other conflicts, my children and I might be able to identify ourselves as refugees from Ukraine or Poland.) Yet in virtually none of those other wars are people living in refugee camps decades and decades after the cessation of principal hostilities. But in Gaza and the West Bank (and Jordan and Lebanon), refugee camps exist to this day, most administered by UNRWA. Why haven’t those people forced the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and Jordanian and Lebanese governments to build the necessary infrastructure to dismantle the refugee camps or to take over providing and schooling these “refugees” in lieu of the United Nations?

And just for a note of comparison, when Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia massacred 460 – 3,500 Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982, approximately 400,000 Israelis protested in Tel Aviv to demonstrate anger at the massacre and demand an investigation into Israel’s role and responsibility. And even today, Israel is still struggling with and coming to terms with those events as part of a inward-looking reflection not too dissimilar to that engaged in by Americans during and after Vietnam or now in the aftermath of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I haven’t seen Palestinians protesting to demonstrate anger at Hamas’ actions.

Conclusion

I’m sure that I’ll have many more thoughts and much more to say over the next days, weeks, and months. Whether I say it here or not remains to be seen. I will acknowledge, in advance, that some of my language in this post may not be as precise as it should be; anger and fear are emotions that can overwhelm caution and care. As always, I welcome discourse on the subject, but I’m not likely to respond favorably to those who choose simply to insult me, call me names, threaten me, and so forth. But I am very willing to engage in good faith discussions on solutions and ways to work toward peace.

Beware Terrorists (or Russia or Wikileaks) Giving Trump His October Surprise

Those who follow politics, and presidential politics in particular, are familiar with the idea of an “October Surprise”. Put simply, an October Surprise is an event that occurs very late in a political campaign (i.e., in October immediately prior to the November election) that will sway votes, usually without an opportunity for the candidate hurt by the event to respond. An October Surprise can be a neutral event to which each candidate’s reaction can be judged (think Hurricane Sandy in 2012) or it can be intentional, targeted to hurt or help a particular candidate. Often, candidates and their campaigns worry about any sort of October Surprise that the other side (or those supporting the other side) might be planning.

While I don’t really intend to drive conspiracies (you know what I think of conspiracy theories…) or fear-monger, I want to offer three possibilities of an October Surprise that would, sadly, not come as a great surprise but which could have a profound effect on the outcome of the election and the future of our nation and the world.

First, I think that we need to be seriously concerned about a significant terrorist attack by ISIS in America or against American interests in the days leading up to the election. Now, I’m sure many of you are saying, “But wouldn’t a terrorist attack help Trump”? Yes, it probably would. And that is likely precisely what ISIS wants. You see, while many people may be arguing that Trump will be “tougher” on terrorists than Clinton, I think that in the part of the Muslim world that is either sympathetic to ISIS or susceptible to the ISIS message, a Trump victory would be a good thing … for ISIS.

Yes, really.

Sure, we might drop more bombs on parts of Syria, Iraq, and Libya. And we might kill more jihadi fighters. But one of my biggest fears of a Trump presidency is that he would give ISIS precisely what it wants: A clash of civilizations and religions, pitting the wealthy, decadent, Christian West against the poor, pious, Islamic world. Think of it this way: When the US drops a bomb on a village in Syria, does that tend to dissuade more young Muslims from joining ISIS or does it serve as a recruiting tool to radicalize even more people to the call of radical Islam? If America tortures Muslims it accuses of terrorism, does the torture act as a deterrent or a clarion call to other Muslims susceptible to radicalization? If you read what experts on the subject have been saying ever since Trump first suggested that we ban Muslims from coming to America (or resume the use of torture or kill the families of terrorists), you’ll see just this fear being one of the core concerns being raised. We know that ISIS (like al-Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorist groups) is not afraid to sacrifice “martyrs” for the larger “good” that their deaths may bring. If ISIS can goad Trump into a much broader war in which more and more Muslims will die at the hands of “infidels”, then ISIS may be even closer to the realization of their basic goals. And sadly Donald Trump doesn’t seem to understand that we can’t fight a war against a a few million Muslims by alienating or fighting against a billion Muslims who haven’t yet taken up arms.

Thus, a terrorist attack that would put fear into the American populace, bring about the election of Donald Trump, and from there the alienation and radicalization of more of the Muslim world, might be a perfect game plan for ISIS.

Yet if there is a terrorist attack that seems to benefit Trump, we can’t presume that ISIS is responsible. In any normal and sane universe, it would be difficult to imagine an violent October Surprise in which a candidate was complicit or that was conducted by a state actor. But this is not a normal year and I have my doubts as to whether Donald Trump is sane (at least in the classic sense of the word of being able to understand the difference between right and wrong).

What am I talking about? Russia.

We’ve already seen the apparent warm relations (bromance?) between Trump and Vladimir Putin. We’ve seen Trump praise Putin’s leadership (and by “leadership” I mean the killing of opposition journalists). We’ve seen Trump talk about abandoning our NATO allies and essentially ceding the Baltic countries to Russia. We’ve seen Trump talk about reversing the US (and global) position on Russia’s annexation of Crimea. And we’ve seen Trump ask Russia for help in hacking into Clinton’s computers (oh, wait, that was just sarcasm, right?). Earlier this week we heard Trump tell the world that he doesn’t trust American’s intelligence agencies. Seriously. Moreover, I suspect that from the Russian perspective, the internal chaos, dissension, and isolationism that a Trump presidency would cause in the US would be an enormous boon to Russia’s efforts to reassert its own global influence.

If Russia’s spy agencies are willing to try to subvert American democracy via hacking and disclosure of information, what else might they be willing to do? Might the Russians be willing to aid ISIS, especially if in doing so, they were able to keep the focus of ISIS directed westward instead of northward into the Muslim republics of Russia? Or might the Russians even be willing to risk a direct action if it could be plausibly blamed on ISIS (a so-called “false flag” attack)? Again, while I would usually scoff at such a notion in normal times … these are not normal times.

Finally, recall the release by WikiLeaks of documents stolen from the Democratic National Committee, most likely by the Russian spy agencies. So what happens if WikiLeaks releases other damaging (or potentially damaging) documents closer to the election? How would that play out? At least one of Trump’s supporters and occasional advisors, Roger Stone, seems to think that is precisely what is going to happen. Just imagine a WikiLeaks document dump in the days immediately prior to the election that confirms any of a host of conspiracies about Clinton. Just imagine the results. And if such a release is timed properly, Clinton might have no time to respond.

Now, given the likely involvement of the Russian spy agencies in the theft of information, why should we presume that any damaging information is accurate? For example, imagine a document dump two or three days before the election that supposedly demonstrates that Clinton accepted bribes from Wall Street or foreign leaders or that she had been diagnosed with some ailment or that she was actually Saul Alinsky’s love child. Can you imagine the last minute swing such news might play in the election? But think for a minute how simple it would be for anyone to create a fake document. We’ve seen it before with the fake military records of George W. Bush. Now, imagine for a moment what would happen if, after Trump was elected because of fraudulent documents, it could be conclusively proven that the documents were, indeed, fraudulent. The results of the election and our entire electoral process might be thrown into a state of turmoil. And who would benefit from an America paralyzed by internal turmoil or a constitutional crisis? Russia. And China. And maybe ISIS. But definitely not the American people.

Just to muddy these particular waters a bit more, don’t forget that veteran political observers have been puzzled by the Trump campaign’s failure to do those things that are ordinarily required for a successful electoral strategy. The lack of a “ground game” (and associated get out the vote efforts), the failure to engage in major fundraising efforts (at least until recently), and the failure (until yesterday, apparently) to spend money on television ads could all be put down to Trump being Trump and simply bucking tradition and political wisdom. Or, if you’d like to climb down the conspiracy rabbit hole, it could be because Trump knows that he’s got something to shake things up before votes are actually cast.

Yeah, I know. I probably sound a bit like Alex Jones. Sigh. That’s not my intent. Maybe I’ve just read too many well-written thrillers. I’m not sitting here telling you that any of these things are going to happen. Rather, I’m simply suggesting that we be prepared for the unexpected, the October Surprise. And I’m suggesting that given the stakes, given the people and countries involved, given what we’ve already seen, and given the ramifications of the possible outcomes of the election, that we be careful in jumping to any conclusions should any sort of unexpected event occur.

I fear what could happen if Donald Trump is elected President. I fear for our country and for our world. And I fear that Donald Trump, a man seemingly without any moral convictions whatsoever, will do quite literally anything to get what he wants. And what he wants is to win.

Syrian Refugees (and Terrorism)

I started this post a week or ten days ago with a somewhat different focus; I may get back to the broader issues that I was going to discuss. But for now, I want to focus on the issue of refugees.

America is a nation of refugees. For centuries, people have found their way to our shores, often to avoid persecution, violence, or economic privation. Most of my ancestors came to America in the late 1800s, in large part to avoid institutional anti-Semitism and pogroms, but also to try to make a better life than the abject poverty found in the Eastern European shtetl. Recently, America has seen waves of Central American children trying to escape gang violence and poverty. In years before that, America has accepted refugees from war zones across the world, from the Hmong to the Somalis, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Cuba. America has accepted refugees and worked to integrate them into the broader fabric of a ever more diverse American culture.

Sadly, I can’t say that America has always welcomed refugees. Even a cursory review of our history will show a degree of discomfort that waves of immigrants and refugees caused in the American population, whether it was the Irish, the Chinese, the Mexicans, or others, we have a history of not living up to our ideals when it comes to our treatment of and the welcome shown to refugees. And, of course, we have true stains on our history when we think about some of the refugees that we turned away, most notably (perhaps) the Jews who were fleeing Nazi Germany but who could find no refuge and were thus forced to return or Americans of Japanese descent who we imprisoned on the basis of their race (while Americans of German and Italian ancestry were fully integrated into our armed forces).

Today, many in America, including many governors, want to turn their backs on refugees from Syria. I think that is wrong. I think that is un-American. I think that flies in the face of the very concept of American exceptionalism of which we are so proud.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

That poem by Emma Lazarus is inscribed upon the Statue of Liberty. That is who we are and who we must aspire to remain.

Let me be clear: I don’t think that it is America’s job to solve every refugee crisis; nor do I think that it is our obligation to accept every refugee. But as the world’s sole remaining superpower, as the largest economy on the planet, as a country with vast resources and vast territory, as a people who are more diverse than any other population on the globe, then I think that we have a duty to help when and to the extent that we can. It is part of the role of being that economic and military superpower. It is part of the role of being American. It is part of the role of being human.

“But, many of these Syrians are Muslim!” I hear many of you say. Yes. They are. So what? Are you honestly arguing that all or even most Muslims are terrorists who want to harm you or America? Seriously? Let me remind you that our Constitution has a specific prohibition on religious tests for public office. Do you really think that the Founding Fathers would have included that prohibition if they wanted a religious test for immigration or admission of refugees?

I understand, especially in the wake of the terrorist attack in Paris, that people are nervous about accepting refugees who might have among them members of ISIL or other groups who intend to do harm to Americans. I get that. And I think that it is a legitimate concern for which we must take appropriate cautions. But on that point, I think that there are several things to consider. First, the comparison between Syrian refugees flooding into Europe and those who might be admitted to the United States is a flawed comparison. For one thing, refugees have been walking into Europe in the hundreds and thousands, completely overwhelming the ability of governments to account for and deal with those refugees, let alone take the necessary time to do thorough background checks and isolate those will bad intent. Compare that situation to those seeking sanctuary in the United States who must undergo background checks often taking several years before they are permitted entry. If you were a terrorist intent on acting against Americans, would embedding yourself into a multi-year asylum process (with no sure success) that included detailed background checks be your best choice?

Furthermore, Germany alone is estimated to be taking in somewhere between 800,000 and 1,000,000 refuges compared to a far, far smaller number that has been proposed for the United States (about 100,000 over the next few years). Don’t forget that Europe, especially Germany, France, the UK, and the low countries, already have enormous Muslim populations that are often segregated (self-segregated in some instances, economically in others) and exist as a sort of permanent underclass in those societies. Compare that to the United States where Muslims of Arab descent are a much smaller percentage of the population and much more dispersed throughout a much more diverse population. While Muslims and Arabs may be disfavored by many Americans, there isn’t the degree of underclass quality that defines America’s Muslim and Arab populations.

On that note, take a guess as to just how many Syrian refugees have already been settled in Indiana. Go on. Take a guess. 10,000? 1,000? 100? How many? According to Indiana’s Family and Social Services Administration, since 2010, Indiana has been the refuge for forty Syrian refugees. Forty. But that may be overstating it. According to the Indiana State Department of Health Refugee Report Federal Fiscal Year 2014 (page 5), the number from 2012-2014 is just twelve. Review that report to see how relatively few refugees are settled in Indiana and where they originate.

Consider further how we treat other refugee populations and others who simply want to visit the United States. Visitors from the European Union don’t need a visa to enter the United States. Query then, whether we have more to worry about from terrorists bearing the passport of a European Union nation or a Syrian refugee who has undergone a multi-year background check? Most of the 9/11 hijackers traveled on (I believe) Saudi Arabian passports; none of them were here as refugees. Yet I don’t hear calls for bans on Europeans or Saudis from traveling to the US. Similarly, a refugee from Cuba need merely get his or her feet onto American soil to be entitled to claim asylum and stay in the United States. Yet until earlier this year, Cuba was on the United States’ list of state sponsors of terrorism. So how did we know that a Cuban refugee wasn’t here as an agent for the Cuban government to engage in terrorist acts? But I guess the Cuban lobby is more powerful than the Syrian lobby, even if Syria has never housed nuclear armed missiles pointed at the United States.

I think we also need to remember that, while it is possible for ISIL to embed a terrorist within the Syrian refugees seeking shelter in the United States, the brutality of ISIL is one of the things that those refugees are seeking shelter from. It would be a bit like telling a boat load of Jews fleeing the Holocaust that they aren’t welcome in the United States because we are worried that there might be a few Nazis hidden among them.

Consider further our role and reputation within the international community, both in terms of other nations and in terms of Arab and Muslim (and related) populations around the world. At least to some, the so-called “War on Terror” (and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) are part of a larger clash of cultures between Christianity/Western democracies and Islam/repressive regimes. While that is far too simplistic for most purposes, it is a lens through which many may look at the United States and our actions. When we stand up and claim to be the shining beacon on the hill and a nation and system to which others should aspire, do our actions match our rhetoric or do we appear as hypocrites who allow for repression of people that we either fear or can be perceived to simply not care about? Ask the question more simply: If we turn away Syrian refugees, will we make America more or less popular among the Arab Street? Will more Muslims turn to America as a sign of hope and strength or will they turn to ISIL as the force standing up to America? I believe that we need to show that our interest is not just in those who look and pray like the majority of Americans; rather, we need to show that American idealism and exceptionalism can extend to all people, no matter their race or religion.

I want to note two other points. First, I understand the fear of Islamist terrorism directed at America and Americans. We need to be vigilant and cautious. But we also need to take serious the threat of far right domestic terror. When Muslims destroyed the World Trade Center, we went to war. But when Christian nationalists destroyed the Federal building in Oklahoma City … we yawned. Four Americans were killed in Benghazi and we’ve had hearing after hearing after hearing and investigations ad nauseum. Nine Americans were killed in a church and, after much gnashing of teeth, we took down a flag. And what will we do after yet another attack directed against an abortion provider? Probably nothing. But what would we have done had that attack been by a Muslim and targeted a church or Hobby Lobby or Chik-fil-A? For that matter, what is the likelihood that we will hear a Presidential candidate suggest that Christian immigrants, Syrian or otherwise, be asked about their views on abortion or other social issues to be sure that they are not potential terrorists? What is the likelihood that we’ll hear a Presidential candidate suggest that Evangelical Christians be registered with the government or that their churches be monitored for radicalization or incitement speech?

Finally, there is one reason why we should be more concerned about the prospect for terrorism in the United States than should Western European countries: Guns. Those who perpetrated the attacks in Paris apparently had to smuggle their weapons from Eastern Europe. Compare that to America where even al-Qaeda has recognized and publicized just how easy it is for a prospective terrorist to acquire weapons. And don’t forget that the NRA — and those who accept NRA blood money — continue to allow those who are on the “no fly” or terrorist watch list to buy guns.

We should accept Syrian refugees. To be certain, we should subject those refugees to a vigorous background check so that we can be confident that we’re accepting refugees who mean us no harm. But we should apply that same rationale to other refugees seeking shelter on our shores. And, while we should certainly take seriously the threat of terrorism, we should be rational in our understanding of from where that terrorism may emanate and act accordingly. We can’t simply equate Islam to terrorism, just as we can’t preclude some Christians from those that we need to be cautious about. Our approach to refugees and terrorists must be both cautious and broad, without jumping to conclusions or making broad assumptions about huge groups of people on the basis of just a few and without ignoring potential threats because of a failure to directly line up to preconceived notions of who might be a terrorist.

Biased and Misleading Headlines About Palestinian Attacks on Israelis

Do you remember the headline about the man who was killed in a classroom full of children after they’d apparently allowed themselves to get in the way of his bullets? What about the one about the airline passengers who died when a building knocked the plane out of the sky? How angry would you be if headlines following 9/11 focused on the deaths of the hijackers without mentioning the acts that they had committed? How angry would you have been if, following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the headlines focused on the death of Adam Lanza without explaining that he had just killed children?

Yet those are the sort of headlines that are used to “describe” the ongoing wave of Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israelis (and Jewish holy sites). Here are several examples (most taken from CAMERA’s article Wave of Palestinian Violence Accompanied by Spate of Bad Writing):

That headline comes from the British newspaper The Independent (and is was later corrected, somewhat). What does that headline omit? How about the fact that the boy in question had just engaged in one of the stabbing attacks. He stabbed two Ultra Orthodox men (both in their 60s). In other words, the headline focuses on the deaths of those who have committed the terrorist acts and says nothing about those who have been the victims of the attacks. As CAMERA also notes, when The Independent previously mentioned a 16-year-old Israeli killed by a Palestinian, that Israeli was described as a “teen” not as a “boy”.

Consider this headline and story from The Wall Street Journal’s Facebook page:

Those two Palestinian teenagers? Yeah, they were the knife-wielding assailants that the story mentions. And the victims? One was a 14-year-old Israeli boy riding his bicycle after buying some candy. This particular story is also interesting because Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in a televised speech, accused Israel of executing the Palestinian assailants:

In a televised speech on Wednesday night, Mr Abbas condemned the “occupation and aggression of Israel and its settlers” who “execute our boys in cold blood, as they did with the boy Ahmed Manasra”.

One problem. Not only did Israel not “execute” Ahmed Manasra, they even treated his injuries in an Israeli hospital (where he confessed to the attacks). Yet when Israel criticized Abbas for his claim that Manasra had been executed, The New York Times would only refer to Israel’s accusation:

The article notes that Mansara is alive and that Abbas said that he was executed, but the headline, rather than talking about Abbas’ lie, focuses on Israel and its accusation. Oh, and why would Abbas lie about Israel having “executed” a boy? Incitement, anyone?

Here is some video of the incident:

Or how about this headline from USA Today:

The first paragraph of the article is just as bad:

Four Palestinians were shot and killed by Israelis Saturday in separate stabbing incidents in Jerusalem and the West Bank in the latest in a month-long upsurge in violent confrontations.

Do either the headline or introductory paragraph give you any context to tell you that the Palestinians who had been killed were the ones who had stabbed or tried to stab Israelis?

And here is a headline from the Los Angeles Times (which was also corrected following a complaint from CAMERA):

Do you see a pattern here?

Maybe Reuters will do a better job:

Hmm. Whom and what is a “knife man” and why did the mean Israelis kill him? Might it have involved an attempt by “knife man” to, you know, stab Israelis? Isn’t that, you know, pertinent to the story?

I’m not sure if you’ve heard, but twice in the last week or so, a Jewish holy site (Joseph’s Tomb) has been firebombed by Palestinians. How does CNN report the firebombing?

Yep. It just caught on fire somehow. And note how CNN headlined an attack on an Islamic mosque:

If a mosque burns, it’s an attack that can be blamed on someone (ooh, Jews!), but if Palestinians attack and burn a Jewish shrine, it appears that no agency or ill will is involved.

Sometimes, the headlines (and even articles) are so egregious that they border on being ghoulishly funny:

This one is from The New York Times. There are few things to note here. First, the man “died”. He wasn’t murdered. He simply died. Maybe he died from natural causes, coincidentally at the same time that the rocks pelted his car. Who knows. Second, when do rocks pelt cars? Don’t they need, you know, a human arm to throw them? Well, if you read the article you’ll see that some Palestinians were out for some good-natured fun of throwing rocks at the road. I’m sure they weren’t aiming for cars on the road or the people in those cars, right?

A few more examples (I could probably go on for pages and pages and pages). First, the Irish Independent:

The Telegraph:

Sky News:

Daily Beast:

A brief note about this last headline: It describes a truly tragic event. In the confusion following a shooting by a terrorist in an Israeli bus station that killed one and wounded several others, bystanders killed an innocent man, apparently thinking that he was the terrorist. But here is what is important about this headline. It gives you no context to understand that the man was killed in the chaos and confusion in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack. If you read that headline, you’re left to think that a bloodthirsty crowd of Israelis decided to kill someone rather than that they were either trying to apprehend a terrorist or, perhaps, were responding with understandable but unacceptable anger to the terrorist attack.

To go back to the questions I posed in the introductory paragraph, how would you have felt if you saw this headline the day after 9/11:

So ask yourself these questions:

1. Why are these headlines written the way that they are?
2. What is the effect on public opinion when people read headlines like these?

Finally, I thought it was worth sharing video of some of the recent terrorist incidents. Be forewarned that these are disturbing videos:

 

Unfortunately, I didn’t have time to find “clean” versions of these videos; I apologize for the quality and any additional commentary that were added to by third parties.

Movie Theater Checking Bags for “Security” of Patrons Looks More Like a Cheap Ploy to Sell More Overpriced Candy

When our family went to see “Fantastic Four” last week (don’t bother…), the teenage girl taking tickets asked to search my wife’s purse. When we asked her why, she explained that it was for “security”. Oddly, while she searched my wife’s purse, the rent-a-cop (actually, an off duty police officer from a small town nearby) stood nearby and looked on, but didn’t offer the teenage employee any assistance in her search of the purse.

Subsequent to this episode, we learned that Regal Entertainment Group (owner of Regal Cinemas) had enacted a security policy:

Backpacks/Packages/Bags:

Security issues have become a daily part of our lives in America. Regal Entertainment Group wants our customers and staff to feel comfortable and safe when visiting or working in our theatres. To ensure the safety of our guests and employees, backpacks and bags of any kind are subject to inspection prior to admission. We acknowledge that this procedure can cause some inconvenience and that it is not without flaws, but hope these are minor in comparison to increased safety.

Now, I have no problem with reasonable enhanced security. In part as a result of the massive quantity of guns in our society, we now live in a country where any place can become a scene of mass carnage at virtually any time. So if a brief check of bags and backpacks will help keep me and my family safe, then I’m all for it.

However, when it comes to this new policy enacted by Regal Entertainment Group (hereafter referred to just as “Regal”), I have only one response: Bullshit.

This policy has nothing to do with real security. Rather, it is either a cynical way to exploit fears of violence in theaters (“Look, we’re doing something about it!”) or, more likely, a subterfuge for enforcing a different policy altogether:

Outside Food or Drink:

No outside food or drink is permitted in the theatre.

What leads me to these conclusions? Let’s consider the policy and its implementation. I think that it’s fairly safe to presume that the “[s]ecurity issues” that “have become a daily part of our lives” is a reference to the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting and the two theater shootings (or attempted shootings) this year in Lafayette, Louisiana, and Nashville, Tennessee.

So, my first question is whether a search of patrons’ bags and backpacks would have stopped any of these incidents? In the case of the shooting in Aurora, the shooter left the theater via an emergency exit which he propped open in order to retrieve his guns from his car. So obviously, a bag search would not have turned up anything, would it? In the Lafayette shooting, the shooter was armed with a handgun. I have been unable to determine whether it was in a bag or just in his pocket, a holster, or otherwise concealed on his body. In the case of the Nashville attempted shooting, the shooter did have two bags. One had an Airsoft BB gun and a hatchet; the other bag had what appeared to be an explosive device. And that leads inevitably to the next question: What would have happened had a teenage employee (especially a very slight girl, like the one who searched my wife’s purse) asked to open one of those bags?

Thus, consider the efficacy of a bag search by a teenager (or any employee not given appropriate training). Will that deter someone intent on committing mass violence? And ask what sort of training that teenage employee has taken. What are they told to do if a patron refuses a bag search or gets belligerent? What are they told to do if the patron claims that they are being discriminated against? What are they to do with a backpack that appears to contain jackets or sweatshirts? Are they expected to pull those out to be sure that no weapons are hidden in or below them? What are they told to do if they find a gun or knife, let alone an explosive device? Run screaming? Calmly tell the patron that they can’t bring the gun into the theater?* Go ahead, roll that scenario through your mind and tell me how it ends. Oh, and ask yourself why Regal is entrusting this sort of “security” to its teenage employees instead of to (hopefully trained) security guards or off-duty police officers?

*By the way, I read through Regal’s Admittance Procedures (so you don’t have to). There is the aforementioned prohibition on outside food and drink. And there are prohibitions on smoking and on the use of recording devices.There is even a request for patrons to avoid using their cellphones. But guess what? There is no prohibition on bringing firearms, knives, or any other sort of weapon into a Regal theater. So even if that employee finds a gun in a woman’s purse, the woman can argue that she should be entitled to admission to the theater because there is no prohibition against bringing a gun.

But that isn’t the end of the problems with the security policy; far from it.

Consider this: Who is most likely to carry a bag into a theater? The answer to that would seem to be women with their purses. How many men carry a bag, even a backpack, into a theater? Not many, I’d wager. Yet the one factor that all of the theater shootings (and most of the mass shootings, no matter where committed) have in common is that they were committed by men. Thus, by limiting searches to backpacks and bags, Regal is selectively targeting for inspection those who seem least likely to constitute security threats. Will men with bulky jackets be searched to see if they have a gun secreted on their person? Will men with cargo pants be asked to empty their pockets to be sure that they don’t have a gun or knife? Will men be asked to raise their shirts to allow the theater employee to see if they are wearing a holster or have a gun stuffed into the waistband of their pants? Of course not.

And think about this: There is no attempt to profile the type of person who might be likely to commit an act of mass violence. I’m not talking about racial profiling; rather, how about profiling people who come into the theater by themselves, especially if they look … oh, I don’t know … crazy? Or maybe single people who come into the theater after the movie has begun. Perhaps groups of young people who appear to be part of a gang or anyone who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Compare that sort of profiling to the search conducted of my wife’s purse; is there really a suspicion that a family of four, including two children, intends to commit an act of violence or threaten the safety and security of other patrons?

Oh, and one Indiana-specific side note: As a result of some of the NRA-inspired idiocy from our General Assembly, Regal is allowed to prohibit patrons from bringing guns into the theater (even if they don’t appear to have adopted such a policy) but cannot prohibit employees from having guns in their cars in the parking lot. In fact, Regal cannot even ask employees about possession of a gun. I wonder whether Regal is searching its employees when they come to work to be sure that they left their guns in their cars. And if not, why not? That’s a good question to ask a manager at Regal.

If a bag search isn’t likely to deter someone intent on mass violence and isn’t aimed at those most likely to commit mass violence, then what is its real purpose?

Perhaps Regal just wants people to think that Regal takes security seriously. Perhaps the thinking in the Regal boardroom went like this: “Hey, if people think that they are safer in our theaters, then maybe they’ll come to our theaters instead of those owned by our competitors where they don’t check bags. Who cares if our safety is bullshit, so long as it helps us sell more tickets!” Yeah, I know that sounds unfair. But if that isn’t the explanation, and if Regal really cared about safety, then wouldn’t the security policy be designed so as to be effective and be implemented in a way that might work without putting teenage employees at risk? For that matter, wouldn’t Regal have also enacted a “no weapons” policy?

Which brings me to what I believe is the real intent of the security policy: Regal wants to make more money by selling more candy and drinks and the best way to do that is to search bags and backpacks to be sure that people aren’t bringing contraband food and beverages into the theater. It’s hard to hide an AR-15 in a backpack or purse, but it’s easy to hide a box of Sno-Caps and a bottle of Coke; similarly, it’s easy to hide a handgun in a pocket or the waistband of a pair of pants, but it’s not as easy to conceal that same bottle of Coke.

I don’t think the security policy is really designed to keep anyone safe; if that is the intent of the policy, then someone really didn’t think it through very well (I wonder if Regal purchased extra insurance for the employees tasked with searching bags). Instead, I think that the intent is to be sure that patrons don’t try to sneak candy or drinks into the theater in hopes that Regal can sell a few more boxes of horribly overpriced goodies.

Incidentally, I’m not the only one to reach these conclusions. I came across the following after I’d written the bulk of this post (while I was checking some of the information related to the prior theater shootings):

Jeff Bock, box office analyst for theater-industry research firm Exhibitor Relations, predicted the policy will lower the anxiety of theatergoers but could pose other problems.

“Implementing this is probably a good idea,” he said. “But it seems undercooked. How is this going to work? The protocol needs to be defined. Exactly what are they doing and what kind of training are you giving to employees?

“It’s a pretty big thing to ask for 16-year-old employees to search through bags for possible firearms. This kind of changes the duties of a theater employee from making popcorn and sweeping floors to basically being a low-rent security guard. Maybe this falls to the manager of the theater to search … We now have to deal with the consequences of what if they find something in the bag.

“Obviously, all the people who sneak in Subway sandwiches are going to be mortified,” Bock added. “Maybe that’s the Regal ulterior motive. Stopping illegal Milk Duds from getting into theaters.”

One more quick point: If you are a woman going to a movie at a Regal theater and an employee asks to search your purse, I’d ask for the manager and then ask why only women (seemingly, at least) are being subjected to the policy. Ask why your husband or boyfriend isn’t being frisked or made to empty his pockets. Put the onus on Regal to explain why they’ve implemented a policy which, in effect, discriminates against women (especially women with children!) and subjects them to a heightened degree of scrutiny and an invasion of privacy to which men are not subject. Yes, Regal may claim that it wants to keep its patrons safe, but I doubt very much that it will relish a backlash from angry women who have had their purses ransacked by teenagers.

I can’t end this post without disclosing and noting my own prior history with Regal Entertainment Group: Regal Cinema's Disregard for Patrons and Films (June 30, 2008) and Regal Cinema's Disregard for Patrons and Films (update) a/k/a When Disney Talks, Regal Listens (July 2, 2008).

Updated August 25, 2015 to correct a typo.

A Few Initial Thoughts Following the Tragic South Carolina Church Massacre

It’s too early to say much about the tragic shooting at a church in South Carolina last night. We’ve seen, all too often, that the earliest news about these sorts of events is wrong in some or many details. So I don’t want to dive deeply into motivations, revisit my previous discussions about gun control, or talk generally about the state of race relations in America. But I do want to make a few very brief observations.

First, the subject was captured. Alive. Perhaps it’s merely coincidence; perhaps there are far more variables involved… But I find it interesting that Dylann Roof was captured alive, just like James Holmes (the Aurura Colorado theater shooter), F. Glenn Miller, Jr. (the neo-Nazi who shot three people at a Kansas City Jewish community center), Eric Frein (the man who hid in the woods to assassinate police officers in Pennsylvania), Jared Lee Loughner (the Tucson shooter who wounded Congresswoman Giffords and killed 6 others), Ryan Elliot Giroux (the white supremacist skinhead who killed several people in Arizona earlier this year), and others. Each of those people was (I believe) armed when apprehended. Now, compare that to the repeated stories that we’ve seen recently of unarmed African Americans, often teens (or younger), who are killed by police, sometimes for a minor infraction, other times after committing no crime at all. It’s just one of those things that makes you say, “Hmm.”

Second, if a shooting like the one in South Carolina took place in Iraq and the shooter was a Sunni and his targets were a group of Shiites, we’d have no trouble calling the shooter a terrorist. If the shooter was a Muslim and his target was any group of Americans, we’d have no trouble calling the shooter a terrorist (especially if those Americans were in a church praying). But when the shooter is a white man, the kneejerk reaction is to say that he was “troubled” or suffered from mental illness. That may be true; he may have been mentally ill. But if, as early reports indicate, he expressed his desire to kill African Americans simply because they were African Americans, then isn’t that the exact sort of conduct that we would classify as terrorist if the shooter wasn’t a white, Christian American?

Finally, when I heard members of South Carolina’s government speaking about the shooting this morning, it made me wonder whether South Carolina would lower to half staff the Confederate battle flag that flies in front of the State Capital.

I mean, it’s not like the Confederate battle flag could ever be thought of as a sign of racial division or prejudice, right? And I’m sure that those who support flying a Confederate battle flag would think it appropriate to lower the flag to half staff to commemorate African Americans who were killed in a church that was once burned down by those who supported slavery and which later served as a stop on the underground railroad. Am I right?

Updated June 26 to correct typos.