In the UK, Counterterrorism Training Favors the Terrorists

In America, there has been much discussion about how the universities have become incubators for anti-Semitism. This problem is, if anything, worse in Great Britain. So what happens when a prestigious London college offers a course for civil servants on counterterrorism? Anna Stanley recently found out:

In the introduction to the course, labeling an organization as terrorist was described as a problem because it “implies a moral judgment.” Nothing was said about why a moral judgment might be appropriate.

There was an irony to being surrounded by civil servants who hate the concept of the state. As young professionals, they represented a microcosm of the views emanating from British universities: when it comes to extremism and counterterrorism, the state is not to be trusted. The head of Security Studies at Kings College read concernedly, “Problems of definitions: labeling a group terrorist can increase the state’s power.” The civil servants nodded in agreement.

We were told some consider Hamas terrorists as freedom fighters whereas Israel was provided as a prime example when considering the question of whether a state can commit terrorism. In the introduction, one slide read “condemning terrorism is to endorse the power of the strong over the weak,” a dangerous conclusion breeding anti-Israel positions.

Another slide read, “Terrorism is not the problem, rather the systems they [sic] oppose are terrorist,” reflecting post-modern identity politics wrapped up as counterterrorism education.

Read more at Fathom

More about: Terrorism, United Kingdom, University


Hizballah Is Learning Israel’s Weak Spots

On Tuesday, a Hizballah drone attack injured three people in northern Israel. The next day, another attack, targeting an IDF base, injured eighteen people, six of them seriously, in Arab al-Amshe, also in the north. This second attack involved the simultaneous use of drones carrying explosives and guided antitank missiles. In both cases, the defensive systems that performed so successfully last weekend failed to stop the drones and missiles. Ron Ben-Yishai has a straightforward explanation as to why: the Lebanon-backed terrorist group is getting better at evading Israel defenses. He explains the three basis systems used to pilot these unmanned aircraft, and their practical effects:

These systems allow drones to act similarly to fighter jets, using “dead zones”—areas not visible to radar or other optical detection—to approach targets. They fly low initially, then ascend just before crashing and detonating on the target. The terrain of southern Lebanon is particularly conducive to such attacks.

But this requires skills that the terror group has honed over months of fighting against Israel. The latest attacks involved a large drone capable of carrying over 50 kg (110 lbs.) of explosives. The terrorists have likely analyzed Israel’s alert and interception systems, recognizing that shooting down their drones requires early detection to allow sufficient time for launching interceptors.

The IDF tries to detect any incoming drones on its radar, as it had done prior to the war. Despite Hizballah’s learning curve, the IDF’s technological edge offers an advantage. However, the military must recognize that any measure it takes is quickly observed and analyzed, and even the most effective defenses can be incomplete. The terrain near the Lebanon-Israel border continues to pose a challenge, necessitating technological solutions and significant financial investment.

Read more at Ynet

More about: Hizballah, Iron Dome, Israeli Security