Last week I returned home following a visit to Jerusalem, Ramallah, Tel Aviv, and Istanbul. After clearing customs at the Philadelphia international airport, I waited in the security line in order to fly back to Washington, DC. Philadelphia's domestic security screening process seemed much slower than that of other U.S. airports I have flown through recently. So, after my pat-down search (I'm still not sure to what I owed the honor; perhaps I should have shaved in Istanbul before returning to the States), I asked to speak to a supervisor, who appeared within a minute or two. I told him my impression that the Philly screening operation took considerably longer on a per-person basis than that in other airports. I asked him if the goals of the TSA included reducing the screening time per passenger. He said No, they would like to do it fast, but the TSA's mandate is to provide security. That's its goal. When any entity or organization has a clear primary responsibility, no one should count on it to deliver additional benefits unless they are specifically committed to and connected to the primary area of responsibility. The Transportation Security Administration, which runs the airport security bureaucracy, is a case in point. Its central focus is stated in its name: Security. TSA's official mission, according to its website, is that it “protects the Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.” TSA has but a single mission, and disrupting travelers' lives as little as possible is not part of that mission. This explains the many inconveniences and inefficiencies of the current system. Here's one of them: After going through security screening, I typically carry my shoes in one hand and my computer bag in the other, searching for someplace to sit down so I can put my shoes back on and tie my shoelaces. (Not everyone wears loafers.) Each time I am required to walk through an airport in my socks I experience it as a slight indignity. During the first several decades of my life, until Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, came along in December 2001, I never had to remove my shoes in an airport, and I still resent it. This new airport shoe fetish seems to be specifically American. I'm required to remove my shoes whenever I fly in, to or from the U.S., but usually not in Europe or Asia. Almost nine years after 9/11, many U.S. airports still do not provide chairs or benches located next to the security screening areas for the specific purpose of allowing travelers to sit down while putting their shoes back on. I blame the federal government for being so inconsiderate of my tender feet. But TSA personnel are not in the comfort biz or the let's-get-this-done-as-quickly-and-with-as-much-dignity-intact-as-possible biz. They're in the security biz, or at least in the security appearance biz. Why should we expect a security organization to care about anything other than security? My encounter at the Philadelphia airport reminded me of a conversation I had a few days earlier in a popular coffee joint on Emek Refaim Street in Jerusalem. The Israeli I was meeting with gave an example of how in Israel an individual willing to push a bit can make a difference. He had noticed that the army checkpoint on the road north of Bethlehem was functioning at only 20% capacity, that is, only two of ten stations were manned for the security screening of West Bank Palestinians who wanted to enter Jerusalem. [For my purposes here, I am setting aside the question of whether Palestinians living in the West Bank should be able to travel freely to Jerusalem without being stopped and screened by Israelis or anyone else. Nor am I addressing the very real security concerns of Palestinians.] This Good Samaritan then monitored the checkpoint for several days to ensure that his observation was not a momentary fluke. Next, he wrote a letter to a powerful minister in the Israeli government, an acquaintance of his, and sent copies of the letter to several other ministers. Within two weeks, all ten of the checkpoint stations functioned and continued to do so thereafter, according to his periodic checks. As a result, Palestinians' wait-time in line was significantly reduced, from hours to a matter of minutes. His example of how one person can make a difference conveyed a different message to me, management consultant that I am. It spoke to me of a systemic problem. Who in the Israeli government, I asked, is responsible for maintaining and improving relations with Palestinians? They are, after all, Israelis' neighbors – past, present, and future, regardless of any eventual political resolution. His answer was that the checkpoints are the responsibility of the Minister of Defense. Now it made sense to me that not all the stations had previously functioned. Why would a Minister of Defense care? From a security perspective, the wait-time of persons being screened is largely irrelevant. Having Palestinians wait in two long lines possibly provides even better security than having them wait in ten short lines. And if there is a terrorist in the line, a long wait might cause him to become nervous and give himself away. But from a Palestinian perspective, it's a very different story, one of indifference, disrespect, and possibly of intentional infliction of discomfort and distress. I am an impatient fellow. I hate to wait in lines of any kind – at movie theaters, banks, and especially at airports. I dislike the TSA not only for its inefficiency and thoughtlessness regarding travelers but also for what I believe to be bogus security measures designed to show that the agency is doing something to respond to previous security failures. And all of that slows down the process and lengthens the wait. But as much as I dislike the TSA in practice, I recognize the legitimacy of its purpose. It was set up ostensibly to protect Americans like me. And if it succeeds in stopping or dissuading even one would-be suicide bomber from boarding a plane, I will applaud that result. But imagine being a West Bank Palestinian stuck in a long checkpoint line which was not at all set up for your benefit. In fact, Palestinians are the suspects at such checkpoints. Any minor indignity I might suffer walking through an airport in my stocking feet is truly insignificant compared to what routinely occurs in the security checks that thousands of Palestinians are subjected to on a daily basis on their way to and from work, school, or shopping. To make people wait indefinitely, to treat them disrespectfully, to lord it over those who have no power – these are all likely outcomes of any long-term occupation, though they are not inevitable outcomes. Security checks exist for a reason, a valid reason, and that must always be kept in mind. But how the checks are conducted is only partly a matter of security. Other factors play important roles – the personality of those doing the checking, their attitude towards the people being checked, the humanity and the efficiency of the security process, and perhaps most importantly of all, how those supervising the process are evaluated. If the totality of the evaluation depends on not letting a single potential threat go undetected, then even extreme measures like strip-searching everyone in line, from the five-year-old to the ninety-five-year-old, can be justified on security grounds. To refrain from employing such extreme measures involves considerations other than security. Since not everyone is strip-searched, additional factors must be involved. Note: there is already much evidence of recent improvement in the daily life of Palestinians within their population centers in the West Bank. That improvement results from a combination of factors, including the work of the Abbas-Fayyad government, foreign aid, U.S. training, and Netanyahu's interest in “economic peace”. The bulk of that internal development, however, is distinct from the day-to-day interactions between organs of the state of Israel and West Bank Palestinians. These interactions include requests for permits of all kinds – entrance permits, travel permits, vehicle travel permits, work permits, building permits, etc. Other issues fraught with political implications include house demolitions, water usage, sewage, import-export, and access to health care. Numerous Israelis, both in and out of uniform, hold the power to grant or deny benefits, goods and services to the Palestinian population. Some Israelis wield that power benignly. Others wield it maliciously. Yet as long as the Ministry of Defense remains the Israeli government agency responsible for most official interactions with individual West Bank Palestinians, there is little hope of systemic improvement in how Israelis treat Palestinians. This is so not because Defense Ministry officials and IDF soldiers are uniformly hostile to Palestinians – some are; some are not – but rather for the simple organizational imperative that in cases of conflict among goals, an organization's primary goal undercuts all others. “The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are responsible for safeguarding Israel's existence, security, and sovereign rights,” according to an Israeli government website. The business of the Israel Defense Forces is defense, not customer relations. True to its mission, the IDF will look at Palestinians more in terms of assessing and managing risk than in terms of facilitating the activities of civilians. A carefully formulated mission statement that no one reads is worthless, but a clear mission that someone is accountable for delivering on can make a huge difference. Absent a clear TSA mission to reduce airport wait time, we should not expect increased efficiencies. Absent a clear mission to improve relations with the civilian population, we should not expect a Palestinian-friendly Israeli security presence along the green line, at checkpoints or elsewhere in the West Bank. Thirty government ministers now sit in Israel's largest-ever cabinet, yet there is no Minister for Palestinian Affairs. Since 1967, when Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinian population in those areas has increased to more than 3½ million people. Although they are not citizens of Israel, their lives are circumscribed by Israeli decisions. Yet there has never been an Israeli Ministry of Palestinian Relations. To appoint a minister without a budget, a staff, and real power would only be window-dressing in any case. But who knows what might be accomplished if a senior Israeli politician was provided with a staffed and funded ministry, a proactive mission and a mandate to improve Israeli-Palestinian relations on the ground? So long as a pathway to ending the conflict remains elusive and obscure, we might do well to examine ways of improving life under occupation. If that is indeed what Netanyahu wants, then let him designate a point-person and announce a clear mission. And please, don't make people walk around in their socks. ** This is part of a series being published on rethink.com and is republished here with permission from the author. BM
