The point of using El Al as an example is that the airlines, not the gubmint should be charged with security of their aircraft and who is allowed to fly with them. The airlines own the planes. The airlines are responsible for the passengers and crew. The airlines are responsible for the security on the aircraft, particularly the pilot in command, once it pushes back from the gate, despite the fact that the gubmint has done many things to make their job harder. The airlines are the ones with the dog in the security issue fight, not the gubmint. If another 9/11 happens the airlines have everything to lose and nothing to gain. If another 9/11 happens the gubmint will appoint a "blue ribbon commission" and politicians will preen for the cameras so that they have good footage of them acting tough come election time, but nothing of real consequence will get done to remedy the situation and make commercial air travel safer, all at great expense to the taxpayers. The Israelis do it right.
It is distressing in choosing which outfit to entrust our anti-terrorism strategy and tactics. Should it be gubmint unionized TSA, who’d be the first to yell-oh, we have pride in our jobs, or an airline that has to balance revenue loss vs. investment in security. The part the Israelis do right is the human factor analysis— that and a very real understanding of who their enemies are. As long as the US says Islam is a religion of peace— we’re screwed, no matter who runs the security. Profile, please. The muslims have won if we give up our freedom for the “security” of all these false feel good non-solutions. One reason the
attacking of root cause terror states and organizations needs to be coordinated with sophisticated, targeted action at home in the US. Have flown El Al and understand your point.