Replies

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html

Basically a warning/advisory is issued anytime there is any sort of violence or instability in a country (or even in a region, sometimes) and they tend to be issued for at least six months, but typically a year (but they can get added to the list with just a moment's notice). The above is a current list.

Many of these places have had advisories for years and years, due to problems at some point in the past, or having been a place that has had incidents specifically targeted towards Americans. In the last decade or so, they've also gotten on the list based on the country just not necessarily picking up on potential terroristic activity (whether or not anything actually happened). I get the advisories and consular updates by email (and have for years and years) and some of these places are ALWAYS listed...yet places that MANY Americans travel to...The Philipines, Israel, for instance, and even heavily tourist type places such as Bali (specifically for beaches/surfing...the rest of Indo, to a much lesser extent) or much of Kenya (for safari type trips). Granted many of the other places aren't high on the list of top American citizen travel destination, but you're always going to have people going to visit family or the homeland of their relatives, even if it was earlier generations.

The downfall with the current system of advisories is that the advisory is listed for the whole country, when, in many cases, it's one area of the country that tends to have problems, and so there are specifiss for THAT area, but they have to issue it for the whole area. Not that it justifies it, but since ALL countries have some degree (key words) of risk of attacks and/or instability, a country being listed for years because of ONE region of that country being the risky area makes some people not take them as seriously as a whole.

Obviously some places are at a much greater risk, just due to history or location, etc, but we take a risk of something happening anytime we leave the country...and we have the risk here, also. And yes, like I've said, some places definitely are MUCH more apt to have something happen.

If you look at Israel and Lebanon, though, over the last years, I think odds are it'd have been more unlikely that things would occur in Lebanon than Israel. Other than a very brief window around Hariri's assasination (and the kicking out of Syria after that, though even that was relatively 'uneventful'), things have been remarkably calm since the pull out in 2000. In Israel, though, there have been suicide bombings, threats from the Palestinians, concern about things happening after Arafat dying, fear that someone may try to capitalize on Sharon's hospitalization, etc. Obviously you have the issue of Hezbollah in Lebanon, but they basically weren't after people in Lebanon...and as much as it's hard to admit, though they caused problems in some ways, Hezbollah really was doing more for many of the peaceful Lebanese than anyone else was. YES, in some areas then they were doing all the stuff that's causing problems now (like hiding/living among civilians), but they WERE meeting needs of the everyday person, too...which is sad. Were those needs being met other ways and by other groups (and, first and foremost, by the peaceful parts of the government!) I think more of the people would have taken a stand against Hezbollah YEARS ago and we might not have been in this situation.

I am NOT pro-Hezbollah, and I think Israel has had to respond like they have, but having spent time in Lebanon, I know that from the people I've talked to (obviously this si ONLY speaking to THOSE people and hearing their opinions and their perception of the opinions of most of the country), as much as they hate Hezbollah, it was like biting the hand that fed them if they tried to overthrow them, so I can see why, to many, it was a catch-22 type thing. And again, I'm NOT trying to justify anything.

But just trying to say that even with Hezbollah there, the likelihood of something happening in Israel was at least as likely (but probably moreso) than in Lebanon, and so I can also see why most people wouldn't have given it much of a second thought to be traveling there (though not in a few of the areas that are known to be more prone to possible problems...the far south in the border area, most specifically) in the past few years after things were rebuilt after the civil war, and then in the areas after the pullout of 2000...or at least not any more apt to not travel there than to Israel.

I do NOT think that any of this justifies all the nonsense we've seen with people griping about evacuations and how they were handled, etc. Besides, nearly ANY situation in life has room for improvement and there will ALWAYS be people critcizing it (plus, in this situation, it was 'great TV' for all the people wanting to make Bush look bad), and most people who were getting out after the first day or so have all said that while there were wrinkles, that they then saw the reasons behind the time to get the initial response, etc.

I also think we ALWAYS take our safety into our own hands when we travel and that we need to prepare to be responsible for the situations that can arise ANYWHERE. Speaking as someone who has had loved ones stuck in Lebanon who finally managed to make their way up to Beirut (from near the Litani where they were cut off from the beginning...and they are Christian Americans, non-dual passport holders, so not some claiming citizenship b/c it's a ticket out now...and also meaning I don't not understand what a frightening situation it was for people stuck there) and they were FLOORED that they might even be offered help in leaving the country. That's basically unheard of...they knew it was up to THEM to find a way to get out when all this started, just as I'd have said the same if I were stuck in Israel while visiting there...or anywhere else.

So whether there was an advisory or not, I don't think this lawsuit is justified at all. It'd be sort of like trying to sue because you were in Madrid or London or Mumbai during the __-11 train bombings and the US had "not warned us" that something might happen, or people suing because the US should have helped them get out from all the tsunami ravaged places. It doesn't make any sense.

And I think when, in a week or so, all the whining "we're entitled to x,y or z" folks realize how ungrateful they are acting, and realize that there was a reason things happened like they did, and they should just be grateful for any help they got, and that we all need to remember things can always be uncertain no matter where we are.

So...I may be wrong, but that's just my two cents, as someone who's spent a good deal of time overseas and has been following the travel warnings and stuff for years (in part because I do factor it in, to varying degrees, when I'm going to be, or am considering, traveling). I'm sure others would view it very differently, and that's fine. It's just the experiences and thoughts of one little person :-)