Fighting Terrorism

by Benjamin Netanyahu

book report by America is Babylon

The book was the revised edition in 2001. The revised edition includes a Forward, discussing the most recent and catastrophic terror attack ever known to Americans- 9/11. This forward sympathizes with the Americans over the attacks, however, Netanyahu uses this event as a “I told you so” moment to push America into realizing that terrorism is something all Western nations will be dealing with in the future. He proposes an answer to this lethal problem. Although the book’s subtitle is: How Democracies can defeat the International Terrorist Network, there is no timeline on when this defeat will occur. The reader is left with the feeling that terrorism is something that we will have to indefinitely deal with and therefore while he claims he has a solution, the reader realizes that there is no solution.

His solution is a complete surveillance police state. Netanyahu gives details of the most prominent terrorist organizations operating now in his nation and abroad (Europe mainly). He tells of their foundings, their histories and the various methods they utilize to accomplish their evils. He gives examples of international terrorist attacks, their methods of carrying them out. Like most Western politicians, Netanyahu never explains how these organizations were funded in the first place.

He claims that these terrorists are like minded social misfits who have grievances against their states and want to lash out against them. This is his justification for a police state, to monitor these people by spying. If anything is found amongst these groups that the government deems is fostering derogatory and radical sympathies towards the state, then they need to have all their rights revoked and consequently be prosecuted. A sort of “thought police” as Orwell so perfectly labeled it. The governments attempt to stop a crime before it can happen. It is reminiscent of the Communist nations and Nazi Germany unfortunately.

The solutions promoted are framed in such a way to make them come across as heroic and logical. Netanyahu addresses skepticism exhibited amongst Americans for setting up a police state by stereotyping them as “right wing nuts”. He shows disparaging sentiments to our constitutional freedoms, deeming them too liberal. Especially the first and second Amendments. He feels these two freedoms need significantly curtailed for the greater good of the masses. All to deter terrorism mind you.

While many conservative Christians are under Netanyahu’s hypnotic spell and charisma, the fact is that he is intrinsically against everything they espouse and love about the United States. He is against our Constitution.

I have chose to include some quotes from the book pertaining to his viewpoints of this surveillance state that is necessary to implement if a country is to be victorious over terrorism. These are what stood out the most, and I believe, outline his true intent as a governmental leader. While these tactics may work in Israel, I think they will be of disastrous consequence in America. I tremble with the thought of innocent Americans mistakenly identified as enemies of the state and having to endure unjust consequences on account of this. The United States is not near as homogeneous ethnically, racially or religiously. This realization is precisely why a police state will not work. One group will become the target as the other group climbs the power pole.

Let us not let the age old accusation of being anti-Semitic stop us from ascertaining the truth behind world politicians and their policies. Read his quotes below and come to your own conclusions.


1.”The fringes of the American right have always offered a certain support to anti-government groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Posse Comitatus, and the Aryan Nations. In 1958, the John Birch Society was formed around the claims that the government was becoming dominated by Communist sympathizers, and arguing for limitations on the power of the federal government, the dismantling of the Federal Reserve System, and withdrawal from the United Nations. Periodically, radical splinters of this movement, from tax resisters to gun freaks, have had violent run-ins with federal agents. In 1983, for example, a member of the Posse Comitatus- a movement of agrarian tax resisters claiming the IRS was an arm of “Zionist international bankers”- wanted for the slaying of two U.S. marshals, was himself killed in a shoot-out with federal agents in Arkansas.

What makes this new “patriot movement” different is its ideological conviction that violent confrontation with what they view as a conspiratorial and authoritarian federal government has become inevitable- therefore making preparation for this conflict the duty of every true American patriot.”

2. “”Patriot” ideology appears to have taken a turn toward paranoia with President George Bush’s 1990 announcement of his intention to forge a New World Order under the aegis of the United Nations (of which the Gulf War against Saddam Hussein was to be the first test). The idea that the United States would somehow be subordinated to the UN, an organization particularly hated and distrusted in “patriot” demonology, was enough to drive some in the fanatic fringe to distraction.”

3. “The Internet began spreading frantic warnings of the coming showdown with an American government controlled, variously, by one or more of the usual suspects: Russia, Zionism, and the United Nations- not to mention that perennial favorite, the Trilateral Commission. What the entire genre has in common is the belief in an imminent effort by the federal government to seize private weapons, a belief which has reached fever pitch in the wake of two events: the August 1992 Idaho shoot-out between reputed white separatist Randy Weaver and the U.S. federal agents, in which Weaver’s wife and son lost their lives along with a federal marshal, and the April 1993 attack by the FBI on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in which more than seventy cultists were killed.”

4. “Following these actions, many of the militias concluded that civil war was coming, and began to say so. Thus the Florida State Militia handbook warns: “We have had enough…..violence and bloodshed, enough Waco… and government attacks on Christian Americans,” and calls on its members to “buy ammo now. You will not be able to get it later.”

5. “And it is these beliefs (militia movement) which have in the last few years fueled an unprecedented explosion of membership in these organizations as thousands of sympathizers and fellow travelers have openly joined their ranks.”

6. “The language of militia and patriot ideology was exactly the kind of language used by Timothy McVeigh, the principle suspect in the Oklahoma City bombing, when he wrote in a letter in 1992 to the Union Sun & Journal of Lockport, New York that the politicians had gone “out of control”: “Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn’t come to that, but it might.””

7. “What is clear is that in the heartland of America, the terrorist puddles are still puddles (speaking of people who sympathize with militia movements)- but in the absence of forceful action by the government of the United States, there is the distinct danger that they will get larger and deeper.”

page 23

8. “The United States is especially capable of monitoring the activities of terrorists. It has technical capabilities that exceed anything available to any other country, especially formidable eavesdropping and photographic capabilities. The movements and activities of potential terrorists can thus be observed, and they may be apprehended before they strike- at least when the law enforcement agencies are permitted to act.”


pages 30,31

1.” Indeed, every one of the active steps that a democratic state can take against domestic terrorists constitutes a certain curtailment of someone’s freedom to speak, assemble, or practice his religion without interference.”

2. “And it is just these kinds of speech, assembly, and religious expression which, if properly monitored, give law enforcement agencies the warning they need in order to head off calamity.”

3. “In the United States, such freedoms are more scrupulously protected than in any other country in the world, and there are even some who claim that free speech and religious freedom should be considered “absolute” rights.”

4. “Just how far the concern with free speech has gone was driven home to me in a recent conversation with a security expert who explained the constraints imposed on the FBI by the Attorney General’s guidelines which govern monitoring activities. They prohibit law enforcement officials from using government funds to so much as buy a newsletter by a militant group in order to examine it for threats of terrorist activity- and if an official were to pay for the newsletter out of his own pocket, he would be prohibited from storing the clippings in a government office, because such rudimentary intelligence gathering is considered an “infringement” on the liberties of the groups involved.”

page 33

6. “The belief that freedom of speech and religion are absolutes that cannot be compromised even in the slightest way out of very real security concerns is merely tantamount to replacing one kind of violation of rights with another, even worse violation of those same rights.”

7. …..”there is apparently a moment of truth in the life of many modern democracies when it is clear that the unlimited defense of civil liberties has gone too far and impedes the protection of life and liberty, and governments decide to adopt active measures against the forces that menace their societies.”

page 36

8. “Faced with this contingency, the Japanese government did what it had failed to do in the past. It used every power available to it, including unlimited surveillance and an aggressive sweep of searches and seizures (in regards to a terrorist attack {government takeover by a group of people} there in 1970 and the organization responsible.)”

page 37

9. “It did require, however, the explicit revision of the widespread conviction that a democratic society can guarantee the freedoms of speech, assembly, religions, the bearing of arms, diplomatic immunity, and politicial asylum- as if they were practically absolutes. They are not and cannot be absolutes, as the record of terrorist abuse of these democratic freedoms demonstrates again and again.”

10. “It is clear that a fresh look is needed at the way the United States presently chooses which liberties are worthy of protection. The ideal of an absolute civil liberty- whether a “leftist” liberty such as absolute free speech or a “rightist” liberty such as the absolute right to bear arms- should be tempered by politicial realities, and the attempt to apply it in its pristine form has grave consequences. When a society tries to grant such pockets of unlimited freedom, it provides the proverbial 99 percent of normal citizens with supposed “rights” that they neither want nor need- the “right” to call for the murder of what they deem an obnoxious author, or the “right” to own a grenade launcher.”

page 43

11. “The United States Constitution, said Justice Robert Jackson, is not a suicide pact. And when a protected “right” in practice results in the encouragement and breeding of terrorist monstrosities ready to devour other members of society, then it is clear that such a right has ceased to serve its true end and must be either revised or reduced.”

12. ” At the Jonathan Institute’s 1979 conference, Professor Joseph W. Bishop of Yale University inquired into the question of whether the United States Constitution could be made to square with firm anti-terror measures such as had been adopted in Britain, Germany, and other European democracies. After all, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution appears to prohibit convictions on the basis of self-incriminating testimony- which is just the kind that security services are practiced in obtaining in interrogation; it similarly prohibits depriving a citizen of his liberties without “due process of law”- which is exactly what an arrest without a warrant is; the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury- and yet the British found trials by a lone judge to be a crucial step in obtaining convictions, because the Ulster citizenry had become so intimidated by terrorists.”

page 45

13. …..”the authority of the executive to ensure the security of the nation must take precedence over all other concerns.”

page 50

14. …..”in his Theological-Political Treatise, Spinoza was careful to define clear limits to personal freedoms, including the pivotal one of freedom of speech…..”We cannot deny that [the] authority [of the state] may be as much injured by words as by actions; hence…[the] unlimited concession [of free speech] would be most baneful…” Those kinds of speech which should not be permitted are “those which by their very nature nullify the [social] compact….”


Netanyahu proposes in this final chapter that there are two solutions to ending terrorism. An international approach and a domestic approach. He is mainly speaking to the United States, as we are the last bastion of individual liberties. Most all other western democratic nations have succumbed to big brother government. Here are the international approaches:

pages 132-148

  1. Impose sanctions on suppliers of nuclear technology to terrorist states.
  2. Impose diplomatic, economic, and military sanctions on the terrorist states themselves.
  3. Neutralize terrorist enclaves.
  4. Freeze financial assets in the West of terrorist regimes and organizations.
  5. Share intelligence by creating cohesion amongst international policing organizations.
  6. Revise legislation to enable greater surveillance and action against organizations inciting violence, subject to periodical renewal.

Here are the Domestic solutions:

  1. Outlaw fund-raising and channeling of funds to terrorist groups.
  2. Permit investigation of groups preaching terror and planning the violent overthrow of the government.
  3. Loosen warrant requirements in terrorist cases.
  4. Restrict ownership of weapons. Netanyahu elaborates to include a gun registry. He claims that guns will still be allowed, just registered to know where they are at.
  5. Tighten immigration laws.
  6. Require periodic legislative review to safeguard civil liberties (by a panel of judges).
  7. Actively pursue terrorists.
  8. Do not release jailed terrorists.
  9. Train special forces to fight terrorism.
  10. Educate the public

Netanyahu, Benyamin. Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists. Macmillan, 2001. 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s