What is the primary strategy of today’s terrorists?
Terrorists today are much more interested in creating a climate of public fear and anxiety than in killing people. They practice a form of psychological warfare—induce a fearful public to put pressure on the decision makers to take politically self-defeating actions. The Madrid train bombings, for example, brought about the electoral defeat of the Aznar government in Spain, which, in turn, triggered a shift in Spanish foreign policy. And ongoing Palestinian terrorism led to Israel’s unilateral withdrawalfrom the Gaza Strip.

In short, terrorists measure their success not in terms of how many soldiers they defeat on the battlefield, but on how well they sow the seeds of fear among civilians.

What is the best way to counter psychological warfare?
First, we need to distinguish between two types of fear: rational fear and irrational fear. Rational fear—the natural fear of terrorism which we all feel—is constructive: it makes each of us more vigilant of our surroundings—and awareness can thwart terrorism.

I contrast this with irrational fear—fear that’s not proportional to the actual level of threat we as individuals face. Disproportionate fear is what stops us from doing what’s necessary for the larger society to function, whether it’s not taking a bus or not having our morning coffee at the local café. Irrational fear plays into the hands of terrorists.

Do people exaggerate their own vulnerability after an attack?
Yes. What happens is what I call “personalization of the attack.” We tend to place ourselves psychologically within the parameters of the attack, sending ourselves the counterproductive message: There but for the grace of God go I, or my kin, or my friend. I was lucky this time, but the next time I won’t be so lucky. Imagine, God forbid, there is an attack on Dizengoff Street in Tel Aviv. Immediately, every Israeli and every Jew who has visited Israel thinks, Oh, my God, I was just there yesterday, a couple of weeks ago, five months ago, ten years ago. Or, I just planned to go there. Or, my aunt lives in the same neighborhood. Terrorists often choose targets frequented by the public, such as subways, nightclubs, and food markets, to capitalize on this kind of thinking that wildly exaggerates the probability of a person’s vulnerability. In fact, if there were an attack in Dizengoff Street today, the statistical chances that I or a loved one would be hurt in another attack in the same place tomorrow, or a day or week or year after, is much less than the chance of being hurt in a car accident in Dizengoff Street during the same time frame.

Yet many Jews avoid traveling to Israel for fear of being killed or injured in a terrorist attack.
I remember, in the peak year of the Al Aqsa Intifada I had finished a lecture in New York when an elderly Jewish couple said, “We would like to visit Israel, but everybody tells us it’s too dangerous. You are a counterterrorism expert; tell us if we’d be putting our lives at risk by going to Israel.”

“My friends,” I replied, “anybody who tells you that it is dangerous to go to Israel is right; Israel is a very dangerous place. And you know why?”

“Why?” they asked.

“Because Israelis are very bad drivers.”

That’s statistically true. During the worst year of terror attacks in Israel, 2002, we lost about 300 people. That’s an enormous loss, and I don’t want to underestimate it. But compare this to the approximately 550 people who die in car accidents in Israel every year. On average, each year we lose fifteen to twenty people in terrorist attacks. So in any year, an Israeli is about thirty times more likely to die in an automobile than in a terrorist incident. Yet I’ve never heard of a Jew who’s afraid to come to Israel for fear of being killed in a car accident.

Once we grasp that personalization leads to irrational fear, we are in a better position to counter the terrorists by defusing their psychological warheads.

What can individual citizens do in the face of terrorism?
Accept your fear, assess your level of personal threat, and respond accordingly. I get right back to my daily life. So, for example, one Thursday afternoon after a terrorist attack I got a call from a foreign journalist.

“What are you going to do about this right now?” he asked me.

“I’m going out to fight terrorism.”

“How?”

“I’m going to play basketball.”

He was astonished. “Look,” I said, “I was pained by news of the attack, but I play basketball every Thursday, and today will be no exception. Believe me, I’m not in the mood to play basketball, but my personal message to the terrorists is: I am not changing my way of life because of you.”

What is the Israeli government doing to ratchet down irrational fear?
The government has learned to get life back to normal as soon as possible. Take a bus bombing, for example. All of our wounded are immediately evacuated, evidence is quickly gathered, and the street is promptly cleaned. Four or five hours after the attack, buses are running again on schedule on the same route. Back in 1977 it took weeks for the Israeli government to resume bus operations; today it takes hours. The same principle applies if there is an attack on one street; the neighboring streets are closed, but the rest of the city goes on as usual. The message to the Israeli public, and to the terrorists, is: the situation has been handled. Life is back to normal.

What role can the media play in curbing irrational fear?
Unfortunately, the media often plays a counterproductive role, intensifying public anxiety. For example, in March 2002, a suicide bomber struck the Moment Café, a Jerusalem coffee house a block away from the prime minister’s residence. Immediately afterwards an Israeli TV crew interviewed a waiter, who was in a state of shock and panic. Shaking all over and waving his hands, he shouted, “I want every citizen in Israel to know that if this attack could happen next to the heavily guarded prime minister’s residence, the safest place in Israel, it can happen everywhere!” While this waiter’s response is understandable, why did the TV crew choose to interview him, rather than a high-ranking police officer on the scene who could have offered a more responsible response? The Israeli press could not have handed the terrorists a better spokesperson to convey their message.

Have you offered to instruct the media on how to avoid such reporting?
Yes.

What is their response?
They say the public has the right to know and they’re simply doing their job.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe the press should be censored “for the public good”—that borders on totalitarianism. The media should have freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility.

Can you foresee a time when we won’t live under terrorist threat?
I believe that terrorism as a tool in the hands of sub-states bent on violently achieving political goals is here to stay. What terrorism will look like in the future, we don’t know, except to say that we are going to witness many changes. Terrorism is a dynamic phenomenon. An outcome of different political conflicts, it moves from one region to another and changes its modus operandi. We need to be prepared as best we can.

What is our best defense as a nation? As individuals?
The best defense for any state is investing many resources in intelligence gathering—the key factor for counterterrorism effectiveness. It’s also crucial to have international and internal cooperation and coordination. For the individual, the best response is to react rationally and to support the state’s efforts to counter terrorism in ways that sustain its moral, democratic, and liberal values.