The "Knife Intifada" Statistics

[Yisroel Markov]

Back in November ShaBaK (Sherut ha-Bitakhon ha-Klali, Israel Security
Agency) published statistics on the terror wave widely known as the
"knife intifada":
https://www.shabak.gov.il/publications/study/Pages/skira101115.aspx

I haven't seen any updates, but the violence level has declined since
(IIRC, last month ShaBaK announced that it was back to "normal"), so
the report is probably still representative. Some highlights on the
sixty attackers:

5% were Israeli Arabs, 23% were from East Jerusalem, 72% from the West
Bank
82% were under 25 (the youngest was 11)
86% were unmarried

ShaBak noted that, unlike previous intifadas, this one lacks any
coherent action plan and leadership, but is instigated by religious
and nationalist propaganda based on deliberately planted rumors of
plans to damage the Al-Aqsa mosque. Another difference is that most
attackers lack membership in terrorist cells and training, and have
little or no prior contact with security and law enforcement. IOW, in
the previous intifadas the people, including young people, were mostly
content to leave violence to the professionals, whereas the current
one has the earmarks of a true movement, albeit not a mass one.

IMHO, this means that Israel is doing something right - and that
probably includes extensive cooperation with PA security forces.

Here's ShaBaK's latest English-language news brief:
"January 2016 saw a continued decrease in the number of attacks: 169
(136 in the form of firebombs), as opposed to 246 in December 2015.
The decrease was evident in all regions. 126 attacks occurred in Judea
and Samaria, compared to December's 194 attacks. 39 attacks took place
in Jerusalem, as opposed to 43 in December and one attack within the
Green Line, compared to two in December."
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

[mm]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:38:12 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:

>Back in November ShaBaK (Sherut ha-Bitakhon ha-Klali, Israel Security
>Agency) published statistics on the terror wave widely known as the
>"knife intifada":
>https://www.shabak.gov.il/publications/study/Pages/skira101115.aspx
>
>I haven't seen any updates, but the violence level has declined since
>(IIRC, last month ShaBaK announced that it was back to "normal"), so
>the report is probably still representative. Some highlights on the
>sixty attackers:
>
>5% were Israeli Arabs, 23% were from East Jerusalem, 72% from the West
>Bank
>82% were under 25 (the youngest was 11)
>86% were unmarried
>
>ShaBak noted that, unlike previous intifadas, this one lacks any
>coherent action plan and leadership, but is instigated by religious
>and nationalist propaganda based on deliberately planted rumors of
>plans to damage the Al-Aqsa mosque. Another difference is that most
>attackers lack membership in terrorist cells and training, and have
>little or no prior contact with security and law enforcement. IOW, in
>the previous intifadas the people, including young people, were mostly
>content to leave violence to the professionals, whereas the current
>one has the earmarks of a true movement, albeit not a mass one.
>
>IMHO, this means that Israel is doing something right - and that

Good point. Now, if the US could only get its mass gun shootings
down to the normal level of 10 years ago.

>probably includes extensive cooperation with PA security forces.

I hope so. I don't have a feel for that.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:31:02 PM UTC, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>
> ShaBak noted that, unlike previous intifadas, this one lacks any
> coherent action plan and leadership, but is instigated by religious
> and nationalist propaganda based on deliberately planted rumors of
> plans to damage the Al-Aqsa mosque. Another difference is that most
> attackers lack membership in terrorist cells and training, and have
> little or no prior contact with security and law enforcement. IOW, in
> the previous intifadas the people, including young people, were mostly
> content to leave violence to the professionals, whereas the current
> one has the earmarks of a true movement, albeit not a mass one.
>
> IMHO, this means that Israel is doing something right - and that
> probably includes extensive cooperation with PA security forces.
>

I'd disagree.
Long term, a general hatred of Jews and / or Israel, that's unorganised but
so extreme that people are prepared to sacrifice their lives, is a lot more
dangerous than a rational, organised campaign against the country.
The organised campaign can be defeated by a combination of military
and intelligence tactics, or, as seems to be the actual case, can be
abandoned because it no longer serves the interests of the leaders (the
fanatics all too busy fighting each other, the moderates have worked out
that Israel is more valuable to them as friend).

[Yisroel Markov]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:44:49 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> said:

>On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:38:12 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
><ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Good point. Now, if the US could only get its mass gun shootings
>down to the normal level of 10 years ago.

By some measures, we're already there (or, rather, haven't moved):

"...the Congressional Research Service found an increase in the number
of mass public shootings since the 1970s: There was an average of 1.1
incidents per year in that decade, 2.7 per year in the '80s, 4 in the
'90s, and 4.1 in the 2000s. The shootings also became a bit more
deadly over the same time period, with '70s shootings killing an
average of 5.5 people per incident and '00s shootings killing 6.4.

"Those are raw totals, without taking population growth into account.
If you look at the number of victims per capita, the average has gone
up a little from 1970 to today but the numbers are so small that the
fluctuations are essentially statistical noise. "Basically, there is
no rise," says Fox, the Northeastern criminologist. "There are some
years that are bad, some that are not so bad."

https://reason.com/blog/2015/08/03/mass-shootings-study

>>probably includes extensive cooperation with PA security forces.
>
>I hope so. I don't have a feel for that.

It's not in the papers much, certainly not the details. But there's
"chatter": people who know about such things professionally say,
vaguely, that "a lot goes on behind the scenes."

[mm]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:59:10 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov

<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:44:49 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> said:
>
>>On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:38:12 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
>><ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Good point. Now, if the US could only get its mass gun shootings
>>down to the normal level of 10 years ago.
>
>By some measures, we're already there (or, rather, haven't moved):
>
>"...the Congressional Research Service found an increase in the number
>of mass public shootings since the 1970s: There was an average of 1.1
>incidents per year in that decade, 2.7 per year in the '80s, 4 in the
>'90s, and 4.1 in the 2000s.

2000s doesn't go to 2099. It goes to 2009. Do you think we only
have 4.1 incidents per year in the last 6 years? We have about one a
week the last two years, even though they don't all make the news.

We may not agree on what a mass shooting is. AIUI, there is no
agreed upon defintion.

[mm]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 15:25:59 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>
>2000s doesn't go to 2099. It goes to 2009. Do you think we only
>have 4.1 incidents per year in the last 6 years? We have about one a
>week the last two years, even though they don't all make the news.
>
>We may not agree on what a mass shooting is. AIUI, there is no
>agreed upon defintion.

But this much is clear. I didn't refer to a mass killing but a mass
shooting, so definitions that depend on the number of people killed
don't matter.

[Yisroel Markov]

I see your point, but I interpret the events differently. AISI, the
hatred is holding constant, but in the past the subset of people who
wanted to act on it either joined the Fatah Brigades or something, or
were content to leave violence to such. Now there's a subset of
leaders, probably religious ones, who are frustrated with Fatah's
suspension of organized violence, and have intensified propaganda with
the undertone of "the armed men are doing nothing; you haters have to
take matters into your own hands."

IOW, the situation is the same, only the expression of the hatred is
different. As it is shown to be as fruitless as bus bombings, it will
peter out. If I'm right and the hatred has been constant (much like
the share of people willing to commit mass murder in the USA), then
this intifada will play out, too. ISTM that it already has, and ShaBaK
should get most of the credit.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 15:25:59 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> said:

>On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:59:10 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
><ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:44:49 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> said:
>>
>>>On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:38:12 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
>>><ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Good point. Now, if the US could only get its mass gun shootings
>>>down to the normal level of 10 years ago.
>>
>>By some measures, we're already there (or, rather, haven't moved):
>>
>>"...the Congressional Research Service found an increase in the number
>>of mass public shootings since the 1970s: There was an average of 1.1
>>incidents per year in that decade, 2.7 per year in the '80s, 4 in the
>>'90s, and 4.1 in the 2000s.
>
>2000s doesn't go to 2099. It goes to 2009. Do you think we only
>have 4.1 incidents per year in the last 6 years? We have about one a
>week the last two years, even though they don't all make the news.
>
>We may not agree on what a mass shooting is. AIUI, there is no
>agreed upon defintion.

[nod] That's what "by some measures" means.

Separately, I just saw this on an Israeli blog:
-----------------------------------------

Yesterday my son, an active-duty officer, was returning to his base
after Shabbat. As he tried to stow his bag in luggage compartment of
the bus, an older man deliberately blocked him and then said: "Can't
you say 'excuse me'? All you know is how to kill people!'

My son is a disciplined officer, plus the man clearly knew that a
gun-carrying man can be insulted safely. He's lucky I wasn't on that
bus - I'm neither armed nor nearly as disciplined."

[snip]

[Yisroel Markov]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:38:12 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov

<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> said:

>Back in November ShaBaK (Sherut ha-Bitakhon ha-Klali, Israel Security
>Agency) published statistics on the terror wave widely known as the
>"knife intifada":
>https://www.shabak.gov.il/publications/study/Pages/skira101115.aspx

[snip]

There is also some interesting information on the 1/1/2016 attack in
the Simta bar in Tel Aviv. That had the characteristics of a mob hit,
rather than a terror attack. I think so because the perpetrator had
used a fully automatic Falcon submachine gun (which was - talk about
discrimination against Arab citizens! - legally owned by his father, a
security guard). In an urban attack setting, that's a weapon you
choose when you want to reliably kill one or two people, rather than a
lot - for that, you'd want a large-capacity semi-auto.

The father was the one who alerted the authorities to the identity of
the attacker.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/gun-used-in-tel-aviv-attack-was-previously-confiscated-by-police/

[topazgalaxy]

http://www.aish.com/jw/id/Taylor-Force-American-Hero-Murdered-in-Israel.html?s=fab

How does Israel achieve peace with a group who thinks it is a good thing to stab and kill civilians in Israel ? (rhetorical question)

[Yisroel Markov]

Non-rhetorical answer: by driving them to despair of this tactic.

(Not being an Israeli, I do not presume to know how.)

[mm]

>>http://www.aish.com/jw/id/Taylor-Force-American-Hero-Murdered-in-Israel.html?s=fab
>>
>>How does Israel achieve peace with a group who thinks it is a good thing to stab and kill civilians in Israel ? (rhetorical question)
>
>Non-rhetorical answer: by driving them to despair of this tactic.

I agree, and I would add, by, eventually, promoting or perhaps in
practice just waiting for the rise in power of those who see fighting
with Israel as a dead end for Arabs in the West Bank. And the
repression, both by carrots and sticks, by them of those who want more
fighting.

How did the fighting in Northern Ireland ever get stopped? (although
there was one bombing a week or two ago and some fear that the 100?th
anniversary of something** is coming and the IRA will regroup and
start up again, but that hasn't happened yet, and there has been peace
since... Bill Clinton?? No, that might have but didnt' do it.

This time line
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/etc/cron.html ends
in 1999 without an implemented agreement, and a quick look shows "In
2011, former members of the Provisional IRA according to the Belfast
Telegraph, announced a resumption of hostilities, under the name
"Irish Republican Army"." but iirc this was just an announcement and
didn't come with real hostilities. ) Well, I'm not sure but I think
there has been peace. I've spent enough time on this.

**Yes, the 100th anniversary of the 24-29 April 1916 Easter Rising in
Dublin. Stay tuned.


How did the white people achieve peace with the Indians?

How did the North achieve peace with the South? I'm talking about the
peace that took 10, 30, maybe 100 years after the Civil War.

>(Not being an Israeli, I do not presume to know how.)

This is a rare place where I don't think you have to be an Israeli to
answer. I'm not telling them what they should do. That is entirely
up to them.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 7:59:44 PM UTC, mm wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:03:11 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
>

> How did the fighting in Northern Ireland ever get stopped? (although
> there was one bombing a week or two ago and some fear that the 100?th
> anniversary of something** is coming and the IRA will regroup and
> start up again, but that hasn't happened yet, and there has been peace
> since... Bill Clinton?? No, that might have but didnt' do it.
>

Partly the IRA leaders were bribed with a share in political power,
partly they had lost foreign support from the Communist bloc,
Irish Americans, and people like Gadaffi, partly religious leaders
on both sides had started taking a stronger line against the
violence, partly the anti-Catholic sentiment amongst Protestants
was weakened by secularisation, partly the realities of an independent
Irish Republic made younger Catholics disillusioned with the cause.

But the biggest factor was Islamic terrorism. The Muslims didn't
have negotiable demands the government could yield to. And the
government could hardly compromise with Irish terrorists whilst
stoking up the rhetoric against Islamic ones. And the IRA couldn't
compete with the Muslims for depravity.

[the_shadow]

On 2016-03-10, mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

...........big snip.........

>
> How did the white people achieve peace with the Indians?

By decimating them and forcing the survivors to *walk* hundreds of miles
to desolate locations that were to be their new homes!

Next question?

>
> How did the North achieve peace with the South? I'm talking about the
> peace that took 10, 30, maybe 100 years after the Civil War.
>
>
>
>>(Not being an Israeli, I do not presume to know how.)
>
> This is a rare place where I don't think you have to be an Israeli to
> answer. I'm not telling them what they should do. That is entirely
> up to them.

--
Bob Holtzman
A man is a man who will fight with a sword or
conquer Mt. Everest in snow. But the bravest of all
owns a '34 Ford and tries for six thousand in low.

[mm]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 04:26:19 +0000 (UTC), the_shadow
<the_s...@xcoxx.net> wrote:

>On 2016-03-10, mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> ...........big snip.........
>
>>
>> How did the white people achieve peace with the Indians?
>
>By decimating them

That's right. By crushing them.

> and forcing the survivors to *walk* hundreds of miles
>to desolate locations that were to be their new homes!

That part was not essential and is not too important, and need not
apply to the Arabs on the West Bank.