PAST THE TIPPING POINT :

Attack Follows Ambush That Killed 13 Israeli Troops (SERGE SCHMEMANN and JOEL BRINKLEY, April 10, 2002, NY Times)

A suicide bomber exploded a powerful bomb on a bus in northern Israel during rush hour this morning, killing at least 8 people, a day after 13 Israeli soldiers were killed in an ambush in the West Bank city of Jenin.

The bus explosion occurred at about 7:15, as the bus was moving between stops in the Haifa suburbs. At least 14 people were wounded, three seriously.

It was the first attack by a suicide bomber since April 1, just after Israel began occupying the West Bank. Israel's leaders had been making the point that their military occupation of the West Bank had routed the terrorists, making such an attack less easily accomplished.

The optimism of democrats (small "d") is one of our most beguiling features, but also a source of much delusion. Thus one week without a suicide bomber successfully attacking civilians had convinced many people that either the Israeli incursion was working (the pro-Israeli view) or that Arafat wanted to give peace a chance (the pro-Palestinian view). Combine this native optimism with the greatly accelerated news cycle of the modern age and we actually had folks spinning out scenarios wherein Israel could extend operations for just a few more weeks and it would have achieved its objectives (this from hawks who oppose the President's ultimatum to Israel) or, alternatively, wherein Israel's immediate withdrawal would effectively end the bombings. The reality, predictably, appears to be quite different. Palestine seems to have reached a "tipping point" some weeks ago, and suicide bombing seems to have become not merely the last ditch tactic of a desperate people, but a popular and socially acceptable leisure activity. Palestine seems to have fallen in love with death. Murder/suicide is now epidemic among Palestinians.

In his book, The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell explains his thesis as follows :

The Tipping Point is the biography of an idea, and the idea is very simple. It is that the best way to understand the emergence of fashion trends, the ebb and flow of crime waves, or, for that matter, the transformation of unknown books into bestsellers, or the rise of teenage smoking, or the phenomena of word of mouth, or any number of the other mysterious changes that mark everyday life is to think of them as epidemics. Ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread just like viruses do.

[...]

[T]hree characteristics--one contagiousness; two, the fact that little causes can have big effects; and three, that change happens not gradually but at one dramatic moment--are the...three principles that define how measles moves through a grade-school classroom or the flu attacks every winter. Of the three, the third trait--the idea that epidemics can rise or fall in one dramatic moment--is the most important, because it is the principle that makes sense of the first two and that permits the greatest insight into why modern change happens the way it does. The name given to that one dramatic moment in an epidemic when everything can change all at once is the Tipping Point.

In our review of the book I was fairly critical of much of what Gladwell has to say, but I do think he provides a useful analytical framework for examining seemingly inexplicable phenomena. For instance, he argues that there are three rules that govern these epidemics :

* The Law of the Few : that a few key individuals are generally responsible for most of the spread of the idea.

* The Stickiness Factor : "...that there are specific ways of making a contagious message memorable..."

* The Power of Context : "that human beings are a lot more sensitive to their environment than they may seem."

These rules suggest a few alternatives that Israel could try in order to get control over the epidemic. First, rather than attacking the terrorist cells and trying to root out the bomb factories, they should get rid of the "few key individuals are generally responsible for most of the spread of the idea" of suicide bombing. It seems likely that removing Yasar Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and other leaders who are advocating this idea and rewarding the behavior would have a greater effect than anything that the Israelis can do on a terrorist by terrorist level. If Mr. Gladwell is right in this regard--and I think this is one of the stronger parts of the book--the continuation of terrorism is less dependent on the terrorist bombers themselves than on the support for it that comes from these leaders.

Second, while the message it sends may be psychotic, there are few actions more memorable than mass murder and suicide. It seems like Israel could attempt to severely limit how far this message spreads by clamping down on the media. It is my understanding that most of the news in the Middle East is provided by satellite television networks, like al-Jazeera, or by radio. Either Israel, or the U.S. and Israel, could presumably take down these broadcasts, by jamming signals, destroying satellites, etc. And the Israelis could try to impose a domestic news clampdown, recognizing that coverage of these attacks is not changing world opinion about the conflict, which remains hostile to the victims rather than the perpetrators of the bombings, and that the publicity is instead helping to spread the idea of murdering Jews throughout the Middle East. This step would require them to ask for cooperation from their own press and from the American press, or else to violate Western standards of freedom of the press. So? To the extent that press coverage is contributing to the contagion and fueling the epidemic it should be treated as a pathogen.

Finally, the most difficult aspect of Mr. Gladwell's argument concerns "context". In discussing the fall of crime in New York City, he traces the cause of the decline almost entirely to the adoption of Broken Windows Policing policies, the relentless punishment of even small infractions, and the way in which it changed the environment. With that I mostly agree--though I think he underrates the role of both demographic changes (reduced numbers of young people) and economics (the twenty year boom that began in 1982). But he maintains that the notion that changing the environment in which people live will have dramatic effects on their behavior is a revolutionary idea; I believe it is the central truth of conservatism.

One of the fathers of Broken Windows Policing, James Q. Wilson, described the policy as follows :

[T]he most important requirement is to think that to maintain order in precarious situations is a vital job.

The logic of this statement brings us to what would be the most difficult step for Israel to take ; rather than fostering disorder, by entirely justified military action, Israel might be better served by stepping back from the brink and trying to restore some civil order to Palestinian society (presumably with American help). Act quickly against the Palestinian and other Arab leaders who support terrorism. Stop providing press coverage to terrorist incidents. Then withdraw; recognize the State of Palestine; and stand ready to help whatever Palestinian authorities take over. Get the U.S., Europe, and the more responsible Arab nations involved, in providing policing, food, shelter, clothing, etc.. Having destroyed the source of the contagious idea and limited its spread, try to create a viable and orderly infrastructure in this currently diseased society as quickly as possible, not because it is good for the Palestinians (though it would be), but because it is important to Israel that an environment of order be imposed, in order that the epidemic of violence may begin to taper off.

I am far too much the pessimist to believe that even these steps will work, but at least having taken them will serve to soothe our tender consciences should harsher solutions be required.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 10, 2002 10:47 AM