Category: Road

In the same way that it is not the job of a marriage guidance counsellor or psychotherapist to be openly judgmental of their client, for a security service provider to succeed, they need to avoid the blame game. Historical, or even biblical, claims to land are not their issue, nor are the rights and wrongs of political arguments. Whether or not they agree with the strategy of the Israeli government in response to the barbaric attacks of October 7, whatever they think of the integrity of the United Nations and regardless as to who or what they classify as a terrorist or terrorist organization, it is incumbent upon those responsible for aviation security to recognize the likely impact of the conflict. Our aim is to save the lives, and well-being, of those passengers and crew on board our aircraft and over whom we fly. Let’s consider the challenges in achieving this goal.

Like the assassination of JFK, the death of Princess Diana and, of course, the September 11 attacks — subject to one’s age — we all know where we were when the news of the terrorist attacks of October 7 filtered through. When it did, those in the world of security consultancy did not need to listen to any political pundits, academic or otherwise, to know that a line had been crossed and that the impact was going to be far-reaching and devastating. Innocent lives, and many of them, were going to be lost. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might have actually voiced the words, “The Bible says that there is a time for peace and a time for war. This is a time for war,” but most — adore him or loathe him — knew that this was the new reality for the region. Diplomacy, whilst hopefully not extinguished, was clearly on the back burner.

It is impossible to tackle this topic without being deemed to have demonstrated some degree of political bias; few articles have managed to navigate the turbulent waters of opining without doing so. For those of you interested in the conflict, and listening to the viewpoints of both sides, I do recommend “Hurt People Hurt People, October 7 and its Aftermath” (produced by Beetz Brothers and ZDF in association with Zygote Films) — a feature-length documentary, viewable online, which explores the repercussions of the Hamas attacks and the ongoing cycle of violence in the Middle East as a whole. Of course, both sides will claim that “they didn’t mention X,” or “how could they not show Y,” but it does, in 90 minutes, attempt to demonstrate that both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are hurting and both have reason to do so. “Hurt People Hurt People” is not, as so often is alleged, simply a platitude used as an excuse for aggressive behavior; rather, it attempts to delve into the psyche of the average Israeli and the average Palestinian and help understand their respective mindsets and, equally importantly, those of their leaders.

“From the River to the Sea” placard-waving demonstrators, Hamas and Hezbollah apologists or, on the flip side, advocates for Israel’s annexation of the West Bank (and/or reoccupation of the Gaza Strip) and champions of a “greater Israel” are not seeking to empathize with the plight of the other side. They believe in their mantra, listen solely to media outlets reflecting their stance, spread hatred (leading to Islamophobia or antisemitism) through social media and remain convinced that they occupy the moral high ground. There is no concession, nor opportunity for respectful debate.

Those who read my article in this journal a year ago will know that I am a staunch believer in a two-state solution — the state of Israel living harmoniously and securely side-by-side an independent Palestinian state — and whilst that seems a complete pipe dream at the moment, that optimistic vision, or a variation of it, seems to me to be the one solution that offers the potential of a just peace. Around the globe, that aspiration for the so-called “day after” (the conflict) remains the prevalent objective for those not directly scarred by the ravages of war. Fortunately, even in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, there are those who are actively advocating for it. The Olmert Al-Kidwa peace proposal is just one example of this with former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Nasser Al-Kidwa, a former Palestinian minister of foreign affairs, jointly presenting their plan to Pope Francis at the Vatican on October 17 this year. Amazingly, the mainstream media paid little attention.

In the meantime, the conflict rages on. At the time of writing (October 23), innocent civilians are dying in droves as Israel bombs Hamas, Hezbollah and even Houthi targets ensconced in the midst of population centers (so often beneath hospitals and schools), Israeli towns remain uninhabitable as those same groups launch missile attack after missile attack in the hope of penetrating the Iron Dome, and the 100+ remaining Israeli hostages seized on October 7 have yet to return home. Anger and resentment reign and this could well impact civil aviation around the globe.

I wish to focus on six concerns. The threat to aviation from, or due to:

• industry insiders;

• operations in/over conflict zones;

• the intentional hijacking and/or bombing of aircraft/airports;

• inadvertent carriage of explosives on board aircraft;

• disruption due to protests; and,

• unruly passenger incidents as a result of conflict between passengers and/or crew.

Insider Threats

The insider threat is, I believe, the greatest challenge if one looks at aviation from a global perspective. Often ill-informed opinions, formed on the basis of social media postings, are rife with sometimes well-intentioned advocates for one side or the other liking, sharing or re-posting fake news that further inflames public sentiment. Supposedly unbiased media outlets have clearly taken sides and are shaping public opinion with the imagery they are choosing to show, the words and terminology they are opting to use, the experts they have decided to invite to interview and the degree of balance they are electing to exercise. Against this background, with so many very strong opinions being expressed within families in social groups and at places of worship, there are those who feel that the conflict warrants acts of civil disobedience.

Most western states are keen to ensure that the right to protest remains sacrosanct. The holding of vigils, sit-ins (and die-ins), rallies, marches, the organization of petitions, boycotts, and even effecting walkouts or striking are part and parcel of democracy at work — as long as the rallying call is not in support of terrorist organizations. And here’s the rub — that very caveat. If the opinion of the masses is that a certain group is a legitimate political movement rather than a terrorist organization and/or that a state has gone rogue and is itself committing atrocities, the mood music changes. Peaceful protest can transform into criminal action. When religious ideology enters the equation, the consequences can be catastrophic.

There has been widespread condemnation of Israel on the Arab street and in the Muslim world. With there being almost two billion Muslims and more than 50 states with a Muslim-majority population, their cry is significantly more powerful than that of the 15 million Jews and the one state in which they are the majority. Additionally, the size of the Muslim community in non-Muslim states and the understandable number of non-Muslims who are equally horrified by the deaths, maiming, orphaning and suffering being witnessed on their television screens and on social media, has resulted in a sense of fury with the political leadership of, primarily, western states, supporting Israel. As that sense of injustice brews so does the chance that those employed at airlines, airports, freight forwarding companies, catering and cleaning firms, in law enforcement and in airside operations might decide to act against the industry and its interests. We need to remember that it only takes one rogue employee with a warped ideology to cause a disaster.

The scale of utter hatred being demonstrated on social media platforms is terrifying. The number of employees of airlines, airports, regulatory agencies and, yes, even United Nations bodies in my own LinkedIn network using vile language, expressing clearly antisemitic sentiment and openly calling for the destruction of Israel illustrates that my concern over the insider threat is not far-fetched. And yet, despite this I will resolutely defend the use of behavior detection and argue passionately against racial profiling. Why? Because there are enough people who do not fit a stereotype who could be perpetrators of a terrorist atrocity out there and our focussing on one group would not be conducive to good security practice.

Overflight of Conflict Zones

Aircrew and passenger concern about flying in the region is completely understandable. After all, commercial airliners have been destroyed by surface-to-air missiles in combat zones, or in security-challenging locations, either intentionally or in error. These include the loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine in 2014 and the destruction of a Ukraine International Airlines flight departing Tehran in January 2020.

“As that sense of injustice brews so does the chance that those employed at airlines, airports, freight forwarding companies, catering and cleaning firms, in law enforcement and in airside operations might decide to act against the industry and its interests.”

The photographs of flights landing in, and departing from, Beirut and Tel Aviv amidst explosions on the ground or Iron Dome intercepts in the skies is unnerving. When one considers that there were in excess of 28,000 rocket, missile or drone attacks on Israel in the year subsequent to October 7 (9,000 rockets were fired by Hezbollah from southern Lebanon), including the two attack waves from Iran, airline risk managers have certainly been earning their keep in respect of operations to and from both Israel and Lebanon, let alone the overflight concerns in the region as a whole.

The Iron Dome has been a phenomenal success story, far exceeding the expectations of many. Yet it is not infallible, and drones have managed to penetrate Israel’s air defenses. Whilst Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis just might do so with intent, neither Israel nor Iran are going to intentionally target civil aviation; that, however, does not mean that an accidental shootdown will not occur.

Exemplifying this, a German media outlet reported that, on October 1, an Air France flight in Iraqi airspace — en route from Paris to Dubai — was dangerously close to being hit by ballistic missiles launched by Iran towards Israel that night.

Hijacking and Bombing

Hijacking might seem passé, but a mindset believing that such tactics will not be used again would be seriously shortsighted. Throughout the 1990s it was argued that terrorist groups had moved on from acts of aerial piracy. And then September 11 happened…

“… an Air France flight in Iraqi airspace – en route from Paris to Dubai – was dangerously close to being hit by ballistic missiles launched by Iran …”

What recent events have demonstrated is that terrorist groups — especially those backed by rogue states — have evolved into highly proficient paramilitary outfits capable of sophisticated operations. The October 7 attacks clearly demonstrated this and the infrastructure unearthed beneath the ground in both Gaza and Lebanon is testament to both the financial investment and commitment to warmongering. I seriously doubt that the United Nations agencies and forces in situ were completely ignorant of what was being created beneath their feet, indicating the degree to which these non-state actors, and their operations, had become “accepted” in an ostrich-like fashion by the international community. That head-in-the-sand attitude was also something Israel’s powers-that-be could be accused of being guilty of in the lead up to October 7 — the indicators were there but there was a failure to act accordingly.

It is this complacency which could come back to bite the aviation industry. We remain committed to the very same technologies and processes that were developed well over a decade ago and in order to identify the same weapons and explosives that were used in the last century. Those who wish to penetrate the aviation system are moving forward at speed. Our opponents are not necessarily have-a-go freedom fighters; they are the types of units that are capable — and have — seized ships by air in the open seas.

Hijacking need not solely be achieved by armed terrorists on board. The potential for cyberattacks and other remote disruption of aircraft operation exists. In February, an El Al Israel Airlines flight was operating from Phuket, Thailand, to Tel Aviv when it received a rogue radio message instructing it to set its route on an alternative heading. It is unclear as to the ultimate goal of the Somaliland-based (some reports claim Somalia-based) transmitters who claimed to be air traffic controllers. One ominous possibility is that they intended to ‘hijack’ the aircraft causing it to fly into the range of a Houthi group in Yemen who could have targeted the aircraft in-flight. Another El Al flight operating to Bangkok the same week received similar notification. In both cases, the crew disregarded the instructions, suspecting external interference, and continued with their intended flight plans.

The day after the first anniversary of the October 7 attacks, Ken McCallum, the director general of the U.K.’s MI5, spoke publicly revealing that, “Since March 2017, MI5 and the police have together disrupted 43 late-stage attack plots. Some of those plotters were trying to get hold of firearms and explosives, in the final days of planning mass murder.” Furthermore, McCallum reported that “13% of all those being investigated by MI5 for involvement in U.K. terrorism are under 18. That’s a threefold increase in the last three years.” In other words, children.

“… an El Al Israel Airlines flight was operating from Phuket, Thailand, to Tel Aviv when it received a rogue radio message instructing it to set its route on an alternative heading.”

“Al-Qaeda has,” according to McCallum, “sought to capitalize on conflict in the Middle East, calling for violent action.” And, when it comes to Iran, he highlighted the fact that, “Like the Russian services, Iranian state actors make extensive use of criminals as proxies — from international drug traffickers to low-level crooks.” It is these communities that could knowingly or unwittingly infiltrate weapons or devices onto aircraft.

Inadvertent Carriage of Explosives

On September 17 a highly sophisticated synchronized remote attack on Hezbollah resulted in pagers exploding in the hands of their militants across Lebanon. If, as very few doubt, it was an Israeli operation, it will go down in folklore — alongside the Entebbe rescue — as being one of their “greatest” intelligence-lead operations of all time. Almost 3,000 people were injured, including Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon, and 12 killed, when they received a message supposedly from Hezbollah leadership.

The next day, walkie-talkies started exploding, killing 30 and injuring more than 700.

Regardless as to whether one believes that the tactic was a completely justified way of attacking known terrorists or one argues that the use of such booby-trapped devices was contrary to international law as it posed a danger to civilian populations, the plot was technologically brilliant. However, it should also sound alarm bells; the pagers had been in circulation for around five months, according to a Reuters source in Lebanon, each one “laced with a highly explosive compound known as PETN” which, because it was “integrated into the battery pack made it extremely difficult to detect.” Another security source told Reuters that “up to three grams (0.11 ounces) of explosives had been hidden in the new pagers, apparently months before the blasts.” 3,000 pagers had exploded, yet 5,000 had been bought by Hezbollah. That means that another 2,000 could still be in circulation. Furthermore, whilst Hezbollah combatants are not known for their regular use of air travel, it is highly likely that many of them did fly — possibly many times — in the five months they had pagers in their possession. None, it would seem, were detected by any airport security screening system.

Of course, three grams of PETN is not enough to bring down an aircraft. Yet if we look at the physical impact of the blasts on those targeted, any such detonation in flight would be more than a slight cause for concern.

Some carriers, including, not surprisingly, Qatar Airways, introduced bans on the carriage of pagers in the aftermath of the attack. The real lessons, however, were that; firstly, remote-controlled improvised explosive devices are very much a reality of the modern world; secondly, that seemingly innocuous devices can operate (for months) normally without impediment and yet still be adapted as an IED; and, thirdly, that our screening systems simply cannot identify all explosives.

Protests

I’ve already mentioned that we wish to preserve the civil right to protest. Yet protests are also a distraction to the security services, especially if they take place at airports.

In September, the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign organized a protest at Shannon Airport. Their website called for people to, “Join us for a National Mobilization at Shannon Airport on Sunday September 8,, between 2 p.m. and 3.30 p.m., to say ‘Stop Arming Israel – No weapons or military flights to Israel through Shannon!” They even encouraged people to “Book your place on the buses from Dublin and Cork” to protest the Irish government’s refusal “to inspect U.S. warplanes that stop at Shannon Airport or otherwise use Irish airspace.”

On April 15, pro-Palestinian activists prevented traffic from accessing Terminal 1 at Chicago’s O’Hare airport. Forty of them were allegedly arrested for the disruption they caused.

These are just two of a myriad of airport-based incidents around the globe, each one providing a challenge to the local law enforcement community. Arguably more problematic are the individual protests industry employees are conducting by wearing emblems or flags associated with the conflict. Aircrew often wear flags to depict the languages they speak, but their wearing of the Palestinian flag has been a cause for debate on social media — some applauding them for standing up for what they believe in, others condemning them for displaying political bias whilst in a work environment.

Qantas passengers on a flight from Melbourne to Hobart on December 20 last year were shocked to find that crewmembers had affixed the Palestinian flag to their lapels. Photographs appeared on social media and the airline was forced to remind its crew of its uniform policy. In a January 4 statement, Qantas stated, “We understand there are strong and opposing views on the current conflict, but there is no room for these to be expressed by our employees in the workplace. Our priority is creating a safe and respectful environment for our customers and all our people. Unauthorized badges can’t be worn by employees and we’ve reminded all employees of the policy, along with the seriousness of this particular matter.”

On July 5 this year, a Delta flight attendant was photographed wearing a Palestinian pin on a flight from Boston to West Palm Beach, and in May a Delta gate agent was wearing one at Ronald Regan airport.

The issue is not the Palestinian flag alone — Israeli, Ukrainian, and any other flag not indicative of the language spoken by the crewmember in question is inappropriate in a professional work environment.

Unruly Passengers

With Islamophobia and antisemitism on the rise and so much anger related to the conflict being openly expressed, it’s hardly surprising that, regardless of what pins crewmembers might wear, there will be plenty of opportunities for animosity between different passenger types. It’s prevalent on public transport systems on the ground too.

On October 21, a passenger was photographed on the Paris Metro at Saint-François-Xavier station wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words ‘Anti Juif’ (Anti Jew). Imagine this had been worn on an aircraft and the potential fallout.

In July it was reported that a passenger was told that he would be removed from a Delta flight from São Paulo to Chicago if he did not take off his pro-ceasefire T-shirt which had “Not in Our Name” on the front side and “Jews Say Ceasefire Now” on the back. Whilst advocating for peace, the political nature of the slogan clearly caused the crew anxiety.

In December, an argument took place in Melbourne, Australia, between Jewish and Muslim passengers boarding a Jetstar flight to Sydney. The latter is alleged to have shouted, “Stop killing our babies,” and the former responded, “From Hamas.”

These are the now increasingly frequent challenges aircrew are dealing with many miles from the conflict itself. They may seem petty in comparison to the desperation of those living in the Middle East itself, yet airlines are having to adapt their training programs to enable crew to best manage political divide … be it Israel/Palestine, Trump/Harris, Russia/Ukraine or any other combination.

A year on from October 7 and the region is in a very precarious position. Indeed, so is the world as a whole. The last year has demonstrated innovation in the art of war on all sides, so we need to evolve too and enhance our ability to deliver proactive security. And, if that were not a big enough challenge in itself, we also need to do so whilst exercising political neutrality.

Philip Baum is Visiting Professor of Aviation Security, Coventry University; Managing Director, Green Light Ltd; Chair, DISPAX World 2024 (November 20-21, 2024, Bangkok);, and, Chair, Behavioral Analysis 2025 (June 24-26, 2025, Minneapolis, USA). He is also the former editor of Aviation Security International. He can be contacted at pbaum@avsec.com.