On one hand, the message makes sense -- with enough of an infrastructure in place, it is easier for a country in the west (such as Great Britain) to stop occasional terror attempts than it is for an eastern country with absolutely no infrastructure to consistently stop much more frequent attempts. But what about in Israel? Certainly successful terror attempts have slowed after years filled with numerous casualties, but certainly the anti-terror campaign there was as strong as Britain's is currently ... The only real difference is that Israel is in the east (though is certainly a western country in terms of its surveillance and anti-terror capabilities). While it would be untrue to say that Israel lost its war on terror, I'm not sure one can safely say it one either; the life of its country was radically changed because of the Palestinian campaign. Britain has on this occasion been successful, I believe, because of the volume of threats it has faced up until now. It would be foolhardy to believe that a few attacks prevented equal anything other than just that. A huge proportion of the attacks on Israel were prevented from the start, and the country was still devestated.

Israel isn't fighting terrorism in the same way Britain is. Israel "fights" terrorism by giving it more justification and increasing its support through overreaction and misdirection of efforts which ends up hurting innocent civilians, not by reacting properly. Israel is doing business more like the way we are conducting business in Iraq. Messing up, using a military and killing innocents instead of arresting terrorists.