Last week, video clips showed a group of young men detaining truck drivers on the streets of Jerusalem and searching their trucks, seemingly with the aim of obstructing the implementation of the security cabinet decision to transfer humanitarian aid to Gaza. These video clips came on the heels of events in the past few weeks, in which groups of citizens attacked food trucks passing through the West Bank and destroyed their contents, to prevent the aid from reaching the residents of Gaza.
Though the video from Jerusalem does not show violence or destruction of food, the possibility of private citizens subverting the law in an organized fashion represents a dangerous phenomenon, which might undercut Israel’s identity as a democratic state.
These events, and the lack of enforcement measures against them, constitute a clear failing in the state’s obligation to maintain public order and safety, revealing its difficulty in dealing with independent civilian action relating to internal security.
In effect, the citizens seen in the video are using powers of search against other citizens and residents of the state and are briefly limiting their freedom of movement. It’s worth remembering that according to Israeli law, private individuals have no right to conduct searches of other persons. Nor are private individuals allowed to limit the freedom of movement of other persons in the public sphere except in very particular and severe conditions, which clearly, do not apply in this case. In addition, public gatherings of citizens are forbidden if they are designed to terrorize other members of the public.
The organized group in Jerusalem emerged in the context of a recent rise in documented cases of violence against Palestinians in the West Bank recently – and reports about a lack of enforcement by security officials in response.
Another part of the context was the disaster of October 7, that left many Israelis feeling that they can no longer rely on the state to protect them and that they must take responsibility for defending themselves.
While this has led to a rise in admirable actions, such as widespread volunteering to serve in local police civilian defense squads, it comes alongside worrying phenomena, such as the growth of independent groups of civilians who use policing powers on their own initiative.
Actions may have severe consequences
The possible consequences of the activities of such groups are even more severe when one takes into account the recent sharp increase in the number of firearms in public ownership.
These developments did not begin on October 7. In fact, what enables these groups of self-appointed police officers to operate without attracting public opposition is the fact that there are already a large number of security actors operating in the civilian sphere, many of them entitled to carry firearms.
This “policing network” includes municipal policing, municipal security patrols, nonprofits with volunteers who hold private firearms licenses, security guards, and more. If we are willing to recognize that Israel Police is no longer the only actor in the field of internal security, we can develop the appropriate effective tools for oversight of the other actors in the Israeli policing network – and prevent the development of private militias.
We should not allow the large number of actors in the policing network to confuse us, and we should establish clear boundaries. In particular, it should be clear that there is no room for unofficial and independent groups acting in the field of internal security in Israel. This phenomenon is more serious than incidents in which an individual citizen takes the law into his/her own hands. Independent civilian groups directly threaten public order and challenge the authority of the state – and of the police as its emissary – to enforce public order and protect life and property. Even if Israel’s internal security doctrine needs updating, Israel Police should remain the main actor in this arena.
The police must take effective action against independent civilian groups wherever these are formed, set clear boundaries via determined enforcement, and maintain constant communication with the public to explain these boundaries. Particularly at the current time, the police must not give the impression that it is avoiding addressing this phenomenon either for political reasons or due to fear of disapproval from the political leadership.
In the long term, a serious public and governmental discussion is needed regarding the “privatization” of internal security governance that we are currently witnessing, and its implications. This privatization threatens us all.
Dr. Yael Litmanovitz is a senior researcher at the Center for Security and Democracy at the Israel Democracy Institute. Adv. Mirit Lavi is a researcher at the center.