Even in Times of Crisis, Police Must Be in Command of Civilian Defense Squads
The work of civilian defense squads serves a real security need and bolsters the functioning of the police. But an incident from the Israel-Iran war reminds us that, even in an emergency, they are still subject to the law and must still operate within the limits and frameworks set for them by the police.
Photo by REUTERS
On June 22, the middle of the Israel-Iran war, an incident took place involving a civilian defense squad in Tel Aviv; a squad of armed police volunteers who report to the police and support internal security services, particularly during emergencies. In this incident, a Tel Aviv squad— led by Yoav Eliasi (“The Shadow”), a rapper and right-wing political activist—blocked access to the site of a missile strike and detained foreign journalists at a makeshift checkpoint, separating them out from the Israeli journalists. This incident calls for a public clarification: While members of civilian defense squads have the authority to act independently during an emergency, the powers granted them are limited.
Since the outbreak of the war following the October 7 attack, hundreds of new civilian defense squads have been established throughout the country. These are operational reserve forces comprising civilian police volunteers available for rapid deployment, in order to assist regular security and defense forces during security incidents. Unlike the ‘traditional’ civilian defense squads, which operate under IDF’s authority in communities along the country’s borders, the urban defense squads are not the responsibility of the military but are under the command of the police.
In times of emergency, civilian defense squad volunteers have an important role, but they are still subject to the law that applies to police volunteers, and are only allowed to operate within the framework set for them by the police. In these situations, their role is to assist the local police force in maintaining security, securing traffic trajectories, conducting searches for people or suspicious objects, and evacuating and directing members of the public away from danger and from disaster zones. When they act “to safeguard life and property from hostile acts,” their powers over civilians are the same as those of police officers—within the limits set out in the law and in police procedures.
While it is true that, in order to enable a quick and effective response, police procedures allow volunteers in civilian defense squads to start operating independently, even without the presence of a police officer, they may only do so within very clear boundaries—carrying out pre-defined actions for which they have been trained in advance. The procedures are clear: the initiation of a response independently by volunteers during a security incident is to be focused solely on providing an initial response and reporting the incident to the local station command, until police forces arrive to assist them.
Examining the incident that took place this week in Tel Aviv, on the basis of the video and facts published in the media, leads to the apparent conclusion that the members of the squad were not supposed to set up improvised “checkpoints” independently, even in times of emergency. The police procedures regarding restrictions on operational activity by volunteers make clear that volunteers are not to set up a checkpoint unless they are explicitly briefed on how to set it up, what its purpose is, and what their roles are to be. And only a police officer is allowed to serve as commander of the checkpoint.
It is important to emphasize that civilian defense squad volunteers are citizens who freely donate their time and energies to help the Israel Police maintain security in the communities in which they live. This activity serves a real security need and bolsters the functioning of the police.
At the same time, we must remember that volunteers are not professional police officers: they do not serve in the police in a formal and regular capacity, they have not undergone the full recruitment process for police officers, and in particular, they have not undergone the essential training given to police officers – which enables the police to exercise broad powers over citizens within the framework of the law while respecting their rights. Many of the police civilian defense squads were set up rapidly during the war, and as a result, their members underwent a relatively brief recruitment and training process, and it is unclear whether their training was subsequently completed in a satisfactory manner as part of a more comprehensive program. For these reasons, the activities carried out by volunteers in such squads are tightly defined and much more limited than those assigned to regular police officers.
Given these limitations on activities by volunteers, any deviation from the law and from the powers granted them is a serious matter. As it seems with regard to the Tel Aviv incident, such deviations run the risk of infringing on basic rights such as freedom of movement and freedom of the press. Even given the unusual police directive of recent days, which allows police officers to apply very extensive censorship on media outlets regarding the sites of missile strikes (a directive whose legal and constitutional validity has been questioned), it would appear that the civilian defense squad volunteers had no authority to act independently in the absence of a police officer.
Today, various civilian entities, both formal and informal, armed and unarmed, are active in the public sphere in Israel, aiming to providing assistance to the police. This makes it difficult for those who come into contact with them to identify under whose command these entities operate, and what powers they are permitted to exercise. Ultimately, however, the urban civilian defense squads, such as the one operating in Tel Aviv, are under the exclusive command of the Israel Police. The police are obligated to operate these squads only in accordance with the law and procedures, and to make every effort, by clarifying procedures and conducting training and briefings, to prevent any deviation by volunteers from the roles and powers assigned to them. There is no doubt that the success of the civilian defense squad project also depends on the public’s trust in the volunteers. Thus, in the event of a deviation from police procedures, lessons must be learned as transparently as possible and appropriate disciplinary inquiries should be pursued, so as to ensure that the defense squads faithfully fulfill their important role, even in times of crisis and emergency.