What do police participants who attended ADL‑facilitated Israel exchanges say about tactics they adopted afterward?
Executive summary
Police participants who attended ADL‑facilitated Israel exchanges report a mix of practical takeaways — from organizational management and counterterrorism planning to surveillance and community‑policing ideas — and disagreement about whether any Israeli practices should be transplanted directly to U.S. departments, with some attendees calling certain tactics “shocking” or “more invasive” than U.S. norms [1] [2] [3]. Critics and activists, by contrast, say participants come back having embraced militarized surveillance, racial profiling and suppression‑of‑protest tactics — a claim organizers and some participants contest as a mischaracterization [4] [5] [6].
1. What participants say they learned: management, counterterrorism, and resilience planning
Many participants describe the seminars as educational exchanges focused on organizational and policy lessons — how to plan for mass‑casualty events, coordinate agencies, and strengthen community resilience after terror attacks — rather than hands‑on combative techniques, a point the ADL and trip organizers stress repeatedly [1] [5] [7].
2. Admissions of practical adoption: surveillance tools and intelligence approaches
Several accounts collected by critics and investigative reporting indicate attendees were shown sophisticated surveillance systems and intelligence practices and that some participants left with an appetite to adapt those tools for use back home; organizers acknowledge briefings on surveillance and border security are part of itineraries such as airport and border‑police visits [8] [9] [10].
3. Praise, praise — and caveats: “incredibly positive feedback” with warnings against blind adoption
Program leaders and some chiefs who attended publicly give “incredibly positive feedback,” citing valuable cross‑national sharing; at the same time independent experts and even some prior participants have cautioned against “blindly” implementing foreign tactics without accounting for U.S. legal and civic norms [2] [5].
4. Explicit discomfort from participants: “shocking” force and invasive software
At least one participant quoted in reporting described Israeli arrest practices as “shocking” and said certain software demonstrated to delegations was “a little more invasive than you would see here in the US,” while still arguing exposure “broadened my perspective,” illustrating that some attendees both admired and worried about direct translation of tactics [3].
5. Activist and watchdog claims about downstream uses: surveillance, profiling and suppression
Advocacy groups and the Deadly Exchange campaign assert that returning officers have incorporated methods tied to mass surveillance, racial profiling and protest suppression into U.S. policing — framing the trips as channels for militarization and “worst practice” transfer — and cite FOIA discoveries and local victories that curtailed exchanges as evidence of real impacts [4] [11] [12].
6. Organizers’ rebuttal: no tactical training, focus on leadership and context
ADL and allied organizers explicitly deny tactical, hands‑on instruction occurred, emphasizing itineraries consist of briefings, site visits and meetings with both Israeli and Palestinian law‑enforcement to provide context; ADL materials and spokespeople maintain the seminars are educational and policy‑oriented, not field training, and note visits include cultural sites like Yad Vashem [1] [5].
7. Internal tensions and ambivalence within ADL and among participants
Internal ADL documents and later reporting show even ADL staff questioned the program’s value and controversies — noting trips “built bonds” but were “of questionable programmatic value” and sometimes required defending to donors — while some participants and local chiefs wrestled publicly with whether tactics seen in Israel were appropriate for U.S. communities [13] [3] [9].
8. Bottom line: mixed testimony, contested translation of practices
First‑hand participant testimony assembled in reporting is mixed: some officials return with management and preparedness lessons they deem transferable; others express alarm at force and surveillance tools and urge restraint; activists argue uptake of repressive tactics is real and documented — the debate hinges on how broadly departments interpreted briefings, and organizers insist briefings do not equal operational training [5] [3] [4].