What specific curricula or lesson plans were used in U.S.–Israel law enforcement exchanges, and are any publicly archived?
Executive summary
Public and private U.S.–Israel law‑enforcement exchange programs present themselves as counterterrorism and “best practices” curricula—focused on counterterror operations, surveillance, crowd control, border/security screening, and community policing—but concrete lesson plans and step‑by‑step curricula are rarely posted in full on sponsor websites; advocates opposing the exchanges have compiled FOIA‑released materials and databases that serve as the most substantial public archive to date [1] [2] [3].
1. What planners say the curricula cover: counterterrorism, screening, and policing models
Program sponsors such as JINSA and GILEE describe curricula as professional development in counterterrorism, homeland security, and community policing, framed as “best practices” exchanges where U.S. law enforcement studies Israeli methods for preventing and responding to terrorism and improving inter‑agency cooperation [1] [4] [2]. JINSA’s Homeland Security Program and LEEP explicitly call the content counterterrorism training and emphasize study of Israeli methods and techniques, while GILEE markets peer‑to‑peer on‑site training and international cooperation for law enforcement executives [1] [4] [2].
2. What critics and investigative reports say about the specific tactics taught
Investigative campaigns and watchdog groups characterize the content more sharply: the Deadly Exchange research and allied reporting allege that trainings include crowd‑control tactics, surveillance techniques, checkpoint operations, and lessons from military and security agencies—and argue these are “battle‑tested” on Palestinians and later exported to U.S. policing [5] [6] [3]. Material cited by these critics points to site visits and briefings with Israeli police, the IDF, and Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet), and describes exchanges where attendees visit checkpoints, detention sites, and settlements as part of seminar itineraries [7] [8].
3. Are detailed lesson plans or curricula publicly archived?
There is no single, comprehensive public repository of standardized lesson plans published by program sponsors; official sites provide program descriptions, itineraries, and promotional material but not granular lesson‑by‑lesson manuals [2] [1]. The clearest public archives come from investigative FOIA work and activist researchers: the Deadly Exchange report and the accompanying “Palestine is Here” database compile hundreds of documents obtained through FOIA and form the most detailed publicly available record of training topics, itineraries, and correspondence released so far [3] [9]. In short, sponsors publish summaries and agendas, while third‑party compilations based on FOIAs provide fragmented but substantive archives [2] [3].
4. What kinds of internal documents have surfaced and what they show
Leaked or FOIA‑released documents cited by Jewish Voice for Peace, RAIA, and allied outlets include draft memos, itineraries, and internal planning notes—showing seminars such as the ADL’s National Counter‑Terrorism Seminar (NCTS) that included site visits to checkpoints and detention facilities and briefings with senior Israeli security figures [7] [8] [3]. Those documents are the basis for claims that exchanges expose U.S. officers to military‑style techniques and intelligence practices; sponsors counter that the same materials reflect legitimate counterterrorism lessons applicable to protecting U.S. communities [4] [1].
5. Competing narratives, hidden agendas, and limits of available evidence
Sponsors (JINSA, GILEE, ADL) present exchanges as professional, preventive training to improve security and interagency cooperation, and they publish program overviews and testimonials [4] [2]. Critics (Deadly Exchange, JVP, RAIA) present FOIA finds and leaked memos as evidence of militarizing influence and human‑rights‑problematic content, and they host public reports and databases to pressure sponsors and agencies [3] [6]. The reporting base is uneven: while investigators have released hundreds of documents, there is not a comprehensive, official curriculum repository from sponsors showing full lesson plans, learning objectives, or standardized training materials—an evidentiary gap that both limits and fuels the debate [3] [2].