+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

The best response to Israel’s new stop-and-frisk law: Stop showering

A new law in Israel gives police broad powers to search anyone in an area they say there’s a fear of ‘hostile terrorist activities.’ Or in other words: anywhere with a critical mass of Arabs. Here’s how to fight back.

By Fady Khoury

Israeli policemen search a Palestinian man at Damascus gate, in Jerusalem's old city, October 18, 2015. Israel set up checkpoints in the Palestinian neighbourhoods of east Jerusalem and mobilised hundreds of soldiers as a collective punishment after recent attacks by Palestinians. (photo: Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

Israeli police search a Palestinian man at Damascus Gate, in Jerusalem’s Old City, October 18, 2015. Police set up checkpoints in the Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem after recent attacks by Palestinians. (photo: Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

What does Israel’s new stop-and-frisk law mean? What should you do about it?

Prior to the new law, which was passed in the Knesset on Tuesday, police were authorized to search anyone without a warrant if they had reasonable suspicion (probable cause) that the person was carrying a weapon illegally (on their person or in their car), or was planning to commit a crime with a weapon.

One can question what constitutes reasonable suspicion within that framework, but in short, at least there existed an objective element the officer needed to seek: a weapon. The suspicion that someone is carrying a weapon can’t just be made up, although we know there has always been an element of arbitrariness — after all, we are talking about the Israeli Police.

The “Stop and Frisk Law,” or its official name, the Authorities for Preserving Public Safety Law (Amendment No. 5 and Temporary Provision), 2016, adds to the existing law, and grants police officers the authority to search anyone without a warrant in order to determine whether they are in possession of a weapon, if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is going to commit a violent crime against somebody else.

I can live with that. But a clause attached to the new amendment adds: “For the purposes of this amendment reasonable suspicion shall be, among others, if the person is acting aggressively in a public place, or employs verbal violence or threats, or acts alarmingly or otherwise frighteningly.” In other words: any behavior that might piss off a cop.

And yet that still doesn’t really raise a red flag for me, especially due to the fact that existing laws already grant broad powers to police. What does set off the alarm bells? Clause 6.B, titled “Police powers to conduct a body search of a person in a location thought to be a target for hostile terrorist activities.” The clause authorizes a police district commander to declare any area as one in which there is a real fear that “hostile terrorist activities” will take place, and then police can search people without having to satisfy a requirement of reasonable suspicion. What the law does is it replaces the necessity of reasonable suspicion about an individual with a suspicion about a group in a geographic area. That is tantamount to the authority to declare martial law geographically and temporally, which allows authorities to conduct arbitrary searches for weapons.

It doesn’t take a whole lot of familiarity with Israeli history to reach the conclusion that the powers granted by this new law won’t be limited to matters related to terrorism; it is likely that in any situation where enough Arabs gather to protest a war, policy, or anything else, we will see a police commander exercising the authorities granted by this law. Or, let’s imagine for a moment that a stabbing takes place in East Jerusalem, and suddenly entire neighborhoods are declared areas in which police can conduct arbitrary searches in accordance with the new law. (It should be self evident why that is problematic. I’m not going to even discuss the legitimacy – or lack thereof – of collective punishment.)

The solution

So what should one do? Unless, and until the law is successfully challenged in the Supreme Court, the only course of action is individualistic and should take the form of what I’ll call a “dignity redeeming protest.”

If you live in an area that has been declared, or which you expect might be declared as “an area thought to be a target for “hostile terrorist activities” because some event occurred there, any form of resistance to police officers exercising their new search powers will be futile and likely end with you spending the night in a prison cell.

The most non-violent way (or the least-violent way) I can think of is stink up whoever dares touching you. Be filthy. Really filthy. As filthy and stinky as you can get. That way, anybody who decides to touch you and your personal belongings will be forced to suffer your noxious wrath — a stink tax if you will. Do so until this, too, is outlawed by a law that defines it as obstructing a police officer carrying out his duties.

After all, if there’s one thing that could possibly mitigate the humiliation of being searched in the middle of the street for no legitimate reason, it’s having the knowledge that the person carrying out that search is dying for it to be over even more than you are.

Fady Khoury is a human rights lawyer and a doctoral candidate at Harvard Law School.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Bruce Gould

      It might be relevant to point out that today the Abraham Center For Mideast Peace took out a full page ad in the New York Times titled: “Israel’s Security Chiefs Agree: Separation Into Two States Is In Israel’s Vital Security Interest”. A dozen Chiefs of Staff, Mossad and Shin Bet heads point out that unless separation happens soon it will be too late:


      Observe that the title of the ad does not say “A Negotiated Settlement”. All Israel needs to do is withdraw to roughly the 67 borders and leave the Palestinians alone; if that doesn’t happen soon there will be a one state reality.

      Reply to Comment
      • Tom Goldberg

        > the title of the ad does not say “A Negotiated Settlement”

        Exactly. But Bennett and his camp work towards the exact same goal, a non-negotiated two-state solution on Israel’s terms. (And Bibi will surely along with that plan, even co-opt it, if it helps him maintain his only personal objective — to stay in power.)

        “What,” you say, “Bennett wants two states‽” Yes, absolutely he does. And this is how it goes: I don’t believe for a minute that this guy doesn’t have a long-term plan or would seriously risk a Palestinian-majority single state. Bennett also knows enough about the West that denying people the right to citizenship in their native land is something the free world will never endorse.

        What to do then? Simple: allow the emergence of a bantustan that is not perceived as such. This is where the PA’s campaign for international recognition comes in. The world would never accept an Area-A/B-istan created by default by Israel’s unilateral “separation.” But what if the world recognizes a Palestinian state (with disputed borders) and Israel simply “withdrew” to within Area C?

        Then we’d have two sovereign states with a border dispute. Much less sexy than a stateless population perennially deprived of the most fundamental civil right.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Leffe

      How to stop Israel’s new stop and frisk law?
      End the violence.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        Great idea. When does the withdrawal of violent settlers and troops to the 67 lines begin?

        Reply to Comment
      • Tom Goldberg

        Couldn’t agree more, Leffe. You were talking about *all* violence, right — by Palestinians as well as settlers, soldiers, police officers, … ?

        Reply to Comment
    3. Fady, you forgot to mention the other target of this racist law; Ethiopian immigrants and other Africans, who stand out in most big cities, like I would stand out in Addis Ababa.

      I suggest another response to display objection to the law. We all stop and get frisked!
      That is, if we see someone who we notice is just being harassed (we’ve seen the person just walking along, or we know the person, or have any good reason to believe this is based on racial profiling), we stand reasonably close (so as not to interfere with the police duty) and “spread em” with our hands up against the wall.

      Imagine the scene in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Nahariya, or wherever. The only “Arab-looking” or “African-looking” or “Muslim-looking” person on the street gets stopped by police. Within a minute, 20 more people rush over to stand parallel to that person and they all spread em! One or two of the 20 then start frisking the others.
      Of course, another of the 20 automatically becomes the videographer and we post it everywhere.

      Anybody want to take part in a clip in which we’ll act this out. I’m sure that, if produced properly, it will go viral. Contact me.

      Let’s face it. Most blonde-haired, blued eyed passers-by will never be stopped and frisked, even if we are (and I’m neither) in an Arab or African neighborhood. THIS is the essence of what’s wrong with this law…IT’S RACIST!

      Reply to Comment
      • Carmen

        Absolutely the best post!

        Reply to Comment
      • TB7

        Moshe, you are a mensh!

        But if would be enough, if anybody would simply join and just put the hands up against the wall and film this. Or simply put the hands up against the wall, if a police just passes by and film it. 😉

        Reply to Comment