The Israelization of the United States, its Security, and the Emptying of Law of its Meaning

Washington – "Al-Quds" Dot Com - Said Erekat 

News Analysis

The escalating killings by law enforcement agencies in the United States can no longer be viewed as a series of individual errors or isolated field excesses. What is forming before us, with increasing clarity, is a doctrinal shift in American security philosophy, a shift that is steadily approaching the Israeli model based on one principle: preemptive killing as a tool of governance. It is an "Israelization" of the security mindset, not only in tools, but in logic, language, and the justification of violence.

From a State of Law to a State of Suspicion

The essence of the modern state rests on two principles, and no third: the presumption of innocence, and the monopoly of violence within strict legal limits. However, what we are witnessing today in the United States is the emptying of these two principles of their content. Suspicion has become sufficient for shooting, hypothetical danger has become a justification for actual killing, and investigation is postponed until after the funeral.

This logic is not new to the Israeli experience, where a "potential threat" is treated as a full-fledged crime. The new – and dangerous – aspect is its import into the American interior, in a civilian context where there is no occupation, no declared war, and no permanent state of emergency that is supposed to justify the suspension of rights.

"Kill First" as an Unspoken Doctrine

The United States does not need a formal declaration to adopt the "kill first" doctrine. It is enough to observe the behavior: shooting before negotiation, neutralizing the body instead of containing the situation, and granting immunity instead of accountability. In this doctrine, a human being is not seen as having rights, but as a deferred danger that must be eliminated before it materializes.

Here precisely the American and Israeli experiences converge: the transformation of security from a public service to a tool of control, and from a means of protection to an end that justifies itself.

Federal Agencies: Militarization of the Interior

Israelization is not only manifested in local police violence, but in the rise of armed federal agencies operating with a military logic within the civilian space. These agencies, which enjoy broader legal immunities and weaker oversight, reproduce the Israeli model based on blurring the lines between military and civilian.

When cities become operational theaters, citizens potential targets, and patrols resemble rapid intervention units, we are not facing "law enforcement," but a national security doctrine imposed on society.

Media: Engineering Acceptance of Violence

The "kill first" doctrine is not complete without a media partner. In the Israeli model, the narrative is quickly built: the victim posed a threat, the bullet was necessary, and the ethical question is postponed indefinitely. The same scene is repeated in America: selective leaks, focus on the victim's record, and the absence of the full context of the act.

Thus, the public is not asked to think, but to adapt. Not accountability, but justification. Not justice, but anger management.

The most dangerous aspect of the "Israelization" of the United States is not the number of victims, but the redefinition of the citizen himself. In the new security system, the citizen is no longer a party to a social contract, but an element to be controlled. This transformation produces a state that sees its people as a field for control, not a partner in governance. And with every unpunished killing incident, the dividing line between authority and society is redrawn, not by law, but by fear, which opens the door to a slow, but systematic, collapse of the very idea of democracy.

From Exception to Rule

History teaches us that the most dangerous slips begin when the exception becomes the rule. What was previously justified by "emergency circumstances" has become a routine procedure. And what was considered a scandal has become a fleeting news item. This is the moment when societies lose their moral sensitivity and begin to coexist with violence as something natural.

The United States stands today at this crossroads: either restore the rule of law, or continue on a path that empties the Constitution of its spirit and transforms rights into revocable privileges.

American political elites are mistaken when they think that importing the Israeli model will bring security. The experience itself proves the opposite: preemptive killing does not produce permanent deterrence, but an endless cycle of violence. When the state is run by a doctrine of suspicion, everyone becomes a potential victim. And when force is prioritized over law, the system erodes from within. True security is not built on bullets, but on justice, and anything else is merely temporary management of chaos.

Conclusion: What America Do We Want?

The question is no longer whether the United States is Israelizing its security, but how far it will go down this path. Either a state that recognizes that security without accountability is deferred tyranny, or a state that chooses the easier path: shoot first, write history later.

But history, as all experiences show, does not forgive states that choose the bullet over the law.