Learning from the US

I thought this should be studied on the backgrounds of the controversy of requiring Nir Allon to permit a more assertive response to Arab violence on the roads here in Yesha.  


As noted:

“Today we are witnessing the new intifada raging in the streets of Judea and Samaria and the irresponsibility and helplessness of IDF soldiers, whose hands are tied.  “We call on the army to stand tall and formulate clear instructions so that soldiers are not afraid to protect themselves and the lives of Jews.
“Jewish blood will not be ignored!”

Background:

Senior IDF officer tells West Bank commanders to show restraint in dealing with Palestinians

The head of the Israel Defense Force's Central Command, Maj. Gen. Nitzan Alon, has instructed commanders of units stationed in the West Bank to act with restraint and moderation when dealing with the civilian population.  In a letter sent to the commanders earlier this week, Alon told them to instruct their soldiers to strictly adhere to the IDF's rules of engagement.

The instruction followed four incidents in the West Bank in the past two weeks in which soldiers opened fire and killed unarmed Palestinians.

...Alon wrote that taking human life without justification damages the legitimacy of the IDF's actions in the territories, in the eyes of both Israeli society and the international community. The Central Command must carry out its responsibilities using force wisely and proportionally, Alon wrote: Because the forces operate in a dense civilian environment, they must use force in a restrained fashion, and that applies especially to live fire.

Alon warned that the death of uninvolved civilians could encourage violent demonstrations by the Palestinians...

It's from

Fact Sheet: U.S. Policy Standards and Procedures for the Use of Force in Counterterrorism Operations Outside the United States and Areas of Active Hostilities

Here is the appropriate section:

[L]ethal force will be used outside areas of active hostilities only when the following preconditions are met: First, there must be a legal basis for using lethal force… Second, the United States will use lethal force only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons. It is simply not the case that all terrorists pose a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons; if a terrorist does not pose such a threat, the United States will not use lethal force. Third, the following criteria must be met before lethal action may be taken:
1. Near certainty that the terrorist target is present;
2. Near certainty that non-combatants[1] will not be injured or killed;
3. An assessment that capture is not feasible at the time of the operation;
4. An assessment that the relevant governmental authorities in the country where action is contemplated cannot or will not effectively address the threat to U.S. persons; and
5. An assessment that no other reasonable alternatives exist to effectively address the threat to U.S. persons.

Of course, given the history of the past 90 years, this element:

 It is simply not the case that all terrorists pose a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons

is non-applicable here.

^