Activists have crusaded for decades for better treatment of animals around the world, but there are certain watershed moments in popular culture that have sparked widespread debate over how we treat animals in the twenty-first century. In 2009, the European Union banned cosmetic testing on animals and the sale or import of seal products. In 2013, the film “Blackfish” achieved massive popularity and opened up a conversation about human treatment of killer whales on an unprecedented national scale. Last year, the death of Cecil the Lion divided popular opinion not only on the subject of hunting for sport but how we value animal lives versus human lives.

The next great animal rights discussion may be inspired not by a violent event but by one that activists have been warning the public about for years: the treatment of animals in the world’s zoos, animal parks, and aquariums. In this globalized age, animals are often traded between zoos for mating purposes or because the original zoo simply does not have the resources to care for a given animal. With this shuffle of ownership, activists worry that there are no guarantees that an animal will be treated humanely throughout its life. Read on for a look at some of the criticisms at zoos across the world:

Ocean Parks in China

There are 39 ocean theme parks operating in China right now, the largest of which is Chimelong Ocean Kingdom, famous for its beluga whales and polar bears. Most of the animals displayed in these parks were captured in ways that the China Cetacean Alliance have argued are stressful and frightening for them. Whereas the goal of many zoos and aquariums is to preserve endangered species, a recent report from the China Cetacean Alliance states that:

Due to the lack of a legal definition of ‘animal welfare’ in Chinese laws and regulations, and the absence of specific animal welfare concepts within the laws and regulations relevant to the ocean theme park industry, cetaceans in captivity in China are without proper protection from conditions that can cause suffering.China’s participation in the live capture of free-ranging cetaceans from the waters of both Russia and Japan, and the subsequent import of these individuals, is having a negative impact on the conservation status of some targeted cetacean populations and on the international image of the country for its ability to protect wild animals.

Whereas zoos and wildlife preserves do not require animals to perform tricks or be exhibited multiple times per day, theme parks rely on animals to put on a show throughout the operating hours of the day. Animals displayed in these parks are considered valuable because they can perform a program, not because they are an endangered species.

This view of animals as a commodity has allegedly led to problems–for example, a beluga calf recently died in captivity in a Chinese water park apparently because there was not sufficient space in its tank for it to be nursed by its mother. Although Seaworld’s killer whales featured in “Blackfish” became more aggressive when confined to small pools, there is little risk that the belugas on display will exhibit the same violent tendencies. However, beluga whales are listed as “near threatened,” which means that they do need to be protected both in the wild and in captivity.

There is relatively little oversight of marine mammals in captivity in China, which means that there is no pressure on animal trainers in these theme parks to treat animals humanely. There are challenges with raising any animal in captivity because they are occupying a significantly smaller space than they would in the wild, but the risk for the animal increases dramatically when there are no regulators who can fine or suspend zoos or theme parks who fail to give their animals sufficient enclosure space and exercise.

War-torn Zoos in the Gaza Strip

There are six active zoos in the Gaza Strip. Murphy’s Law (anything that can go wrong, will go wrong) appears to be in full effect in these struggling zoos. The presence of Hamas in Gaza, and the ensuing Israeli and Egyptian blockade, means massive shortages on food and supplies for both humans and animals.

The organization Four Paws launched a crowdfunding campaign to purchase supplies for Gaza’s zoos but as of its trip to Gaza recently, it has only been able to deliver enough feed to keep animals fed for four more weeks. Medical supplies are also in short supply so that if animals don’t die of hunger, they often succumb to disease. The frequent bombing and firefights throughout the Gaza Strip often prevent zookeepers from reaching their animals. In an interview in January, one zookeeper described how neither he nor his team could reach the zoo during a fifty day conflict between Israel and Hamas last year. By the time they finally got back to the zoo, one of the African tigers had starved to death. Furthermore, Gaza’s frequent power cuts make it difficult to run the generators necessary to keep animals warm.

At the Khan Younis Zoo, animals starved to death but were then stuffed and returned to their cages in a desperate attempt to keep the zoo solvent. Unfortunately, the zookeepers have neither the funds nor the transport to move their animals to other zoos in safer environments. Four Paws managed to evacuate three lions from the al-Bisan zoo which had been damaged by major shelling, temporarily resettling the lions in Jordan, but that is the exception to the general trend of animals dying in Gaza.

Elephants in the United States

Although animal rights activism is better organized and vocal in the United States than in other nations, the battle is far from over. This winter, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved the transfer of 18 elephants from big game parks in Swaziland to American zoos. The transfer is the result of historic drought conditions that are threatening the health of these elephants in their native environment. These elephants are at risk of starving or being trapped in brushfires in the extreme drought (an especially dangerous prospect for young elephants). Rangers in the big game parks are struggling to care for their animals under these extremely taxing conditions. A transfer to the United States will give these elephants access to water, more temperate climates, and the attention of prominent veterinarians.

However, conservationists are disturbed by the movement of these animals to unfamiliar environments that are significantly smaller than the terrain they are used to in the expansive game reserves. Additionally, the shock of being  moved to such a different location may disrupt animal relationships or cause them to become more aggressive. There is no guarantee that these elephants will deal well with either the trip to the United States or their resettlement in American zoos.

The elephants will be sent to zoos in Kansas, Nebraska and Texas, which has prompted rounds of questioning regarding whether these states have the appropriate facilities to host multiple elephants during a harsh winter. While zookeepers have stated they are trying to keep elephants together in their usual social groupings, there is little doubt that the journey across the world will have an impact on each elephant. Animal rights activists are worried not only about the physical health of these animals after they arrive in the U.S. but their mental health, as elephants are social creatures that operate best when included in a herd. Even though all the American zoos are well-funded and have solid track records with animal care, the shock of adjusting to such a different space could be physically and psychologically traumatic for the elephants. The group Friends of Wildlife have already filed a lawsuit hoping to block this transfer of elephants but their claim may not gain traction in time as the elephants are already being prepared for transport.

Conclusion

Zoos are an important space for the conservation of animals and the education of the general public but they are not always as safe as we would like them to be. In Chinese theme parks, where whales and polar bears are kept in spaces that are significantly smaller than their natural environments, there is no requirement to report on animal’s living conditions to a formal advisory board. In Gaza’s zoos, animals die on a daily basis, waiting for the food and medicine that they could easily receive if they were in a different zoo–but there is no pressure from the international community to evacuate them or send them the supplies they need to survive. Animals are comparatively fortunate in the United States but the arrival of a large group of elephants from Swaziland this month may prove disastrous if zookeepers cannot care for them adequately while drought ravages Swaziland. Any one of these three stories could be the one that attracts international attention and sparks a wide-scale commitment to protecting animals living in captivity in this next era of promoting animal rights.

Resources

The Washington Post: China’s Booming Ocean Parks Mean Misery for Bears, Belugas and More

China Cetacean Alliance: Ocean Theme Parks: A Look Inside China’s Growing Captive Cetacean Industry

WWF: Beluga

US News and World Report: Gaza Zoo Animals are Suffering

Huffington Post: Gaza’s Khan Younis Zoo Sees More Animals Starve To Death As Four Paws Delivers Urgent Supplies

Four Paws: Save the Animal’s of Gaza’s Zoos

Four Paws: Cry for Help from Gaza: FOUR PAWS Takes Care of Animals at Bombed-out Zoo

CNN: Swaziland to Relocate 18 Elephants to U.S. Zoos

CBS News: Animal Rights Group Blocks Zoos’ Elephant Import

Christian Science Monitor: Why Swaziland is Putting 18 Elephants on a Boeing 747

Al Jazeera: Animals Suffer in Gaza’s Cash-strapped Zoos

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Inside the Cage: Controversial Zoos Might be the Next Animal Rights Crusade appeared first on Law Street.

Sixty celebrities, artists, and activists from the United States and Palestine joined together to create a powerful video highlighting the solidarity between Black Americans and Palestinians. American celebrities that participated in order to bring attention to the movement include Grammy Winner Lauryn Hill, author and Pulitzer Prize winner Alice Walker, actor Danny Glover, and political activists Cornel West and Angela Davis, among others. Centered around variations of the line “When I see them, I see us,” the short video draws comparisons between the struggles of Black Americans and Palestinians.

The video project was spearheaded by Noura Erakat, a human rights attorney and an assistant professor at George Mason University in Virginia. She was inspired to make the video after observing the events of the summer of 2014 in both the United States and Palestine. That summer, protests erupted in the United States after the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and have continued as more Black Americans have died at the hands of the police in the United States. Concurrently, Israel launched operations against the Gaza Strip, killing over 2,000 Palestinians. While the experiences between Black Americans and Palestinians are obviously different in many ways, the members of the movement focus on larger similarities, rather than divergences, to make a point about human rights issues writ large. Those who have joined the movement see similarities between state-sanctioned violence and the institutionalization of racism with which both groups have to contend. Erakat explained how a comparison of those two events inspired her, stating:

Here were two groups of people dealing with completely different historical trajectories, but both which resulted in a process of dehumanization that criminalized them and that subject their bodies as expendable. Not only were their lives more vulnerable and disposable, but that even in their death, they were blamed for their own death.

The video, which juxtaposes Black American and Palestinians killed, isn’t the first example of solidarity between the two groups of people. According to the press release accompanying the video:

It comes on the heels of an Aug. 19 statement signed by more than 1,100 Black activists, artists, scholars, students and organizations that calls for ‘solidarity with the Palestinian struggle’ as well as a boycott of private prison company G4S and other corporations profiting from Israeli occupation.

Additionally, during protests in Ferguson last summer, Palestinian activists used social media to offer advice in support–for example, some provided tips on how to deal with tear gas. Black Lives Matter activists also visited Palestine earlier this year, also in a show of solidarity and support.

The video is powerful, and makes exactly the point that its creators intend. As Erakat stated: “It’s really affirming the idea that none of us are free unless all of us are free.”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When I See Them, I See Us: Black American and Palestinian Activists Join Together appeared first on Law Street.

For the first time in decades, the United Nations has declared four of the world’s humanitarian crises a “Level 3 Emergency,” the highest possible rating the organization can assign. The four on the list are Syria, South Sudan, Central African Republic, and Iraq; Iraq was just added to the list on August 14th. From the Islamic State beheading journalists, to the thousands dying from the Ebola virus in Western Africa, from the thousands of civilians fleeing towns in Iraq, to the million malnourished and displaced in South Sudan, as a world, we are collectively in crisis.

According to Nickolay Mladenov, special representative of the United Nations Secretary General, the “Level 3”  emergency designation facilitates “mobilization of additional resources in goods, funds and assets to ensure a more effective response to the humanitarian needs of populations affected by forced displacement.”

The Inter-Agency Standing Committee, a team of UN and other NGO humanitarians, is responsible for determining the level of crisis. Level 3 is given to countries experiencing civil unrest that causes the displacement or removal of thousands of people. Unlike natural disasters, conflicts put humanitarian workers in the crossfire, making relief efforts that much more difficult.

Iraq became a particular concern after the situation on Sinjar Mountain escalated and thousands of Yazidi families–a particular religious community in Iraq–were trapped on the mountain without water, nourishment or any form of sanitation as ISIS fighters surrounded them. Despite numerous Department of Defense airdrops over a week long period in August, 1.5 million Iraqis are in need of humanitarian help, according to USAID.

USAID estimates that 10.8 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance in Syria; 2.5 million in the Central African Republic, with 900,000 more displaced; and 1.1 million displaced in South Sudan. USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah said:

This is the first time in our agency’s history that we have been called on to manage four large-scale humanitarian responses at once— in addition to reaching other vulnerable populations worldwide and preparing communities ahead of natural disasters.

UNICEF, WFP, UNFPA, UNHCR, CARE USA, World Vision USA, Save the Children, Oxfam America and many other NGOs are currently operating in these four countries. Their contributions have saved thousands from death, and millions of individuals have been helped to get back on their feet. The U.S. government alone has sent more than $2.8 billion in assistance to these four countries; but the battle is nowhere close to being done.

To the 5,000 people who are suffering from the Ebola virus, I feel for you. To my sisters in India, who have no choice but to give contaminated water to their children, I feel for you. To the 5.5 million children affected by the crisis in Syria, I feel for you. To the families in Gaza whose houses have been destroyed, I feel for you. I know my empathy won’t bring your loved ones back, give you a new home, or calm the fear that you have to live with everyday. But I hope my words can reach and inspire my colleagues here in America. I hope my words will make people realize how mundane their issues are compared to those I’ve outlined above. I hope my words can bring us together collectively, so we can finally realize that it isn’t “us and them,” but simply “us.” We are Iraq. We are Syria. We are South Sudan. We are Central African Republic. If they are experiencing a crisis, we are experiencing a crisis. With countries like Gaza, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of Congo on the horizon of reaching a level 3 designation, humanitarian aid is needed now more than ever. We are collectively in crisis, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

Mic Drop

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Collectively In Crisis: The Sad State of World Affairs appeared first on Law Street.

The current conflict in Israel has brought the alliance between Israel and the United States under scrutiny. While this alliance looks strong today, the two nations have not always been so close. Read on to learn more about how the alliance began, what the two nations get out of it, and whether or not the current conflict might spell trouble for the friendship.

Has the U.S. always strongly supported Israel?

No. While it might feel like America and Israel have always been close friends, there was a time when there was debate over whether or not the United States should even support Israel as a state.

Recognition of Israel was a huge point of contention for President Harry Truman’s administration. Truman’s Secretary of State George Marshall was staunchly against the creation of a Jewish state, in part because he believed that many of the Jews immigrating to the Middle East were communists. He was so opposed the creation of a Jewish state that he threatened to vote against Truman if Israel were to be recognized. However, counsel to the President Clark Clifford urged Truman to vote for the partition, arguing that the United States could curb Soviet expansion in the Middle East by supporting a Jewish state. Truman sided with Clark, but it wasn’t just Marshall that opposed the plan. The entire American delegation to the United Nations nearly resigned when Truman eventually decided to recognize Israel in 1948.

Here is a good summary of the factors surrounding this decision:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower was not much friendlier. During the Suez Canal crisis of 1957, Eisenhower told Israel to withdraw all troops from the Sinai region. If Israel did not comply, Eisenhower would withdraw all monetary aid from Israel.

When did the United States become strong allies with Israel and why?

The United States began seriously supporting Israel under the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson understood that supporting a Western-style democracy in the Middle East was vital to projecting American dominance abroad. He also understood the domestic power of the Jewish voting bloc. In 1964, Johnson increased the amount of aid given to Israel by 75 percent. He then doubled that amount in 1966. This aid continued during the Six-Day-War, a fight between Israel and Egypt. Since Egypt was backed by the Soviet Union, this conflict became a proxy war. While the United States did not give military assistance to Israel, it did give the country political support and tried to work out a diplomatic solution to the crisis. In the end, the United States benefitted from Israel’s surprising victory over Soviet-backed Egypt. As a result, Johnson broke with the precedent that Eisenhower set and did not demand that Israel return the new land which it had conquered.

After the war, American public opinion strongly shifted to support Israel. Some American Jews became Zionists (those who support the concept of a Jewish state) and America’s foreign policy followed suit. The United States has strongly supported Israel ever since.

What forces maintain this alliance?

Even after the Cold War, the United States has continued to support Israel for a few reasons.

One reason is that Israel maintains a stable status quo in a volatile region. This status quo is important in a region where the slightest amount of unrest can send shockwaves through global markets. Israel’s stable democracy is attractive to the U.S. when compared to nearly any other Middle Eastern nation.

There are also huge domestic pressures on politicians to keep supporting Israel. In a CNN/ORC poll conducted last month, 60 percent of Americans either had very or mostly favorable views of Israel. Support for Israel is even higher when they are not involved in what are seemingly becoming their regular conflicts with Gaza.

Israel’s American lobbying arm, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is incredibly influential. Fortune magazine once ranked it as the second most powerful interest group in America. The lobbying organization is known for being highly influential in Congress. Watch President Barack Obama speak highly of Israel at an AIPAC conference during the 2012 presidential campaign:

How does the alliance benefit Israel?

The most tangible benefit of Israel’s alliance with the United States comes in the form of aid. The exact dollar amount differs depending on the source, but it is estimated that the United States gives over $130 billion dollars in aid to Israel. This money allows Israel to afford and develop technologies like the Iron Dome–Israel’s rocket defense system that has kept their casualty rate so low during the current conflict.

The United States is also the only consistent ally that Israel has in the international community. America is often the only vote in favor of Israel on UN resolutions. On July 24, the United States was the only vote against a UN inquiry into potential war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. When the UN voted to give Palestine non-member observer status, the United States was one of nine countries that voted against the measure. Watch UN Ambassador Susan Rice react to the vote:

Who else voted with the United States and Israel on Palestine’s status?

• Czech Republic
• Canada
• Marshall Islands
• Micronesia
• Nauru
• Panama
• Palau

With the possible exception of Canada, this is not exactly a list of nations that share America’s status on the world stage. The United States is the only very powerful country willing to stand up for Israel in the international community. This does not mean much in the historically weak General Assembly. However, it matters a great deal in the Security Council, where the United States has veto power over any binding resolutions.

How does the alliance benefit the United States?

Many supporters of Israel argue that the United States and Israel should continue to be allies simply because the two countries share values and ideals. Israel and America are both liberal democracies. This common trait is enough for some Americans.

However, there are more pragmatic reasons to keep the alliance around.

Israel is inarguably one of America’s best security partners in the world. Israel shares a significant amount of intelligence with America, which is then used to counter terrorist threats in the Middle East. Israel has also undertaken military action to prevent Syria and Iraq from gaining nuclear weapons.

There are also economic incentives. Silicon Valley companies utilizes Israel’s technological industry to further their own products. Watch this report on Israel’s technology industry:

Twenty-five percent of American exports to the Middle East go to Israel, making them our best buyer in the region. Israeli business partnerships are responsible for an estimated 10,000 American jobs.

The United States military also benefits from the Israeli alliance. American troops can train in Israel, American planes can refuel in Israel, and the Pentagon is constantly working with the Israeli military on new technologies.

Why do some people criticize the alliance?

There are some critics in the United States that want the alliance to end because they disagree with the policies of the Israeli government, mainly the occupation of Gaza and the settling of the West Bank.

Israel ceded the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians in 2005. Yet, they still maintain control over Gaza’s airspace and borders. Nothing comes in or out without Israeli approval, including any trade. This control has been referred to by critics as everything from occupation to apartheid, and is one of the reasons that Gaza has a 40 percent unemployment rate. The violent struggles in Gaza between Hamas and Israel have also troubled some American critics. Hamas fires hundreds of rockets into Israel with no regard to civilian life, but Israel has killed a disproportionate amount of Palestinian civilians over the past few years in retaliation. This disproportionate response is in part thanks to the Iron Dome that America helped pay for and the hefty military aid that the United States provides to Israel.

Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, also under Palestinian control, have been seen as a major roadblock towards a peace agreement. These Jewish-only communities on Palestinian land are often seen as clear violations of international law. Palestinians have cited a freeze on settlements as a precondition to any peace negotiations.

The United States has tried to sway Israeli action on both of these issues with little success. Israel has strongly rejected American ceasefire plans and has been ignoring President Barack Obama’s calls for an end to settlements since the beginning of his presidency. Critics cite this intransigence when they claim that the alliance gives the United States little to no sway in Israeli politics.

How has the current conflict impacted American attitudes toward Israel?

Even in America, Israel is losing the messaging battle in this conflict.

Jonathan Chait, a New York Magazine writer who has almost always been pro-Israel, recently wrote an article titled “Israel Is Making It Hard To Be Pro-Israel.” In the piece, Chait expresses a frustration shared by many liberal American Jews that Israel, specifically Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has abandoned any hope of a two-state solution with Palestine and has no plan to deal with the current conflict. To Chait, constant military conflict is an unacceptable option.

Chait is not alone in this criticism. Many pro-Israel elites have begun to express similar qualms.

Ezra Klein, founder of Vox and one of the most prominent voices in online journalism, recently penned an article largely agreeing with Chait. Klein is quick to point out that he is pro-Israel, but has “become much more pessimistic about its prospects, and more confused and occasionally horrified by its policies.”

Roger Cohen, a New York Times columnist and self-proclaimed Zionist, recently lambasted the Israeli government for creating an environment for Hamas to thrive in, and ended his column with this particularly powerful sentence:

This corrosive Israeli exercise in the control of another people, breeding the contempt of the powerful for the oppressed, is a betrayal of the Zionism in which I still believe.

To be clear, these are people who usually strongly support Israel. Something about this conflict, whether it is the death toll or the lack of a coherent strategy, has caused them to rethink their support of Israel in a way they never have before.

Even the government of the United States is criticizing Israel. The State Department released a statement on August 3 referring to Israel’s shelling of a United Nations school in Gaza as “disgraceful” and stated that “Israel must do more to meet its own standards and avoid civilian casualties.” This is the strongest language the United States has used against Israel during this conflict.

This report from The New York Times showcases other sources in the White House and State Department that are frustrated with Netanyahu’s government.

Yet, it is important to note that none of these commentators take Hamas’s side. They all agree that Hamas is employing disgusting tactics (firing rockets from populated areas, using human shields, etc.) and that they are a terrorist organization. The criticism of Israel seems to stem mostly from Netanyahu’s leadership.

This elite criticism has not translated into public support for Israel significantly dropping. As noted earlier, a plurality of Americans still support Israel and few Americans support Hamas. While support is dropping among younger Americans, the shift is slight and has not yet permeated the larger American population.

America also has not seen the same kind of anti-semitic rallies that Europe has been plagued with in recent weeks. This indicates that American support for Israel is still higher than support abroad.

Is the alliance at risk?

No. This tweet shows why:

Classic: CNN reports Obama expresseing concern to Israel about dead civilians–while also shipping new weapons. http://t.co/iUfvorw1NI

— Greg Mitchell (@GregMitch) July 30, 2014

Obama would not continue to arm the already lopsidedly powerful army if an immediate ceasefire in Gaza was really the primary concern of the United States. Yes, Obama would like a ceasefire to happen, but Israel’s safety and security is much more important.

Regardless of what critics say, America’s alliance with Israel provides significant military, security, and economic benefits. It is hard to imagine a scenario where America forgoes the significant advantages Israel offers while taking on the political behemoth that is the Israel lobby. Like it or not, the America-Israel alliance is probably here to stay, at least for now.

Resources

Primary

Truman Library: Timeline of Truman’s Recognition of Israel

United Nations: US Votes Against Palestinian Non-Member Status

Other

CS Monitor: Five US-Israel Low Points

Jewish Press: A Look Back at LBJ and Israel

Jewish Virtual Library: The 1968 Sale of Phantom Jets to Israel

Polling Report: Polls of the American Public on Israel

Wired: US Funds Iron Dome System

Mondoweiss: US Casts Lonely Vote Against War Crimes Inquiry

Foreign Affairs: FriendsWith Benefits: Why the Alliance is Good

Vox: American Aid to Israel Doesn’t Buy Any Leverage\

New York Magazine: Israel is Making it Hard to be Pro-Israel

Huffington Post: I’m Done Apologizing For Israel

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The US-Israel Alliance: A Strong But Turbulent Friendship appeared first on Law Street.

As a society, unfortunately, we have come to a point where we normalize violence. We no longer find it unusual when we hear about mass shootings at schools, we create extremely violent video games that allow us to kill our opponents in a variety of ways, and we videotape fights and post them online. But now, now we’ve taken it one step too far. A developer who uses the moniker PlayFTW uploaded a Bomb Gaza game where users can drop bombs on draped figures who are supposed to represent the Palestinian organization Hamas, while trying to avoid killing civilians. The game was downloaded around 1,000 times before it was pulled by Google’s app store according to Fox.

Both Palestinians and Israelis have been prominent in sharing their views on the matter. Since the conflict started over a month ago there have been numerous online mementos; from the simple hashtag of #freepalestine, to the statuses saying “I stand with Gaza.” Our generation makes it a point to use technology to voice their opinions on matters, and I often find it commendable. But when people use said technology to glorify the ongoing violence occurring in Gaza, it is utterly shocking and despicable. It also raises red flags on what Google’s standards and policies are for their Play Store applications.

A Google spokesman said that the company doesn’t “comment on individual apps, but will remove apps that breach our guidelines,” which prohibit some speech, bullying, and violence. The app’s maturity setting was set to ‘low,’ which means that the game was deemed suitable for kids, according to the Guardian.

Google: I don’t know how you could allow a game like this to be put up.

PlayFTW: I don’t understand why you would create a game like this in the first place.

Android users: I don’t understand why you would download and play an insensitive game titled “Bomb Gaza.”

I’m just full of confusion at the moment.

What is going on in Gaza is horrendous. So far, more than 1,800 Palestinians have died, and many of those are children. Children who don’t have any say in the matter. Children who hardly have any idea what the conflict is about. Children who simply radiate innocence. I just don’t understand. I don’t understand how someone could take something so serious and turn it into a game.

Now I concede, I have played the earlier Call of Duty games that were set during World War II, but “Bomb Gaza” is so much different.  You cannot play as the German army in the Call of Duty games; you cannot imprison Jews and gas people as the Nazis did; and you cannot strip people of their dignity. You simply cannot recreate the emotions felt during WW2, because they are still too raw. With “Bomb Gaza” you’re supposed to aim for the ‘terrorists’ but can easily hit a civilian, and although it’s only a game, it still hits a deep, deep nerve.

I have no ‘true’ connection with this conflict. I am not Palestinian, and I am not Israeli; but I am a human. And it saddens me every time I hear about a village being taken out. It saddens me when I see a picture of a father holding the remains of his son. It saddens me when innocent people are caught in the crossfire of a conflict they never asked for. And it saddens me when an app is developed to perpetuate the conflict, to add fuel to the fire, to glorify and normalize the bombings of Gaza, and to do it now at the height of the conflict.

Hate perpetuates hate, violence perpetuates violence. But you know what? Peace perpetuates peace, and love perpetuates love and instead of using our technology to provoke the situation, why don’t we use it to try and solve this issue peacefully?

Mic Drop

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Plantronicsgermany via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google Really Messed Up With Bomb Gaza Game appeared first on Law Street.

The current conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas has been met with repeated declarations by American politicians about Israel’s right to defend itself. Now in its fourth week, the Israeli Defense Force’s “Operation Protective Edge” has claimed the lives of more than 50 Israeli soldiers, three Israeli civilians, and upwards of 1,500 Palestinians — 80 percent of whom the United Nations estimates are civilians.

With death tolls that lopsided, it’s worth taking a look at self-defense: what does each side consider it to be and do Israel’s actions legally qualify? Here’s the breakdown, starting with the origins of the current conflict.

First Shots

One common narrative to explain how the fighting started has dominated the media. That storyline claims that on June 12, members of Hamas kidnapped and killed three Israeli teenagers, prompting a massive search of Gaza and the West Bank for the victims. The kidnapping led a group of Israeli settlers to kidnap and burn alive a Palestinian teenager in a revenge attack. Hamas, it is said, then launched rocket fire into Israel in response, leaving Israel with no choice but to retaliate.

What is often buried in this narrative is that before any rockets were launched from Gaza in the current conflict, Israel led an operation in which it arrested more than 500 Palestinians while searching for the three missing teens. Nine palestinians were killed in that campaign, known as “Operation Brother’s Keeper.” More importantly, Israeli officials knew from early on that the teens had been dead — despite their claims that they were searching for the boys alive. There’s evidence that one of the kidnapped boys managed to phone the Israeli police. The boys were killed during that phone call, but the recording and the knowledge of the deaths were under a gag order that wasn’t lifted until July 1. All of this calls into question why Israeli authorities carried out their search under the misinformation that the boys may have been alive.

There’s also some confusion over who took the young men: while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially blamed members of Hamas as the kidnappers and murderers of the three Israeli teens, officials later admitted that they believed the culprits were acting as “lone cells.”

The question of who sparked this conflict absolutely depends on how you frame recent events. But to say that it began with Hamas’ rocket fire ignores Israel’s provocative and questionable actions.

Israel’s Right to Defend Itself

Netanyahu, President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and the U.S. Senate have publicly maintained that Israel has the right to defend itself from thousands of rockets being launched over the border from Gaza by the al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military wing. The problem is that nearly all of those rockets either land in open fields or are intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome system.

While anyone can argue that any state has the right to defend itself from outside attacks, Israel is an occupying power in the Gaza strip according to international law. That means Israel needs to uphold the tenants of occupation law, which dictates that it is responsible for the safety and security of all Gazans.

Stemming from the Hague Regulations of 1907, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and the Additional Protocols of 1977, occupation law identifies an occupation as “when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title.”

Since Israel defeated its Arab neighbors in the 1967 war and took control of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights, Israel has been a military occupant in Gaza. Therefore the current offensive by Israel in Gaza is not technically self-defense. Israel can defend itself against rocket attacks, but since Hamas’ rocket attacks are coming out of territory that Israel itself controls, it must operate in accordance with occupation law, and use nothing more than police force to restore order.

Israel claims that it is no longer occupying the Gaza Strip since it withdrew 8,000 settlers in 2005. But that argument skips over the fact that Israel still maintains control of the Gazan airspace, territorial waters, and its border crossings, in conjunction with Egypt. Israel’s regulation of what goes in and out of Gaza is so strict that it even counts the calories in the food that is imported. Whatever Israeli officials may claim, evidence of an occupation abounds.

On the ground

If we forget for a moment about international law and assess what is happening on the ground in Gaza, Israel’s actions are hugely disproportionate and cannot be considered self-defense. Israel has ensured that Gaza is no threat to its civilians, through the military occupation of Gaza and through implementation of the Iron Dome. Israel’s U.S.-funded military is a giant compared to Hamas’ guerrilla fighters and collection of rockets that it can’t even aim.

Israel has claimed that it is only targeting Hamas operatives and is taking any and all precautions necessary to avoid civilian deaths. But the 80 percent civilian death toll suggests otherwise. Israel is known to use phone calls, leaflets, and “roof knocking” — hitting a building with a small missile before blowing it up — to warn civilians of an impending strike. But the civilians often have no time nor place to evacuate in the tiny, overcrowded area. Israeli strikes on Gaza are also suspected to have several times hit U.N. facilities that function as schools, shelters, and hospitals, even after being given their exact GPS coordinates. The most recent incident drew public condemnation to both sides from U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who called it “a moral outrage and a criminal act.”

Israel’s attempts to deter criticism by claiming that Hamas stores and fires weapons near these civilian areas and uses civilians as human shields. This argument is hard to defend since, in the 140 square mile strip home to nearly two million people, you’d be hard-pressed to find non-civilian areas. This argument also attempts to absolve Israel of any wrongdoing by blaming Palestinians for their own deaths.

After multiple failed ceasefires, the current conflict seems to be coming to its final moments as Israel withdraws most of its ground troops from Gaza. To say that Palestinians are tired of being on the losing side of things is an understatement. But as public opinion about the decades-long conflict shows signs of shifting, especially in the younger generations, and as the the death toll continues to rise, some Palestinians are calling for a third intifada. Palestinians may feel that they have no choice but to rise up if Israel continually dodges international accountability.

True and swift consequences for Israel’s violations are highly unlikely to happen in the U.N. with the U.S.’ imminent veto in staunch support of its ally. And Israel never ratified the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, and doesn’t have any legal obligations to it. Palestine, however, which is recognized in the U.N. as a non-member observer state, could accede to the Court, granting the prosecutor jurisdiction to investigate war crimes that happened in Gaza.

__

Zaid Shoorbajee (@ZBajee)

Featured image courtesy of [Mohammed Al Baba/Oxfam via Flickr].

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hamas Isn’t Entirely to Blame for Sparking the Current War in Gaza appeared first on Law Street.

Violence between Israel and Palestine has surged over the last month following a chain of antagonistic murders in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. On June 12, three Israeli students— Eyal Yifrah, Gilad Shaar, and Naftali Frenkel— were killed. Their bound and partially burned bodies were found in a field northwest of Hebron two weeks later. In retaliation, a 16-year-old Palestinian boy, Muhammed Abu Khdeir, was abducted, bound, and burned alive one day after the burial of the three Israeli students. Khdeir’s cousin, 15-year-old Tariq Abu Khdeir, a Palestinian-American vacationing in East Jerusalem was arrested by Israeli police and beaten while in custody; videos of the boy’s bloody face circulating in social media have only magnified the emotional force behind the escalating tensions between the two countries, engendering missile exchanges between Israel and the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. On Monday July 7, Israel authorized the mobilization of 40,000 reserve soldiers in preparation for an invasion of Gaza, which according to Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon “will not end within a few days.”

Amid the gruesome murders and savage beatings should it be surprising that graffiti has played a critical role in the escalating violence between Israel and Palestine? Since 2008, Price Tag attacks have been a growing phenomena in Israel, though primarily in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; they originated from the “Hilltop Youth” of the West Bank, illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land — 100 small outposts scattered on strategic hilltops. “A ‘price tag’ means that when the government of Israel decides to evict a settlement, an outpost, even the smallest wooden shack in the land of Israel — it has a price,” according to Moriah Goldberg, a 20-year-old Price Tagger. “Maybe it will make them think twice before they do it again.”

Attacks involve destruction of property perpetrated by Israeli extremists against Arabs —desecrating cemeteries, burning Korans, chopping down olive trees — as well as anti-Arab and anti-Christian defamatory graffiti slogans including the phrase “Price Tag.” “Price tag, King David is for the Jews, Jesus is garbage;” “Jesus is a son of bitch,” spray painted on the entrance of a church; “A good Arab is a dead Arab, Price Tag,” spray painted on a mosque; “Death to Arabs;”  “Enough Assimilation,” “Arab Labor = assimilation;” “Non-Jews in the area = enemies.”

Recently, however, Price Tag attacks have increased in frequency and grown more violent. Attacks have surged from a handful in 2008 to 23 already in 2014; along with slashing tires, Price Tag attackers have firebombed empty vehicles, leaving their signature graffiti marks in the wake of their destruction. In response to the arrest of Israeli suspects for the murder of Abu Khdeir, Price Taggers destroyed a light-rail station in East Jerusalem, leaving Hebrew graffiti reading”Death to Israel” across the burned-out edifice. Price Tag is a “shadowy network of clandestine cells,” according to a recent profile of the guerrilla graffiti group in Foreign Policy, posing a “danger to Israeli security. Future acts of vandalism against Palestinians could escalate tension beyond their current, already dangers levels.”

In 2012, the U.S. State Department began listing Price Tag attacks as acts of terrorism in the Global Terror Report, though Israel falls short of this judgement; on July 1, Israeli Defense Minister Ya’alon defined the attacks a “illegal organizing,” stipulating more severe sentences for the Jewish perpetrators. “[T]errorism is a suicide bomber in a crowded mall or someone who shoots people,” said Dani Dayan, the former director of the Yesha Council, an umbrella organization of municipal councils of Jewish settlements. Price Tag attacks should be treated as “extreme vandalism” or even “hate crime…There’s no comparison between this and real Palestinian terrorism[.]”

Whether or not Israel defines Price Tag as ‘terroristic,’ victims still consider the attacks state-condoned violence against non-Jews due to Israel’s apparent failure to prosecute. Historically, more than 90 percent of investigations into settler violence fail to lead to an indictment. According to Slate, while Israel has condemned the recent rise in Price Tag attacks, the response by authorities has been “charitably described as sluggish.” Between 2005 and 2013, 992 investigations of complaints of Israeli violence against Palestinians were conducted, yet only 7.8 percent led to indictments.

There have been quite a few arrests of Price Tag attackers, in fact; the most recent was July 1, when a 22-year-old Israeli was detained in connection with a Price Tag attack in which assailants torched a christian monastery, spray painting “Jesus is a monkey.” “It is unbelievable to us that Israel can catch enemies, very sophisticated enemies, overseas, but they can’t catch a bunch of punks who live here,” said Jawdat Ibrahim, the owner of a local restaurant. “These attacks happen in an atmosphere, maybe an atmosphere that says, ‘Hey, it’s okay, you’re never gonna get caught.’ ” In a poll released last week by Israel’s Channel 10 News, almost 60 percent of those surveyed agreed that the government “didn’t really want to catch” Price Tag attackers, indicating that Israel condones this violence, or at least allows it to happen.

“There’s no doubt that the Price Tag phenomenon is very influenced by political processes,” said Hebrew University political sociology lecturer Eitan Alum. “They’re violent acts with logical and political goals.” Yet Price Tag is is also an expression of hate, inciting violence among and between Palestinian and Israeli communities.

“‘Price Tag’ and ‘Hilltop Youth’ are sweet, sugary nicknames, and the time has come to call this monster by its name,” famed Israeli author Amos Oz publicly declared on May 14th, 2014, his 75th birthday. “Hebrew neo-Nazis. The only difference between European neo-Nazi groups and Price Tag in Israel,” Oz continued, “lies in the fact that our neo-Nazi groups enjoy the tailwind of quite a few lawmakers who are nationalists, and possibly even racists, and also a number of rabbis who provide them with a basis that, in my opinion, is pseudo-religious.”

Oz’s sobering, if however startling, remarks point to pressing issues regarding the difference between Price Tag and other instances of political graffiti, globally. While graffiti artists like Ganzeer in Egypt, and Captain Borderline in Brazil have used their graffiti to critique oppressive government apparatuses, Price Tag specifically targets elements of the Israeli people based on race, ethnicity, and religion; the group’s intent is malicious, a vindictive visual assault on non-Jews who are otherwise victims of an apartheid Israel, or are continually subject to military violence, as is the case in Gaza.

It is important to differentiate these two strains of political graffiti: while graffiti can promote equality and liberty, it can also counter these values. Once a haven for the oppressed, founded on socialist values, Israel has become an oppressor. Price Tag is a plague of hate, radicalized by twisted Zionism, and ruthless settler politics. “Faithless Jews who don’t fear God can call me a terrorist if they want,” said Price Tagger Moriah Goldberg. “I don’t care what they say about me. I only care what God thinks. I act for him and him alone.”

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [Adrian Fine via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Political Graffiti as a Catalyst for Escalating Israeli-Palestinian Violence appeared first on Law Street.