Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump is Considering a Pardon for Joe Arpaio

President Donald Trump said that he is seriously considering issuing a pardon for Joe Arpaio, the former Arizona sheriff who was recently found guilty of criminal contempt for repeatedly profiling Hispanic people in violation of a court order. He has been dubbed “America’s toughest sheriff” and was a staunch Obama opponent who joined Trump in the “birther” movement. And Trump seems to like him quite a bit.

“Is there anyone in local law enforcement who has done more to crack down on illegal immigration than Sheriff Joe?” Trump reportedly said during a conversation with Fox News. “He has protected people from crimes and saved lives. He doesn’t deserve to be treated this way.” Arpaio’s sentencing is scheduled for October 5 and he is facing up to six months behind bars. Trump retweeted a Fox News article about the possibility of a pardon. Yesterday, Trump finally condemned the violence in Charlottesville, so some critics believe that the Arpaio comments might be a nod to white supremacist groups.

Make no mistake: If Trump pardons Arpaio, this would be an official presidential endorsement of racism.

— ACLU National (@ACLU) August 14, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 15, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is officially a suspect in two criminal cases, Israeli police officials said last week. Netanyahu, head of the conservative Likud party, has been under investigation for months. His alleged crimes: accepting illegal gifts from wealthy friends, and floating a quid pro quo deal with a newspaper publisher in a bid for more favorable coverage.

Netanyahu’s fortunes appeared to turn last week, when his former chief of staff Ari Harrow agreed to become a witness for the prosecution. Harrow, according to police, revealed damaging information about his former boss, who is suspected of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.

The probes into the prime minister, known as “Case 1000” and “Case 2000,” deal with two separate instances. In “Case 1000,” Netanyahu is accused of accepting cigars and bottles of champagne from wealthy and powerful friends, including a Hollywood producer.

“Case 2000” concerns a phone call Netanyahu allegedly had with the publisher of the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Arnon Mozes. Netanyahu reportedly asked Mozes for more favorable coverage. In exchange, Netanyahu would curtail the circulation of Israel Hayom, a competitor that is traditionally pro-Netanyahu. Israel Hayom is backed by an American casino magnate, Sheldon Adelson.

On Monday, Israel’s Supreme Court said Netanyahu must reveal the dates of his phone calls with Adelson and Amos Regev, the former editor-in-chief of Israel Hayom.

According to legal analysts in Israel, it is likely Netanyahu will face charges, potentially forcing him to end his fourth term as prime minister years before scheduled elections. An indictment, which could still be months off, does not necessarily mean Netanyahu will step down, according to analysts and those familiar with Israeli law. And though Israeli prime ministers have been taken down by corruption investigations, a sitting prime minister has never been indicted.

Netanyahu’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert, was released from prison last month after serving a 16-month sentence. Olmert was forced from power in 2008, leading to early elections in 2009, when Netanyahu was elected to the premiership.

For his part, Netanyahu has called the investigations as “background noise,” vehemently denying any wrongdoing. “We cannot go without a ‘weekly affair’, so I want to tell you, citizens of Israel, I’m not referring to the background noise, I’m continuing to work for you,” Netanyahu said in a video published on his Facebook page last Friday.

But according to a recent poll by Israeli broadcaster Channel 10, Netanyahu’s popularity might be dwindling. According to the poll, 66 percent of Israelis say Netanyahu should resign if he is charged.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Investigations into Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate held a hearing on Wednesday to consider the Taylor Force Act, legislation that seeks to end the Palestinian Authority’s support of violence against Israeli citizens. The bill proposes to cut U.S. funding to the PA, which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, until it stops paying families of Palestinians who commit terrorist attacks against Israelis and others.

Introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham in February, the bill would “condition assistance to the West Bank and Gaza on steps taken by the Palestinian Authority to end violence and terrorism against Israeli citizens.” Funding would resume if the PA takes “credible steps to end acts of violence against United States and Israeli citizens that are perpetrated by individuals under its jurisdictional control,” the bill says.

After Taylor Force hearing, @AIPAC not ready to endorse: “Discussions continue to find a bipartisan path forward.” https://t.co/wPQIOTTCtB

— Michael Wilner (@mawilner) July 12, 2017

The State Department provides about $400 million annually to the PA, led by Mahmoud Abbas, as the chief political body of the Palestinians. For years, Israel and the U.S. have criticized payments the PA provides to families of “martyrs,” or Palestinians who have killed Israelis and others in acts of terror. Stability in the West Bank is paramount to Israel’s security, however, so Israel has not conditioned its financial assistance on the PA’s practice of paying the families of jailed terrorists.

But Congress decided to act after the death of Taylor Force–for whom the act is named.

In March 2016, Taylor Force, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, was visiting Tel Aviv with a delegation from Vanderbilt University Business School. The group had come to build connections with the Israeli tech sector. Force, 29 at the time, was stabbed to death by a 21-year-old Palestinian man while walking in Jaffa, the oldest section of Tel Aviv, on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.

We have an opportunity to send a message to the Palestinian Authority that ‘Pay to Slay’ must end.

WATCH: https://t.co/vvWU3phT2c

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 12, 2017

If the bill passes–it has not been considered by either chamber yet–the only funds the U.S. would provide to the PA would be for security assistance. Bipartisan support for the legislation has slowly been building since its introduction. The bill was introduced by a Republican and, early on, championed by Republicans. But a number of high-ranking Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have recently signaled they would support the bill.

Wednesday’s hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), featured testimony from men with decades of experience in both Washington and Israel. Elliott Abrams, a diplomat in the Reagan and George W. Bush Administrations, said the PA’s payments to the families of imprisoned terrorists “reward and incentivize acts of terror.”

“There are cases of unemployed and desperate men who commit acts of terror in order to get these payments—which can amount to a permanent government salary,” he said. He added that “all the payments that give assistance to or directly benefit the PA itself should be stopped,” but the U.S. should continue funding NGOs and municipalities in the West Bank that do development work.

Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador for Israel from 2011 to 2017, also provided testimony. He called the payments an “abominable practice” that “must stop,” adding “there should be no extra bonuses for someone who attacks Israelis. It incentivizes the killing of innocents, and it is just wrong.”

But Shapiro said that the Taylor Force Act, in its current form, would tackle the problem with a hammer, effectively choking aid to the PA entirely. He would prefer to use a scalpel.

“Stability in the West Bank, both economic and political, serves Israel’s security interests by dampening the atmosphere in which more Palestinians might be drawn to extremism,” he said. Shapiro said he supports the bill’s intentions, but would like to see it address the problem “without cutting off aid that goes directly to the Palestinian people, provides humanitarian relief, or bolsters stability and security.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Taylor Force Act: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu backtracked on an agreement he made last year to create an egalitarian space at the Western Wall. He said he would seek what he feels is a better compromise between liberal progressive Jews and ultra-Orthodox Jews. Netanyahu decided to scrap the bill despite previously calling the solution a “fair and creative solution,” according to the Washington Post.

The Western Wall, or the “Kotel” in Hebrew, is one of the holiest sites in the world, and the holiest site for the Jewish people. It marks the only remaining ruins of the second Jewish temple in Jerusalem. The first temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in the sixth century BCE, according to the biblical account. A second temple was built a few decades later, and was ransacked and destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE.

For years, Jews and tourists from across the globe have traveled to the last remaining wall of the second temple in order to pray and stuff personal notes into the wall’s cracks. But one issue that has stemmed from this tradition is the wall’s gender divided prayer space. Men are allotted about 75 percent of the space, while women are granted a much smaller section.

Israel’s reform and conservative movements, together with Women of the Wall, an Israeli feminist organization, filed an official petition in September to reconfigure the prayer space. This action angered the ultra-Orthodox and decreased the chances for compromise, Israeli Interior Minister Aryeh Deri said.

Senior minister Tzachi Hanegbi has been appointed to seek an alternative solution. Netanyahu plans to meet with senior officials of the bipartisan American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC President Lillian Pinkus and CEO Howard Kohr made an emergency visit to Jerusalem on Wednesday in order to meet with Israel’s leader, according to Haaretz.

AIPAC released a one-sentence statement expressing its faith in Israel’s democracy as “the best hope for a productive outcome,” according to Haaretz. Netanyahu opted not to meet with American reform and conservative Jewish leaders despite them being in Jerusalem for the Jewish Agency’s Board of Governors summit, according to Times of Israel.

While the ultra-Orthodox community was delighted by Netanyahu’s backtracking, the decision was met with outrage from many Jews in Israel and around the world. In recent years, Women of the Wall has emerged to campaign for changes. The progressive group has advocated for a more egalitarian space at the Western Wall where husbands, wives, and children can pray together instead of being separated by a barrier. Anat Hoffman, director of Women of the Wall, wrote:

This is a bad day for women in Israel. The Women of the Wall will continue to worship at the women’s section of the Western Wall with the Torah scroll, prayer shawls and phylacteries until equality for women arrives at the wall as well.

The reason the barrier is there in the first place is to appease ultra-Orthodox Jews who adhere to the separation of the sexes. At Orthodox synagogues there are “mechitza’s” which separate the men and women during prayer.

Women are not permitted to read aloud from the Torah, wear prayer shawls (talit) or sing at the Western Wall. Women of the Wall also considers it a priority to change those restrictions.

Even some within the Israeli government spoke out against Netanyahu’s decision. Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that the prime minister’s choice “causes terrible harm to Jewish unity and to the alliance between the State of Israel and Diaspora Jewry,” according to the Washington Post.

Yaakov Katz, the editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post, wrote a column saying, “Sunday will go down in history as a shameful day for the State of Israel, another nail in the coffin of Israel’s failing relationship with Diaspora Jewry.” Clearly, many Jews in Israel and those living outside the country have had strong negative reactions to Netanyahu’s decision.

Multiple Jewish groups have announced that they will reconsider their relationship with Israel. The board of directors for the non-profit Jewish Agency canceled a dinner that was planned with Netanyahu, according to San Francisco Gate. Additionally, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, said he felt betrayed. Since Jacobs sees no point in meeting with Netanyahu at this point, the Union would instead prepare for future debates, according to Times of Israel.

Newly minted ambassador to Israel David Friedman spoke about the controversy while at an event in Jerusalem. Friedman said he understood the frustration, but called for unity and understanding between the two sides, according to Haaretz.

Netanyahu’s decision on the Western Wall represents a huge divide between ultra-Orthodox Israeli Jews and non-Orthodox Jews in Israel and around the world. Many American Jews have become frustrated with Netanyahu and the Israeli government in recent years, so this abandonment will only fuel those flames.

Now, the two sides must sit back down and find a compromise. It remains to be seen when a new deal will be reached, but the path there will surely be contentious.

“These negotiations were reached by listening to each other, mutual understanding… The [prime minister] initiated the negotiations and promised us and inspired us and now in one quick swoop without any warning stopped it all,” Hoffman, director of Women of the Wall, said.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israeli Government Stalls Plans for an Equal Space at the Western Wall appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

It’s Health Care Bill Reveal Time!

This morning, Senate Republicans unveiled the draft of the new health care bill. They’ve been working on this bill behind closed doors for weeks now. House Republicans passed a first version of the bill last month, but President Trump urged the Senate to pass a “more generous” version. Under that House bill, 23 million people could lose their health care coverage. The Senate version is pretty similar to the House bill, except even less generous. Perhaps unsurprisingly, in the Senate version there are massive cuts to Medicaid, and it undoes important parts of Obamacare, like the individual mandate. It also eliminates Planned Parenthood funding.

BREAKING: Full text of the Senate’s closely-guarded health care bill has posted online. Read it: https://t.co/tWGoaC4whm pic.twitter.com/T18BUSFpTf

— CNN (@CNN) June 22, 2017

“Republicans are writing their health care bill under the cover of darkness because they are ashamed of it,” claimed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer earlier this week.

via GIPHY

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 22, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Jared Kushner will attempt to re-ignite peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians while on his trip to Jerusalem and Ramallah this week. He would be laying the groundwork for what President Donald Trump calls the “ultimate deal.” The trip is Kushner’s first to the region in his capacity as Trump’s chief envoy for the peace process.

For over two decades, American diplomats have been flummoxed by the peace process. Successful mediation of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians has eluded even the most experienced and well-respected diplomats. Evidently, experience alone has not worked, leading some experts to believe Kushner’s inexperience could be beneficial.

Immediately upon landing in Israel on Wednesday, Kushner visited the parents of Hadas Malka, a 23-year-old Israeli police officer who was stabbed to death by a Palestinian last Friday.

Kushner arrives in Israel, visits family of slain border guard https://t.co/14UkeWSkxj

— The Times of Israel (@TimesofIsrael) June 21, 2017

 Later, Kushner met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his office in Jerusalem. He was joined by Jason Greenblatt,Trump’s other envoy for the peace push, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer, and his American counterpart David Friedman. Greenblatt has been particularly exhaustive in his efforts, speaking with representatives from both sides of the conflict. He also regularly live tweets his endeavors in the region:

Spending time w/families who r breaking the #Ramadan fast at Pediatric Cancer Ward @ Makassed Hospital. I pray for the kids’ quick recovery. pic.twitter.com/xHIggTxPuk

— Jason D. Greenblatt (@jdgreenblatt45) June 20, 2017

Back at the Kotel for much needed prayer. Inspired by the constant stream of warm wishes for success in bringing peace from others praying. pic.twitter.com/bPTMXVEOeT

— Jason D. Greenblatt (@jdgreenblatt45) June 20, 2017

According to the Associated Press, before the meeting began Netanyahu told Kushner it was “an opportunity to pursue our common goals of security, prosperity, and peace.”

On Thursday, Kushner is expected to travel to Ramallah in the West Bank to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian officials.

Deep divisions exist between the negotiating parties, including the status of East Jerusalem and the nearly 500,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank. The Palestinians are adamant that East Jerusalem be the capital of their future state, which would largely exist in the West Bank. Israel captured both areas, along with the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip, which is governed by the terrorist group Hamas, during the 1967 Six-Day War.

Trump’s ascendence to the White House initially overjoyed the far-right elements of Netanyahu’s governing coalition. His embrace of Israel, a far warmer public posture than former President Barack Obama, led many to believe his administration would be a blank check for settlement building. But he has since made it clear that he thinks settlements are, at least in part, an impediment to peace.

Could Trump’s flexibility–his ignorance and inexperience, critics might say–benefit him in a realm that has proven intractable for decades?

“President Trump is at his point of maximum leverage,” Daniel Shapiro, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel under Obama, told The Washington Post. “He has gained respect in the region. He is seen as serious. Add to that, his known streak for being unpredictable. This might make it very difficult to say no to him or to a member of his family.”

But still, Shapiro warned, “This creates an opening. Not more than an opening. One shouldn’t be irrationally exuberant. But the opening is real.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kushner Heads to Israel, West Bank for First Crack at Peace appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Theresa May Loses Majority in Huge Upset

Prime Minister Theresa May originally called for the snap election in the U.K. to strengthen the position of her Conservative Party, but after yesterday’s votes were counted it was clear that she came out the loser. Her party still holds a plurality, but no one party will hold a majority. This is called a hung parliament, meaning that May will need to form a coalition with other parties. And her party will have a hard time passing legislation, as the main opposition party, Labour, won so many seats. Labour’s leader Jeremy Corbyn said May should resign and that he wants to form a minority government. But May doesn’t seem likely to resign–in a speech, she announced she will form a government with a small Northern Irish Party called DUP. Now a lot of people are expressing worries about what will happen with the impending Brexit talks.

PM Theresa May says Conservatives will ensure much-needed “stability” for Britain as the party reels from a string of losses pic.twitter.com/LBIx3HK1EI

— AFP news agency (@AFP) June 9, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Few cities have caused as many headaches as Jerusalem. On Thursday, President Donald Trump continued in the tradition of his predecessors in keeping the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel’s metropolis on the Mediterranean, rather than moving it to Jerusalem, Israel’s proclaimed undivided capital. In the wake of Trump’s announcement, social media has seemingly come to a consensus: Trump broke a campaign promise. Sure, he did. But like everything else involving Jerusalem, it’s not that simple.

Status of the Holy City

When the United Nations officially recognized the State of Israel in 1947, it also sought to designate Jerusalem “corpus separatum,” or an international protectorate, apart from the Arab and Jewish states being created between the Jordan River to the east and the Mediterranean to the west. That did not happen. Instead, after Israel officially declared itself a sovereign nation in May 1948, an attack was launched–Arab armies assaulted Israel, which eventually won the war.

But Jerusalem, which saw heavy fighting in the war, was split: Jordan captured the eastern half, which contains Judaism’s holiest sites (as well as Islamic and Christian holy sites), while Israel held onto the western half. Jordan governed the Holy City for nearly two decades. Under Jordanian rule, Jews were not allowed to visit their holiest site, the Western Wall. Jewish synagogues and cemeteries were destroyed or deconstructed. In the 1948-49 war, Jordan also captured the West Bank.

The Six-Day War in 1967 changed the status of Jerusalem, and shifted the conversation for decades to come. Israel captured a number of land parcels during the war: the Gaza Strip from Egypt; the Golan Heights from Syria; and the West Bank and east Jerusalem from Jordan. Soon after, Israel annexed the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem, moves that the international community did not–and still does not–recognize. Since then, all of Jerusalem–save the Temple Mount, a holy site for all Abrahamic faiths, which remains in Jordan’s hands–has belonged to Israel, which deems the city its undivided, eternal capital.

The U.S. Embassy

The U.S., like all other countries, has kept its embassy in Tel Aviv for decades. Israel has urged U.S. presidents to move the embassy to Jerusalem, home to Israel’s parliament, Supreme Court, and numerous cultural and business institutions. In 1995, the Clinton Administration signed a bill that set a clear path for the embassy move.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 found that the U.S. “maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.” The bill continued: “The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel.”

The bill dictated that the U.S. move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by May 31, 1999. However, it also allowed presidents to waive the move, if it “is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.” Like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Trump made a campaign promise to move the embassy. But on Thursday, despite his firm insistence he would buck the trend and actually go ahead with the move, Trump decided to renew the waiver, which will last for six months.

Despite delaying the embassy move, a White House statement said, “no one should consider this step to be in any way a retreat from the President’s strong support for Israel and for the United States-Israel alliance.” It continued: “President Trump made this decision to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America’s national security interests.” The White House said “the question is not if that move happens, but only when.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed disappointment, but reiterated the U.S.-Israel partnership. A statement from his office said: “Though Israel is disappointed that the embassy will not move at this time, we appreciate today’s expression of President Trump’s friendship to Israel and his commitment to moving the embassy in the future.”

To Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2011 to 2017, Trump made the right decision:

1. Trump was right to issue the Jerusalem embassy waiver today. But I hope it’s the last waiver, allowing the move later this year.

— Dan Shapiro (@DanielBShapiro) June 1, 2017

He said Trump has leverage in the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, and a hasty move could have squandered trust. Shapiro said that once all sides, including Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, are on the same page, then the embassy move would be prudent:

6. Then establish the embassy in W Jerusalem. Shatter Pal myth that Israel has no Jerusalem claims & treat Jerusalem as the capital it is.

— Dan Shapiro (@DanielBShapiro) June 1, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump to Keep U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Less than two hours before it was set to premiere in Beirut, Lebanese officials banned the new “Wonder Woman” film, because its lead actress, Gal Gadot, is Israeli. In recent years Lebanon, which has been at war with Israel for decades, has censored films it deems incendiary or offensive, including films that critique religion or involve homosexuality or Israel.

Despite a successful early screening of the film on Tuesday, a six-member committee of Lebanon’s Ministry of Economy pulled the plug on the film hours before its official premiere. Other Arab nations, including Egypt, Morocco, Oman, and Bahrain are still expected to screen “Wonder Woman” in the coming weeks.

Lebanon and Israel most recently fought a war in 2006, and have not had a diplomatic relationship for decades–Lebanese citizens are not allowed to visit Israel, and vice versa. Over the past few months, at least, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which Gadot served in for two years, has bombed arms shipments in Syria it says are destined for Hezbollah, a militant group based in Lebanon. The U.S. and Israel both consider Hezbollah, largely funded by Iran, a terrorist organization.

Previously released films starring Gadot–including the last two “Fast & Furious” installments, and “Knight & Day”–hit box offices in Lebanon and did quite well. The Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel led a vocal push to ban “Wonder Woman,” however, and in the end, was successful.

Elie Fares, a popular Lebanese blogger, suggested that the ban might not be the result of Gadot’s nationality, but more that “the movie features strong independent female characters which our patriarchy cannot propagate?” He added:

What’s next, though? Banning every single movie that dares to be associated in any way with Israel? Banning every actor or actress who’s set foot in Israel? Deciding not to show any feature film that has any entity that remotely agrees with anything Israel does? Why don’t we just ban ourselves from everything commercial in the world and be done with it?

Lebanese authorities have a history of banning–or heavily editing–films they deem offensive. The 2016 Egyptian film “The Preacher,” a commentary on religion and power, was only released in Lebanon after it was edited to the satisfaction of the authorities. Last year, the Lebanese film “Beach House” was banned, because it features friends discussing their conflicting Arab identities together. In 1994, Lebanon, along with other Arab countries, banned “Schindler’s List,” a film about the Holocaust.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lebanon Bans Screenings of New “Wonder Woman” Film appeared first on Law Street.

The first bad omen came earlier this week, when an American official reportedly told an Israeli official that the Western Wall in Jerusalem is “not your territory.” Then, President Donald Trump, in a closed-door meeting at the White House with Russian officials, let slip classified intelligence regarding an Islamic State threat. The source of that intel: Israel, the most important ally for the U.S. in the Middle East.

As Trump embarks on a trip to the Jewish State–he arrives on Monday–it’s worth asking whether or not America’s relationship with Israel is in danger. Many top Israeli officials have already reaffirmed their country’s commitment to its partnership with the U.S. But the gaffes keep coming, and the initial honeymoon between Trump and Israel’s leading right-wing faction is slowly fading away.

When Trump was elected, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu breathed a sigh of relief. Eight years of President Barack Obama–with his insistence on freezing Israeli settlement building in the West Bank, and Netanyahu’s perception that Obama never truly grasped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict–drained the prime minister. Trump signaled a change. He was steadfast and vocal in his support for Israel. People close to him–including now-ambassador to Israel David Friedman–had life-long ties to Israel.

Pro-settler groups and lawmakers in Israel thought that Trump would provide a rubber stamp on the settlement project, which Palestinians (and many Israelis) argue is an impediment to peace. But not long after taking office, Trump told Netanyahu, during a visit to the White House, to “hold back on settlements for a bit.” Unlike Obama, Trump has not explicitly condemned settlement building, but he has not been quite the unconditional supporter of settlements many hoped he would be.

Still, the partnership has remained strong. This week has certainly been a test, however. ABC reported that the Israeli source that picked up the ISIS threat that Trump relayed to the Russians might be compromised. Some former Israeli intelligence officials, including former heads of the Mossad, Israel’s chief spy agency, said they might hesitate to share intelligence with the Trump Administration moving forward.

“I get the sense that there are certain questions indeed,” former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren told the Associated Press. Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman played down the episode, and reiterated Israel’s partnership with the U.S.

“The security relations between Israel and its greatest ally, the United States, are deep, significant and unprecedented in their scope and their contribution to our strength. That is how it always was and how it always will be,” he said.

All eyes will be on Trump when he visits Israel–part of the president’s first overseas trip–next Monday. His trip will include visits to Israel’s Holocaust memorial, Yad Veshem, and the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City. One of the holiest sites in Judaism, the Western Wall lies in east Jerusalem, which Israel captured in the 1967 Six-Day War, along with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Earlier this week, while preparing for Trump’s visit, an American aide told an Israeli aide the Western Wall was not a part of Israel, during a spat about Netanyahu’s request to visit the holy site with Trump, a request that was ultimately rejected. Israel considers Jerusalem its eternal capital, and Palestinians insist its eastern half would be the capital of their future state. But while the status of Jerusalem has been contended for decades, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, recently brought some clarity to the debate.

During a Tuesday press conference, when asked about the American aide’s comments in regard to the Western Wall, Spicer said the site is “clearly in Jerusalem,” a fact all sides can agree on.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is America’s Relationship with Israel in Danger? appeared first on Law Street.

For a quarter century, the U.S. has exhaustively tried to broker the deal of all deals: an independent Palestinian state. And it has been seeking lasting peace in a region that has been rife with violence for a century. On Wednesday, during a meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority leader, President Donald Trump expressed confidence that he would achieve what none of his predecessors have been able to.

“We will get this done,” Trump said. Striking a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians has been one of Trump’s more consistent priorities. He has appointed a former Trump Organization lawyer, Jason Greenblatt, as the liaison for negotiations. Greenblatt, an Orthodox Jew, has garnered wide praise for his willingness to listen to all of the involved parties–Israelis, Palestinians, and leaders from nearby Arab states like Jordan and Egypt.

Trump insisted he is “committed” to brokering an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that “allows both people to live, worship and thrive and prosper in peace.” During a February meeting at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump did not explicitly support a two-state solution–sovereign states for both Israel and Palestinians–instead saying he favors “the one that both parties like.”

Abbas, speaking in Arabic, said a Palestinian state is the only solution to the decades-old conflict, calling on the pre-1967 borders–the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem–as the template for a future state. Ceding East Jerusalem, home to Judaism’s holiest sites, to the Palestinians as their future capital has long been a contentious point for the Israelis. The last stab at peace, mediated by former Secretary of State John Kerry, folded in 2014 after the two sides could not agree to the specifics of a peace deal.

According to Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, in a private sit-down with Abbas after their public remarks, Trump told the Palestinian leader that a key to lasting peace is for the PA to stop sponsoring terrorism. According to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, the PA, which receives foreign aid, including from the U.S., pays $315 million each year to the families of “martyrs,” or men who commit suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.

For Abbas, the “occupation of our people and of our land” must end before a peaceful solution can be reached. “After 50 years,” he said, referring to Israel’s capture of the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War, “we are the only remaining people in the world that still live under occupation.” Abbas, like Trump, expressed confidence the quest for peace is not finished. Switching to English, he turned to Trump and said: “now, Mr. President, with you, we have hope.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump on Israeli-Palestinian Peace Deal: “We Will Get This Done” appeared first on Law Street.

Hamas, the militant group that governs the Gaza Strip, announced a new charter on Monday, aiming to bolster its appeal to the international community by adopting a slightly less militant stance against Israel. Many analysts see the document, a sort of sequel to its 1988 founding charter, as a way to stake its claim as a legitimate leader of the Palestinian people, and to recast its message in a more politically-oriented sheen in place of its traditional religious dogma.

Revealed in Doha, Qatar on Monday, two days before Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas is scheduled to meet with President Donald Trump in D.C., the document is the culmination of a decade-long attempt to retool the optics of a group that the West–and a number of Arab countries–considers a terrorist organization. Hamas’ new charter lightens the group’s tone on Israel, omitting calls for the Jewish State’s destruction–though it does call for an “armed struggle”–a stance it has espoused for decades. But it does reject “any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” adding:

However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

The document envisions a provisional Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders, known as the “Green Line.” During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured the Gaza Strip from Egypt, and the West Bank and east Jerusalem–home of Judaism’s holiest sites–from Jordan. Hamas 1988 charter essentially called for the destruction of Israel, and a return to the pre-1948–the year Israel achieved statehood–reality.

Founded in 1987 as an offshoot of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas assumed control of Gaza in 2007, two years after Israel recalled its settlements in the tiny strip of land on the Mediterranean coast. Since then, Israel and Hamas have fought three wars. The group has launched hundreds of attacks on Israeli civilians, shooting rockets indiscriminately across the border, and sending assailants through tunnels that snake under the border. Hundreds of Israelis have been killed. A few thousand Palestinians have died in the fighting.

The new charter comes at a precarious time for Gaza’s leadership–and its citizens. Last week, Mahmoud Abbas–the internationally-recognized leader of the Palestinian people, and a thorn in Hamas’ side–decided to stop funding Gaza’s flow of electricity from Israel. Supplied by Israel and paid for by the Palestinian Authority, Gaza has historically relied on these two neighbors for its energy. Gaza residents already face frequent blackouts and now with Abbas’s decision to withhold the PA’s funding, access to electricity will be severely limited.

Israel, which celebrated its 69th Independence Day on Monday, is taking the new charter as the same product with new branding. A statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office called the document a “smokescreen,” adding: “We see Hamas continuing to invest all of its resources not just in preparing for war with Israel, but also in educating the children of Gaza to want to destroy Israel.”

A spokesman for Netanyahu, David Keyes, echoed that sentiment: “Hamas is attempting to fool the world but it will not succeed,” Keyes said. “They dig terror tunnels and have launched thousands upon thousands of missiles at Israeli civilians,” he said. “This is the real Hamas.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Hamas Policy Document Omits Calls for Israel’s Destruction appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

All Eyes on Georgia’s Sixth

Today, the Sixth Congressional District of Georgia is holding a special election to fill the House seat that became vacant when Tom Price left to become the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Although the state is very red and most of the candidates are Republicans, 30-year-old Democratic candidate and documentary filmmaker Jon Ossoff is hoping to snag more than 50 percent of the vote to avoid a runoff. This election has been deemed the first litmus test for Donald Trump’s presidency. Many are hopeful that Ossoff can pull it off.

Georgia’s special election: Can Jon Ossoff land a knockout in Round 1?https://t.co/V1MXitS8Y0

— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 18, 2017

However, Republicans have countered with Islamophobic ads featuring images of Osama bin Laden. They’ve called Ossoff untrustworthy because his production company made videos for al-Jazeera, a Qatari news organization. And over the weekend, voting machines were stolen from a Cobb County precinct manager’s car. The machines reportedly have voter information in them, but it is “hard to access.” According to the county’s Elections Director Janine Eveler, the machines could not be used to fraudulently vote. But still, all eyes are on Jon Ossoff today.

Georgia! Don’t forget tomorrow’s special election. It’s either take one hour and vote or go to a town hall every week and scream until 2018.

— Full Frontal (@FullFrontalSamB) April 17, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 18, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

At a convention center on the banks of the Jordan side of the Dead Sea on Wednesday, leaders of 21 Arab states reaffirmed their commitment to a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The 28th Arab League Summit had a simple, unifying message: ties with Israel will not be fully normalized until a peace deal with the Palestinians is reached.

As the Arab world deals with a coterie of conflicts–civil wars in Syria, Yemen, and Libya; Islamic State and other terror groups; Iran’s proxy adventures and missile program–leaders showed the decades-old conflict still serves as a unifying force in the region.

The summit meeting comes as the Trump Administration mounts an aggressive campaign to strike a peace deal. President Donald Trump has not thrown his whole weight behind the two-state option, instead opting for whatever approach “both parties like.” And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has broadened his language as well; in recent speeches, he eschews the “two-state” label while still saying he supports peace.

Trump is set to meet with a trio of Arab leaders–Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and the Palestinian Authority’s President Mahmoud Abbas–in the coming weeks. Trump’s envoy for the conflict, Jason Greenblatt, was an observer at Wednesday’s gathering. A statement from the U.S. Embassy in Jordan said Greenblatt “listened to their views and ideas, and held a round of bilateral meetings with Arab leaders and other foreign delegations to discuss U.S. perspectives and policies.”

“He reaffirmed President Trump’s personal interest in achieving a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians and his belief that such a peace agreement is not only possible, but would reverberate positively throughout the region and the world,” the statement added.

Affirming their support for normalizing ties with Israel in exchange for a sovereign Palestinian state, the Arab leaders referenced the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative as a blueprint for a future deal. That initiative calls for a “just and comprehensive peace,” including “full Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since” the Six Day War in 1967, in which Israel captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and east Jerusalem.

Israel has rejected the initiative, because it fails to recognize the Jewish people’s ties to east Jerusalem, which contains the religion’s holiest site, the Temple Mount complex. Jordan is a custodian of the fiercely contested site; Jews are currently allowed to visit, but not pray at the site. The initiative also failed to include land swaps for areas of the West Bank inhabited by Israeli settlers, which lay beyond the pre-1967 boundary, a condition Israel says is a pre-requisite for any peace deal.

But for Arab leaders, the West Bank settlements are illegal intrusions on Palestinian land. “Israel is continuing to expand settlements and undermining the chances of achieving peace,” Jordan’s Abdullah said at the summit. In their closing statement, the Arab leaders seemed to recognize the importance the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has for region as a whole, saying “peace is a strategic option” for Arab nations.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arab Leaders Throw Support Behind Two-State Solution for Israel-Palestine appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump’s Ultimatum: Approve the New Health Bill or We’ll Stick with Obamacare

Donald Trump yesterday posed an ultimatum for House Republicans–approve the new healthcare bill, or he will leave Obamacare in place as it is. The vote on the new American Health Care Act was supposed to take place yesterday but was delayed, as too many Republicans had said they would vote against the bill. In a closed-door meeting last night, Trump said he wants the House to vote on the bill this afternoon whether it has enough votes to pass or not–he’s apparently tired of negotiating. If the bill doesn’t pass, Trump said he would move on to other issues, despite touting an Obamacare repeal as a priority throughout his campaign.

The president and VP Mike Pence held a meeting with the extremely conservative House Freedom Caucus yesterday afternoon to discuss the bill. A photo from the meeting circulated on social media and was heavily slammed. One of the main topics of conversation was whether to get rid of essential health benefits regulations, which require insurance plans to cover pregnancy and maternity services. But…notice anything missing from this photo?

Here’s the picture of the leaders negotiating away birth control, maternity care & abortion. Notice anything? #ProtectOurCare

(h/t @Emmya2) pic.twitter.com/X1dYUSa7nO

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) March 23, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Israel’s Cabinet announced on Sunday that the country, already one of the world’s leaders in medical marijuana innovation, is decriminalizing recreational marijuana use. Despite its innovations in medical marijuana research, Israel previously viewed recreational use as a criminal offense; although enforcement was lenient. But now, Israel is officially joining a handful of other countries–including the Netherlands, Mexico, Czech Republic, Costa Rica, and Portugal–in officially treating marijuana use as a public health issue, not a criminal offense.

The Cabinet’s announcement drew bi-partisan applause. “Whether one supports use of cannabis or is opposed, it is wrong to judge cannabis users per criminal law and its derivatives,” said right-wing Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, adding that Israel “cannot turn a blind eye in light of changes worldwide regarding cannabis consumption and effect.”

And Tamar Zandberg, member of the left-wing Meretz Party, and chairwoman of the Committee on Drug and Alcohol Abuse, said Sunday’s announcement is “a message that millions of Israelis who consume cannabis are not criminals.”

Under the new decriminalization model, first time users, if caught smoking pot in public, will be slapped with a 1,000 shekel ($271) fine, but no criminal charges would be brought. A subsequent offense would double the fine. And a third could require rehabilitation, education, and a suspended driver’s license. The money collected by fining public marijuana users would help fund rehabilitation clinics and educational programs. A fourth offense could result in criminal charges.

The medical marijuana industry in Israel, while still relatively nascent, is backed by the government and is a growing source of innovation in the private sector. There are 25,000 registered medical marijuana patients in Israel, a number that is expected to grow exponentially over the next few years. Following Sunday’s announcement, the government will set up a special team tasked with regulating and carrying out the decriminalization policy. The new policy is based on the findings of a committee led the the Public Security Ministry Director General Rotem Peleg.

The Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan said Sunday’s announcement “is an important step on the way to implementing the new policy that will put emphasis on explaining and treating” marijuana use, “rather than on criminal enforcement.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israel Announces it Will Decriminalize Recreational Marijuana Use appeared first on Law Street.

In the words of President Donald Trump, it would be the “ultimate deal.” But it is a deal that has flummoxed the negotiating partners for 70 years: the elusive partitioning of historic Palestine into two states, Israel and Palestine. For decades, the U.S. has been a vital broker for and backer of a two-state path. But with Donald Trump in office, the standard, seemingly immortal U.S. position may be in question. In a Wednesday press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said he is “looking at two-state and one-state” solutions, and he prefers “the one that both parties like.”

Trump’s statements cannot be chiseled in stone to represent a permanent shift in the U.S. stance. For one, Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations directly contradicted Trump on Thursday at a Security Council session on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “We absolutely support a two-state solution,” Haley said. “But we are thinking out of the box as well, which is–what does it take to bring these two sides to the table, what do we need to have them agree on?”

David Friedman, Trump’s choice for ambassador to Israel, also expressed support to the two-state solution in his confirmation hearing on Thursday. “It still remains the best possibility for peace in the region,” he said. And despite the fact that Friedman has poured millions of dollars into an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, he said settlements “may not be helpful” for peace, adding that it “makes sense to tread very carefully in that area.”

Present Dilemma: Waning Desire for a Two-State Solution

So while Trump’s envoys say one thing, he says another. Though he has not decisively aborted the two-state route, he has said he is open to other, less popular routes. But as we have seen, a fleeting statement at a press conference might not always coalesce into a sturdy position for Trump.

For instance, after he won the election, he accepted a call from Taiwan, infuriating China, which worried he would abandon the decades-old “One China” policy. Trump further compounded China’s fury when he explicitly questioned the wisdom of “One China.” But then Trump backtracked. He recently told Chinese President Xi Jinping the U.S. will recognize the longstanding policy. The threat of an unprecedented U.S. pivot subsided.

Now, a rogue Taiwan provoking Trump into undermining “One China” is not quite on the same scale as a true shift in U.S. policy regarding the two-state solution. But Trump has shown that he can be in flux, and say one thing on Monday, and another thing on Thursday.

Regardless of the American position on the intractable conflict, alternatives to the two-state solution seem to be gaining steam. It is unclear what other paths to peace would look like, but one thing is fairly clear: a slim majority of Israelis and a large minority of Palestinians still support two states. According to a Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research poll, 55 percent of Israelis, and 44 percent of Palestinians back a two-state solution. Support for a single, bi-national state is fractured in Israel, as 19 percent of Israeli Jews and 56 percent of Israeli Arabs support that idea. Thirty-six percent of Palestinians support a single state.

But despite popular support on both sides, the political will to strike a deal is withering. The Palestinian leadership is fractured among the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank and Hamas–a designated terrorist group by the U.S., Europe, and Israel–in the Gaza Strip. And in Israel, an emboldened right-wing government that is calcifying its position that a two-state solution is an impossible by encouraging more settlement growth. Netanyahu still supports two states, though of late he has primarily alluded to his position than thrown his full weight behind it.

Past Failures

It is useful to understand the history of the two-state ordeal. In 1937, before Israel was established as a state, a British commission recommended partitioning the land of Palestine into two states–one for Jews, one for Arabs. In terms of land mass, the proposed Arab state would have dwarfed the Jewish state. The Jews accepted the plan, and the Arabs declined. A decade later, in 1947, the U.N. voted for a similar partition plan. Again, the Jews accepted the internationally-backed plan; the Arabs did not, instead deciding to launch a full-scale war against Israel, after it was established as a state, in 1948.

Israel won the War of Independence but ceded the territory now known as the West Bank and Gaza to Jordan and Egypt respectively. In June 1967, Jordan and Egypt prepared to launch a second war against Israel, with the promise of obliterating the Jewish State. Israel launched a preemptive strike, won the war, and control of the West Bank and Gaza changed hands: from that point on, Israel occupied the territories that would make up any future Palestinian state.

The next opportunity–and the last true glimmer of peace–came in 2000 during the Camp David Summit. In late July, President Bill Clinton, the first U.S. leader to attempt to broker a two-state solution, announced the two sides were unable to reach an agreement. Jerusalem, which both sides claim as their capital, was the ultimate, insurmountable obstacle to lasting peace.

Future Success?

And now, nearly two decades later, here we are: Israeli settlements are slowly creeping along the hills of the West Bank; Hamas fires rockets indiscriminately into Israel; the PA glorifies violence against Israelis and praises martyrs. The two-state solution is looking more dim and unlikely than ever before.

So where does the U.S., the most important international player in the conflict, stand? Of course, before Trump, there was President Barack Obama, who, like previous U.S. administrations, steadfastly supported two states. Trump has shown less opposition to Israeli settlements than his predecessors, and he has expressed an openness to other solutions in a way that is unprecedented for a U.S. president.

But, though reading the tea leaves of Trump’s mind is a precarious business, it seems that he is in favor of two states. As many people still believe, and as U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres recently said, “There is no Plan B to the situation between Palestinians and Israelis but a two-state solution.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Does the U.S. Stand on the Two-State Solution? appeared first on Law Street.

Standing next to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Wednesday afternoon, President Donald Trump said that Israel can expect strong support from the U.S., but also cautioned further settlement building in the West Bank, calling it an impediment to peace. But in stark contrast to the decades-long U.S. position on Israel and Palestine, Trump said he is open to a one-state or two-state solution to the conflict, as long as it’s one that “both parties like.”

The press conference, which preceded a closed-door meeting between Trump and Netanyahu, was a highly anticipated litmus test to see where Trump stood, not only on the two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians, but also on other regional issues, like Iran’s nuclear program, and whether he would move the U.S. embassy currently in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Trump’s ascendence to the presidency has been a hopeful development for Netanyahu, who had a fairly terse relationship with President Barack Obama. As Israel continues to construct settlements in the West Bank–Netanyahu recently approved an entirely new settlement for the first time in 25 years–many see the two-state solution, in which an Israeli and Palestinian state exist side-by-side, as the folly of a bygone era. Israeli lawmakers to the right of Netanyahu have been ramping up the pressure to annex the territory, which Israel has occupied since 1967, after it defeated Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab states in the Six Day War.

In his remarks on Wednesday, Netanyahu insisted his official stance on the conflict (he supports two states) “hasn’t changed.” But he did not explicitly express support for the idea. And neither did Trump. “I’m looking at two states and one state, and I like the one that both parties like,” Trump said, adding that the U.S. “will encourage a peace, and really a great peace deal,” regardless of what that deal ultimately looks like.

Trump did say continued settlement building is an obstacle to peace, which has been the mainstream U.S. position for decades. He told Netanyahu to “hold off on settlements for a little bit,” then, tilting his head to the right, looked at Netanyahu and said: “Both sides will have to make compromises. You know that, right?” Netanyahu chuckled and responded: “Both sides.” Netanyahu, in his comments, called on the Palestinians to hold up their end of the bargain. Trump stressed that in the end, a deal could only be struck directly by the two negotiating partners.

Netanyahu named two “prerequisites” for peace. “First, the Palestinians must recognize the Jewish State,” the prime minister said. “They have to stop calling for Israel’s destruction. They have to stop educating their people for Israel’s destruction.” Second, Netanyahu said, Israel must retain security control over the entire area west of the Jordan River, which includes Israel and the West Bank. Otherwise, he said, there will be “another radical Islamic terrorist state.”

Welcome to the United States, @IsraeliPM Benjamin & Sara!#ICYMIJoint Press Conference: https://t.co/GN6ALWUusN pic.twitter.com/bH60nBL5FP

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2017

Trump has recently embraced the so-called “outside-in” approach to solving the conflict. According to this strategy, Israel would forge deeper relationships with Sunni Arab states like Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan. Concentrating on common issues like trade, and common enemies like Iran and Islamic State, the Arab world would then come together to pressure the Palestinians to negotiate with the Israelis and, ideally, forge a state of their own. But this is still somewhat of a fringe idea, as many Arab states are experiencing crises of their own, and the Palestinian issue is hardly at the front of their agendas.

The two leaders discussed other pertinent issues as well. One reporter asked Trump about his plans to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which Israel claims as its capital and the Palestinians claim as the capital to any future state. Without much detail, Trump said he would “love to see that happen.” It is not clear if that sentiment is mutual in Israel, both among the populace and the government. Many Israelis see it as a move that can wait; it could incite Palestinian violence as well.

Toward the end of the press conference, an Israeli reporter asked Trump about the rising anti-Semitism in the U.S., and about the xenophobic elements of his campaign. Trump responded by gloating about his election victory: “Well, I just want to say that we are, you know, very honored by the victory that we had.” In response to the rise in anti-Semitic incidents since his election win, Trump pointed to his daughter Ivanka, who converted to Judaism, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is an Orthodox Jew. “You’re going to see a lot of love. Okay? Thank you,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Says He’s Open to a One-State or Two-State Solution for Israel-Palestine appeared first on Law Street.

Israel is one step closer to exporting medical marijuana to countries that have legalized the drug for medical use. On Sunday, Yoav Kisch, a lawmaker from the ruling Likud party, introduced legislation that would allow Israel to export medical marijuana.

Medical marijuana is legal in Israel, but its local market isn’t exactly what you’d call a cash cow. Roughly 23,000 patients have permits to buy from the country’s nine licensed suppliers, and the market is projected to be worth between $15 million to $20 million.

“Exporting medical cannabis is pushing forward the economy and developing the agricultural sector,” Kisch said. “My bill defines for the first time the whole field of medical cannabis and allows regulating its export.”

Kisch also noted that Canada and Australia began exporting medical marijuana last year, and reaped the economic benefits. The bill, which could spend months navigating the Knesset (Israel’s lawmaking body), would likely expand Israel’s net marijuana profits. Citing recent research, Kisch said Israel stands to make over one billion NIS (or nearly $267 million) by exporting medical marijuana.

With its envelope-pushing research and relative government support for legalization, Israel is a beacon for marijuana investors around the world. As of 2016, the country had attracted roughly $100 million in investments. But it’s not just the scientists, business people, and lawmakers that place Israel at the forefront of a still nascent global industry–it’s the people.

In Tel Aviv Saturday night, thousands of Israelis showed up to encourage the Knesset to legalize recreational marijuana. Two members of parliament were also in attendance: MK Sharren Haskel of the Likud party, which is led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and MK Tamar Zandberg of the opposing Meretz party.

“This is a health campaign, a campaign for quality of life,” Zandberg said.

Last month, Israel’s Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan announced that he would be adopting the “Portugal Model,” in which marijuana is treated as a health issue, not a criminal offense. The new model has yet to go into effect, but a majority of lawmakers support the policy shift.

As it fully implements its decriminalization laws and aims to begin exporting medical cannabis, Israel is poised to continue breaking ground in the cannabis field.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Israel Start Exporting Medical Marijuana? appeared first on Law Street.

Late Monday, Israel’s Parliament passed a law to retroactively legalize settlements on about 2,000 acres of Palestinian-owned land in the West Bank. Passed with a vote of 60-52, the bill is widely expected to be struck down by Israel’s Supreme Court; the attorney general also recently said he would refuse to enforce the law. The vote reflects the growing influence of the settler movement in Israeli politics, and a new political reality for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who previously opposed retroactive legalization of settlements.

Under the law, a few thousand housing units in 16 different settlements would be deemed legal. Palestinian landowners would be compensated for the land, but would not be able to reclaim it. Some settlements in Israel, because they are located on private Palestinian land, are considered illegal by the Israeli government, as well as the international community, which condemns all Israeli settlements. In fact, last month, the United Nations passed a highly contentious resolution that called settlements a “flagrant violation” of international law.

Reactions to the passing of the bill exemplify the increasingly polarized climate of Israeli politics, especially as it concerns the settler movement. “Today Israel decreed that developing settlement in Judea and Samaria is an Israeli interest,” said Bezalel Smotrich, a right-wing lawmaker, referring to the biblical names of the West Bank. “From here we move on to expanding Israeli sovereignty and continuing to build and develop settlements across the land.”

Much of the ethos behind the settler movement is tied to the Jewish claim to the land of Israel including, most notably, the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria). Israel captured the Palestinian territories–the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem–from Jordan and Egypt after it won the 1967 Six-Day War. For 50 years, settlements have remained a flashpoint in Israeli-Palestinian relations, and in Israel’s broader relationship with the international community.

But many Israelis oppose settlements, and support a two-state solution with the Palestinians. Parliament members on the left and the center (and even many on the right) condemn settlements, and see them as an impediment to peace. Yair Lapid, head of the Yesh Atid party, and a leading contender to succeed Netanyahu, called the law “unjust.” He added: “They are passing a law which endangers our soldiers, will undermine our international standing and undermine us as a country of law and order.”

As of a few months ago, Netanyahu opposed passage of the law. But things have changed very quickly. For one, President Donald Trump’s election victory signaled a less harsh U.S. stance on settlements than Netanyahu experienced with President Barack Obama. Trump also appointed David Friedman, a pro-settlement lawyer who has donated millions of dollars to the settler movement, as his ambassador to Israel.

Netanyahu’s ambivalence on Monday’s vote also reflects his precarious position with the settler movement, and in his broader political standing. Netanyahu is currently being investigated on corruption charges, and is under constant pressure from lawmakers to his right to support the settlers.

Last week, 40 settler families were evacuated by Israeli police from the settlement of Amona. The Supreme Court ruled the Amona outpost was illegal, as it was built on private Palestinian land. After the evacuation, Netanyahu swiftly approved the construction of a new settlement, something that has not been done in over 25 years.

Trump said approving new settlements “may not be helpful” to peace, a noticeably milder critique than those from past U.S. administrations. Trump is meeting with Netanyahu in Washington D.C. on February 15, and a clearer picture of the current U.S. stance on settlements should emerge soon after. Meanwhile, Netanyahu has other things to worry about: the same day the settlement bill passed, rockets were fired from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip into Israel.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israel Passes Law to Retroactively Legalize Illegal West Bank Settlements appeared first on Law Street.

Israel’s Ministries of Agriculture and Health announced Monday that they will be collaborating to pour over $2 million in state funds into medical cannabis research. It is the first collaborative effort between the two departments. The cash infusion is projected to fund 13 studies, which range from developing new medical cannabis strands to investigating the plant’s effects on multiple sclerosis.

Israel, which greatly expanded its legal medical marijuana program last summer, is one of the world’s leading innovators in marijuana research. In fact, it was an Israeli professor, Raphael Mechoulam, who first discovered marijuana’s active ingredient, THC, in 1964. Today, Israel is a beacon of light for the global mission to further investigate the medical properties of the drug. Marijuana research in many countries–including the U.S., aside from a few exceptions–is barred.

In the U.S., 29 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana in some form, either recreationally or medically. At the federal level, however, the drug is illegal and is classified as a Schedule I substance, which effectively means it cannot be used in scientific trials. Even though recreational marijuana use and possession is barred in Israel, the tiny country has made large strides in its medical program.

Last year, Israel drastically loosened its medical marijuana laws. More doctors could fill cannabis prescriptions. Limits on the number of marijuana growers were lifted. And cannabis could be sold at approved pharmacies. Now, as Israel’s number of medical marijuana patients hits 25,000, the government is looking for more ways to fill the international gap in marijuana research. Israel is even exploring ways to export its medical marijuana as a prescription medication to pharmacies around the world.

The 13 studies will have a number of biochemical and medical goals, including researching the effects of cannabis on vision, and if marijuana use can lead to colon cancer. There will also be studies into increasing crop yield. Developing new technologies for irrigating and fertilizing cannabis plants is another stated goal. Drug companies, universities, research institutes, and hospitals will conduct the research, which is expected to last five years. Uri Ariel, the Minister of Agriculture, said: “The program shows that agriculture is important in all aspects of life.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israeli Government Will Pay $2 Million to Fund Medical Cannabis Research appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month Israeli authorities convicted 20-year-old Israel Defense Force (IDF) soldier Elor Azaria of manslaughter over the killing of Palestinian Abdel Fattah al-Sharif. The January 4 ruling has since triggered an outpouring of nationwide support for Azaria, with an estimated 70 percent of Israelis asking for a full pardon.

The incident began last March when al-Sharif stabbed an Israeli soldier in the West Bank city of Hebron. After al-Sharif was shot and neutralized, cellphone footage showing Azaria shooting the incapacitated assailant in the head went viral. Originally Azaria was going to be tried for murder, but his charges were reduced to manslaughter for violating protocol, essentially shooting at a non-perceived threat.

While the decision to press charges against Azaria may indicate that Israel is holding its soldiers accountable after decades of contentious military engagement in Palestine, others consider Azaria to be innocent of any wrongdoing, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This past weekend, protests were held across Israel in support of Azaria. In Jerusalem one group assembled outside of President Reuven Rivlin’s home to demand the charges be dropped. Seven demonstrators were reportedly arrested after failing to follow police order and disrupting traffic. Following this event, two individuals were also arrested for ¨inciting violence¨ over social media against court officials in Azaria’s case.

Among Azaria’s supporters, some believe that the manslaughter charges could set a poor precedent for future military operations. For example, on January 8 a deadly truck attack occurred in Jerusalem when an Arab-Israeli citizen ran over a group of soldiers, killing four and injuring 15. Until service members realized that this wasn’t merely a car accident (made apparent when the truck went into reverse) the Jerusalem Post reports that some soldiers hesitated to fire knowing they could face similar charges as Azaria.

There are also some speculations that the Israeli army originally wanted to ignore the Azaria trial altogether to avoid ¨airing the military’s dirty secrets¨ to the world. According to Aida Touma-Suleiman, a Palestinian member of Israeli Parliament, Israel is particularly concerned about attracting more attention from the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its inquiries into war crimes.

“In a clear-cut case like this, it is important for Israel to look as though it is taking war crimes seriously, otherwise the ICC might itself decide to investigate,” said Touma-Suleiman. “But the case has caused problems because it has upset right-wing politicians and much of the Israeli public, who expect absolute impunity for soldiers.”

This is the first high-profile manslaughter indictment since 2005 when Taysir Heib killed a British photographer and pro-Palestinian rights activist, Tom Hurndall. Oftentimes cases involving military wrongdoings against Palestinians are simply dropped. According to MPCID (Investigations into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Palestinians Convictions and Sentencing) 120 out of 186  investigations into Israeli soldiers committing crimes against Palestinians were closed and only seven prompted disciplinary action.

Based on this lack of accountability for Palestinian lives, some Palestinian advocates consider the incriminating evidence caught on video to be the only reason Israeli officials are even pushing charges.

“The only difference between this case and others is this was caught on camera,” said Palestinian Knesset member Hanin Zoabi. “Hundreds of Palestinians are murdered every year and nobody pays attention to it, and only because this was on camera did it go viral in the media here and internationally and made big news —  but really it is something that happens every single day.”

Azaria could face up to 20 years in prison, which is the maximum sentence for manslaughter charges.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Israelis Want Elor Azaria to be Pardoned After Manslaughter Conviction appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like an unlikely new friendship has formed in Washington. On Thursday, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham apologized to Texas Senator Ted Cruz for joking in February that it would be okay to kill Cruz on the Senate floor. The two senators have not been seemingly on the friendliest terms since last year when they both ran for the Republican presidential nomination. But when they appeared side by side in a segment on MSNBC on Thursday, it was a remarkably amiable atmosphere and both men were even giggly. “Love is everywhere,” Graham said. “I want to apologize to Ted for saying he should be killed on the Senate floor.” At least we’re not on the Senate floor now,” replied Cruz.

Also, @SenTedCruz and I spoke with @MSNBCMorningJoe about our legislation to cut off funding to the UN. WATCH: https://t.co/HhcTZBHA2H

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) January 13, 2017

But this new friendship is not just for fun. They joined forces because they are on the same page about a new bill that would halt American funding for the United Nations. This comes after the United Nations Security Council voted 14-0 on the proposal to condemn Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east part of Jerusalem. The U.S. abstained from voting, and immediately faced backlash from both Republicans and Democrats.

On MSNBC, Graham said that 22 percent of the money funding the UN comes from American taxpayers, and that it’s not a good idea for Americans to invest in an organization that works against the only democracy in the Middle East. “This was John Kerry and Obama taking a slap at Israel,” Graham said. He added that the UN has become increasingly anti-Semitic, and that they will stop any money from going to the organization until “this is fixed.” Cruz called Obama’s move “profoundly anti-Israel.”

Republicans filed the bill on Thursday, and if passed it will stop all U.S. funding to the U.N. unless or until the resolution is reversed. Ted Cruz said that this move was the only way to get the U.N.’s attention.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz Team Up to Take on the U.N. appeared first on Law Street.

Representatives from 72 countries will be in Paris on Sunday, discussing a highly contentious issue that has befuddled the international community for decades: a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the conference was “rigged,” and suggested that it could push the prospect of peace further away.

During a meeting in Jerusalem with Norway’s foreign minister, Netanyahu, who declined an invitation to the Paris conference, said: “It’s a rigged conference, rigged by the Palestinians with French auspices to adopt additional anti-Israel stances.” He added: “This pushes peace backwards. It’s not going to obligate us. It’s a relic of the past.”

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict captured the world’s attention last month, when the U.S. abstained in a U.N. Security Council vote on a resolution that called Israeli settlement activity a “flagrant violation” of international law. Secretary of State John Kerry, who will be leaving office next week, followed the contentious abstention with a longwinded speech that called Israel’s West Bank settlements a major impediment to peace, and an obstacle to forging an eventual Palestinian state.

The speech drew the ire of Netanyahu and President-elect Donald Trump, who has promised to strengthen the U.S.-Israel partnership. Trump nominated David Friedman, a New York bankruptcy lawyer, as his ambassador to Israel. Friedman is an staunch advocate for West Bank settlements, and has donated to the settlement movement in the past.

He has also suggested moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which could inflame tensions even further–the Palestinians claim Jerusalem as the capital of a future state. Trump’s team recently said they might have Friedman live and work in Jerusalem while keeping the embassy in Tel Aviv.

In a recent speech, French President Francois Hollande, addressing the Paris conference, said: “I cannot accept the status quo, letting people think that the conflict would resolve itself. It is not true. That is why France took the initiative of a conference on the Middle East.”

Hollande acknowledged that peace can only come through bilateral talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. The Paris conference is meant to reaffirm the international community’s commitment to a two-state solution. The last round of bilateral talks came in 2014. Those talks, brokered by the U.S., quickly fizzled.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Netanyahu Calls Paris Peace Conference “Rigged” and “Anti-Israel” appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Monday! If you’re on the East Coast, you’re probably totally frozen! You should stay inside and keep warm with our rants of the day. Meryl Streep’s Golden Globe speech is definitely worth a listen! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Palestinian Man Drives a Truck Into Crowd of People in Jerusalem

Yesterday, a Palestinian man drove a truck into a crowd of people in Jerusalem, killing four young soldiers; three were women. Seventeen more people were injured. After hitting the crowd, the driver started reversing, but was then shot to death by soldiers at the scene. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after the attack that ISIS was behind it and that it was connected to the recent terrorist attacks in Europe, but didn’t provide any proof or further details. There have been other truck attacks carried out by Palestinians in Israel in the past without any links to Islamic State.

Jerusalem attack suspect ID’d as Fadi Qunbar; 9 people, including 5 of Qunbar’s family members, have been arrested. https://t.co/YiUepD1BLx pic.twitter.com/EG0CaDatrk

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) January 8, 2017

The attacker has been identified as 28-year-old Fadi Qunbar. Nine suspects have been arrested for their involvement in the plot, including five of Qunbar’s family members. The atmosphere in Israel has been particularly tense lately following the high-profile conviction of an Israeli soldier who shot a Palestinian man who attacked him. The soldier was convicted of manslaughter because by the time he shot the man, he was already wounded and subdued.

ISIS has not commented on the most recent attack, but extremist organization Hamas praised it on Twitter.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

In a lengthy and detailed speech on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry defended the U.S.’s decision to abstain from a vote condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and advocated for a two-state solution as the path to peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Kerry affirmed the Obama administration’s commitment to Israel, describing the relationship as a friendship but declaring that friends “need to tell each other the hard truths.” He then went on to assert that the U.S. did indeed vote in accordance with its values, declaring that a vote against the settlements would jeopardize a two-state solution, which he described as the “only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state.”

The speech comes in the wake of a wave of criticism from President-elect Donald Trump and the dismay of pro-Israel advocates who called upon the U.S. to veto the U.N. resolution. The U.N. resolution declared the settlements a violation of international law, and were not vetoed by any of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.

Simply the announcement of Kerry’s planned speech was enough to draw ire from many public figures, who believed the U.N. vote showed a disloyalty to the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

After allowing this anti-Israel resolution to pass the UN, Secretary Kerry has no credibility to speak on Israeli-Palestinian peace.

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) December 28, 2016

We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but…….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2016

not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2016

Kerry said he felt “compelled” to respond in the wake of the backlash, stressing the U.S.’s continued support for Israel but taking a hard stance against the West Bank settlements. He also said that if Israel went down the one-state path, “it will never have true peace with the rest of the Arab world.” He outlined principles for negotiations between the two parties, declaring that both sides must be actively involved in the peace process in order for it to be effective.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the speech a “deep disappointment” during a news conference on Wednesday, saying that it “was almost as unbalanced as the anti-Israel resolution” passed by the U.N. last week. He also allegedly vowed to work with the Trump administration to repeal the U.N. resolution.

While it is unlikely that the speech could substantially change Israeli policies in the region, it sent a powerful statement that the Obama administration was standing by its vote at the U.N. despite opposition from Israel.

While the Trump administration has vowed to strengthen the alliance between the two countries further, Secretary Kerry’s speech has essentially cemented the Obama administration’s legacy as one with a tenuous relationship to Israel and Netanyahu: keeping amicable terms, but refusing to bend to its every demand.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post John Kerry Outlines Middle East Peace Plan in Controversial Speech appeared first on Law Street.

In defiance of the United Nation’s condemnation of its settlement program last week, Israel’s government will issue permits for 618 new settlements on Wednesday. The first installment of 5,600 new homes is expected to be erected in East Jerusalem in the near future.

The settlement planning committee said the permits were being discussed before the UN Security Council passed the resolution last Friday. The resolution called Israeli settlement activity a “flagrant violation under international law” that was “dangerously imperiling the viability” of a future peace settlement establishing a Palestinian state.

“I won’t get worked up over the UN or any other organization that might try to dictate to us what to do in Jerusalem,” Deputy Mayor Meir Turgeman, the planning committee chairman, told an Israeli newspaper. “I hope that the government and the new administration in the United States will give us momentum to continue.”

Over the weekend, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted to the resolution by halting aid and canceling meetings with foreign diplomats. He canceled a meeting with the prime minister of Ukraine, one of the 14 countries that supported the resolution. Netanyahu, angered by the U.S.’s decision to abstain rather than veto the resolution, summoned Daniel Shapiro, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, to clarify the U.S. position.

For decades, it has been standard practice for the U.S. to veto anti-settlement measures, but last week it elected to abstain for the first time. Netanyahu claims that the U.S. colluded behind the scenes with the countries that sponsored the resolution, including New Zealand, and played a more direct role in drafting the resolution. He said he had evidence of the U.S.’s involvement and would share it with President-elect Donald Trump.

“Israel is a country with national pride, and we do not turn the other cheek,” Netanyahu said on Monday, adding that Israel’s response is “responsible, measured and vigorous.” It was the “natural response of a healthy people that is making it clear to the nations of the world that what was done at the UN is unacceptable to us,” he said.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have long rankled the international community, and Palestinian leadership. Many consider the settlements a key impediment to peace, though Israeli officials say it is a bargaining chip for negotiations of a two-state solution.

Ron Dermer, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S., told The New York Times that the Palestinian strategy is to wage a “diplomatic and legal war against Israel.” He added: “Their strategy is not to negotiate an agreement with Israel because a deal is give and take. They want take and take.”

Netanyahu’s conservative government has high hopes that Trump, who will take office in a few weeks, will bring a friendlier relationship to Israel and help change the UN-Israel relationship as well. In a tweet Monday, Trump called the UN “a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israel Issues New Settlement Permits, Defying UN Resolution appeared first on Law Street.

After a discussion with Israeli officials on Thursday, President-elect Donald Trump broke decades of U.S. protocol, urging the current administration to veto a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank. But in a UN Security Council (UNSC) vote on Friday afternoon, the U.S. abstained, flouting Trump’s suggestion, and acting in contrary to decades of vetoing similar resolutions. Fourteen of the 15 members of the UNSC voted for the resolution.

The resolution, introduced by Egypt and co-sponsored by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela, and Senegal, called the settlements a “flagrant violation under international law” that are “dangerously imperiling the viability” of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. Since none of the five permanent UNSC members–which includes the U.S.–vetoed the resolution, it will be adopted.

Though the UN Charter’s Article 25 calls on member states to “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council,” a senior Israeli official said there was “zero chance” the country would follow the resolution and discontinue its settlement policy. The vote was initially set for Thursday, but Egypt withdrew its own resolution after Israel, fearing President Barack Obama would try to back the resolution or abstain, lobbied Trump to interject on the matter.

In a Facebook and Twitter message, Trump did just that, saying “peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations.” He added: “This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis.”

Both Obama and Trump upended decades of protocol. Obama’s administration did so by abstaining on a vote the U.S. usually vetoes (as Obama did in 2011), and Trump for meddling in U.S. foreign policy matters before taking office. Obama has had a fraught relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu throughout his tenure, and the abstention could be seen as a parting shot to Israel’s leader.

Netanyahu is hopeful Trump will steer the U.S. into a cozier relationship with Israel, as he has signaled his support of the West Bank settlements, which the international community largely condemns, and appointed a pro-settlement bankruptcy lawyer, David Friedman, as the next ambassador to Israel.

In a speech after Friday’s vote, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said the settlements “seriously [undermine] Israel’s security,” but reiterated that the U.S. will continue to stand by its side. After the vote, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, condemned the vote and tweeted, “I have no doubt that the new US administration will usher in a new era.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With U.S. Abstention, UN Passes Resolution Condemning Israeli Settlements appeared first on Law Street.

Last week on Law Street scientists geared up climate change data in lieu of Trump, a woman impersonated her ex to send herself threats, and Israel’s drug agency recommended decriminalizing marijuana. ICYMI–check out these top stories from Law Street below!

1. Scientists Rush to Back Up Climate Data Before Trump Takes Office

The President-elect has been criticized because he claimed that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese. The new proposed head of the EPA is a climate change denier. And the new proposed Secretary of State is an oil company CEO with close ties to Russia. So, it’s no wonder that environmentalists across the globe are worrying. Now, American climate scientists are copying as much of their research and climate data as possible onto independent computer servers, in an attempt to protect the information from any political interference. Read the full article here.

2. Woman Impersonates Her Ex on Facebook, Sends Threats to Herself

Imagine being arrested for a crime you didn’t commit–let alone even know about. Now, imagine being arrested four times for crimes you didn’t commit. That was the reality for an Orange County, California man whose ex-girlfriend had been impersonating him online. She had been sending herself messages from an account she created on Facebook in his name threatening to harm and kill her, according to a statement from the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. Read the full article here.

3. Israel’s Drug Enforcement Body Recommends Decriminalizing Marijuana

Israel’s central drug enforcement body, the Israel Anti-Drug Authority (IADA), expressed its support of marijuana decriminalization during a Knesset special committee hearing on Monday. Eitan Gorani, chairman of IADA, said the authority “favors the Portugal model,” referencing Portugal’s focus on marijuana, and all other drugs for that matter, as a public health issue, not a criminal one. Portugal decriminalized all drugs, including marijuana, in 2000. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Israel’s central drug enforcement body, the Israel Anti-Drug Authority (IADA), expressed its support of marijuana decriminalization during a Knesset special committee hearing on Monday. Eitan Gorani, chairman of IADA, said the authority “favors the Portugal model,” referencing Portugal’s focus on marijuana, and all other drugs for that matter, as a public health issue, not a criminal one. Portugal decriminalized all drugs, including marijuana, in 2000.

Gorani’s statement came during the Knesset’s Special Committee on Drug and Alcohol Abuse. “We believe that, as a result of developments in the world, the main problem of using cannabis is social and medical, while the criminal matter is only tangential,” he said.

Israel has some of the most liberal medical marijuana laws in the world, and certainly in the Middle East. Recreational cannabis is illegal, but Israel has a wide-ranging medical program, and pharmacies will be selling the drug in the next few months. About 27,000 Israelis are medical marijuana patients, and use medical marijuana to ease their maladies.

Gorani was not the only person present at the special committee hearing to express support for decriminalizing weed. Tamar Zandberg, chairman of the special committee, said: “Israel is advancing toward a new era, and it seems that legalization of marijuana is just a matter of time.” But not every member of the Knesset, Israel’s legislative body, is in favor of legalizing marijuana.

Oren Hazan, a member of the Likud Party, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party, said it is “absurd for a committee that is supposed to fight drug addiction to encourage the use of a drug that will mess up young people’s heads and destroy the Israel Defense Forces.” And Health Minister Ya’acov Litzman, while proposing a bill earlier this year that widened the scope of Israel’s medical marijuana program, has been opposed to legalizing it for recreational use.

There have been a number of bills that have been proposed legalizing small amounts of marijuana, but all have been struck down. Monday was the first time Israel’s drug enforcement body recommended decriminalizing marijuana. But as the top cabinet members, including Litzman and Minister of Public Security Gilad Erdan oppose IADA’s recommendation, decriminalization could still be a ways off.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israel’s Drug Enforcement Body Recommends Decriminalizing Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

In the 1960’s, an Israeli scientist, Dr. Raphael Mechoulam, was one of the first to discover CBD in a cannabis plant. Soon after, he unraveled the structure of THC, the psychoactive property of the plant. Now, two Israeli companies are breaking new ground, becoming the first in the world to develop an inhaler that will administer medical marijuana in precise, doctor-prescribed doses. Developed by Syqe Medical and marketed and distributed by Teva Pharmaceuticals, the inhaler is set to hit the market as soon as it’s approved by the Health Ministry. It has already been approved for hospital use. 

Syqe Medical, in a statement released Monday, said its groundbreaking product will “revolutionize the field of medical cannabis,” and “will allow medical professionals to prescribe an optimal dose of cannabis, alleviating the patient’s symptoms while minimizing the psychoactive effects.” Patients at Rambam Medical Center in the port city of Haifa have been using the inhaler for the past year, but now the product–the inhaler itself is a onetime purchase and the disposable cartridges last one month–is ready to hit the market.

Teva signs deal to market Syqe Medical’s cannabis inhaler https://t.co/YYjFulvaDq

— Remi L. Roy (@remilroy) November 28, 2016

Inhaling marijuana, in contrast to smoking or eating it, offers patients and doctors greater precision when ingesting and prescribing the drug for specific diseases. Other modes of ingestion are difficult to monitor and dose. According to a statement from Teva Pharmaceuticals, the world’s largest generic drugmaker, the inhaler would be the first in the world to deliver precise doses of cannabis. Plenty of people around the world use inhalers to deliver medical marijuana, but the doses are not measured or precise according to their diagnosis.

Israel legalized medical marijuana in 1992, and the latest statistics put its number of patients at 26,000, a number that is expected to double by 2018. Teva Pharmaceuticals, which is also one of the world’s top ten drug companies, said in a statement that its partnership with Syqe Medical “demonstrates the company’s commitment to improving the health of its patients and it is consistent with Teva Israel’s strategy of investing in — or partnering with — local startups and groundbreaking Israeli initiatives while providing access to innovative technologies and advanced medical devices.”

Editor’s Note: This post was updated on 11/29 to clarify that the Syqe inhaler has already been approved for hospital use. 

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israeli Company Develops World’s Most Precise Medical Marijuana Inhaler appeared first on Law Street.

To Jews, the Temple Mount is home to the remains of two temples, both destroyed by occupying powers millennia ago. To Muslims, the Dome of the Rock is where Muhammad ascended to heaven. And to Christians, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is where Jesus was crucified and later resurrected.

On Wednesday, UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee passed a resolution to designate the area, walled off atop a hill in the Old City in east Jerusalem, as a world heritage site. But the language used–and omitted–in the resolution enraged Israel, the United States, and others in the international community who view the resolution’s mention of the site only by its Arabic name, al-Haram al-Sharif as offensive. The document also strongly condemns Israel’s role in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The historical and cultural treasure chest is among the holiest sites in all three Abrahamic faiths: the holiest for Jews and Christians, and trailing just Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia, the third holiest for Muslims.

“What needs to be understood, and it will take time, is that this absurdity, which harms not only the historical truth and the truth of the present, but also harms in my opinion the U.N. itself,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Following the submission of the resolution a few weeks go, Israel severed its ties to UNESCO, and on Wednesday, Netanyahu declared he will recall Israel’s ambassador to UNESCO. Though 58 countries are members of the cultural body’s executive board, only 21 are part of its World Heritage Committee. Neither Israel, the United States, nor Palestine is a member of that committee. Ten members voted for the resolution, two voted against it, eight abstained, and one was absent.

Crystal Nix Hines, the U.S. representative of UNESCO, called the resolution “continuously one-sided and inflammatory,” with the potential of “damaging the credibility of UNESCO.”

The document is one-sided in more ways than simple semantics. For one, the resolution is titled “Occupied Palestine,” and was submitted by Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, and Sudan. The language throughout the document refers to Israel as the “occupying Power,” consistently highlighting the “deplorable” behavior of Israel in its conflict with Palestine, while ignoring any of Israel’s concerns.

The site sits in the contentious Old City of east Jerusalem, which Israel annexed in the 1967 Mideast War, although the international community does not recognize that move. Sitting on the hinge of the West Bank and Israel, both Palestine and Israel consider east Jerusalem their capital.

Irina Bokova, UNESCO’s director-general who was not directly involved in the drafting or passing of the contentious resolution, offered an all-inclusive statement on Wednesday. “Nowhere more than in Jerusalem do Jewish, Christian, and Muslim heritage and traditions share space and interweave to the point that they support each other,” she said, expressing hope that the world heritage designation could “bridge the divisions that harm the multi-faith character of the Old City.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Angering Israel and its Allies, UNESCO Passes Jerusalem Resolution appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Apple released a new security update for iPhone users worldwide after the discovery of an attempted hack that was trying to take advantage of three huge vulnerabilities in the iOS operating system. Using these three factors, now called the “Trident” flaw, hackers could take complete control over someone’s phone remotely, without the owner knowing about it.

The group that is believed to be behind the hack is an American-owned, Israeli-based company called NSO. It was founded in late 2009 by two Israeli mass-entrepreneurs with ties to the Israeli government and defense forces. In 2014 a San Francisco-based equity firm bought a majority stake in the company for $120 million.

NSO says it specializes in tools fighting against crime and terrorism. Its LinkedIn page describes the company as in “the field of Internet security software solutions and security research.” But many security firms call the group a “cyber arms dealer.” An online document from NSO says it is “a leader in the field of cyber warfare” that utilizes its proprietary monitoring tool it calls “Pegasus,” which can monitor and extract all data from a target “via untraceable commands” which allow “remote and stealth.”

Human rights activist Ahmed Mansoor from the United Arab Emirates was the first one to report the suspected hack, after receiving a text message to his iPhone with a link promising to reveal details about torture in his country’s prisons. Instead of clicking the link he contacted the Toronto-based internet watchdog Citizen Lab.

Incredible: #UAE tries to hack democracy activist @Ahmed_Mansoor w/ Israeli-made… https://t.co/u9WQZFM2OQ by @salamah via @c0nvey

— Azza Youssri (@AzzaYoussri) August 26, 2016

Reports issued on Thursday by Citizen Lab and San Francisco mobile security company Lookout revealed how they discovered an advanced spyware that could take over the whole phone at the tap of a finger. If you click the link in a fake message like the one Mansoor received, it would activate spying software called “Pegasus” and hackers could listen in on your calls, collect text messages and personal information, and control your camera.

This advanced technique is so highly desirable in the cyber world that one spyware broker said in November that it had paid $1 million to programmers who said they had found a way to do it, according to the Telegraph.

On Thursday an Apple spokesperson said:

We were made aware of this vulnerability and immediately fixed it with iOS 9.3.5. We advise all of our customers to always download the latest version of iOS to protect themselves against potential security exploits.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who are the Hackers Behind the Apple Spyware Problem? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now?

Peter Thiel Opens Up About Gawker

The Daily Beast isn’t the only outlet that has allegedly violated the personal privacy of its subjects. Peter Thiel published an op-ed on Monday discussing his feelings toward Gawker Media for outing him in 2007.

It wasn’t so many years ago, but it was a different time: Gay men had to navigate a world that wasn’t always welcoming, and often faced difficult choices about how to live safely and with dignity.

Thiel wanted to come out to the public on his own terms but, unfortunately, Gawker “violated his privacy and cashed in on it.”

Since then, Thiel has made it his aim to bring down Gawker by any means possible. Those means have come in the form of bankrupting the company through a series of lawsuits against Gawker. Thiel secretly funded Terry Bollea’s, or Hulk Hogan, high profile suit, and subsequently bankrupted Gawker and its founder Nick Denton.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In July, Israel’s security agency, the Shin Bet, arrested an employee of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) on charges of assisting Hamas, the Gaza Strip’s governing body recognized by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. On Tuesday, that employee, 38-year-old Wahid Abd Allah Borsh, a Palestinian, was officially indicted. It marks the third time this week Israel accused an employee of an international aid organization with aiding Hamas.

“These are not independent incidents, but a worrying trend of Hamas terrorists systematically taking advantage of U.N. groups,” Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., Danny Danon, said.

Since the 1970s, the UNDP has worked to repair homes and other structures in Gaza and the West Bank that have been damaged by fire exchanged between Israel and Hamas. Borsh worked as an engineer on rehabilitation projects in Gaza since 2014. In conversations with Shin Bet officials, Borsh said Hamas directed him to attain status within UNDP so he could help finagle projects that would benefit the group.

According to Shin Bet, Borsh also tipped off Hamas whenever UNDP would come across  caches of weapons or the entrances to tunnels that the terrorists would use to smuggle into Israel. Doing so allowed Hamas to come in and commandeer the site before UNDP could make a move. Borsh–from the Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza, a 140 square mile area on the Mediterranean Sea–is also accused of helping build a marina for Hamas operatives in 2015.

Shin Bet also said Borsh told them that Hamas directed him in 2014 to “focus on his work in the UNDP in a way that would allow Hamas to extract the greatest possible benefit from him.” In their rebuttal statement, Hamas called the claims of planting agents in aid organizations “false and baseless,” adding that if Israel continues to make such accusations, it will face “dangerous consequences.”

Israel’s accusations began last Monday when the Shin Bet asked Save the Children, a charity that supports programs in Gaza, to investigate one of its employees, who Israel claims has been recruited by Hamas’s armed wing. And last Thursday, Israel accused an employee of the Christian aid organization World Vision of diverting millions of dollars in donations to Hamas.

UNDP has yet to respond to Israel’s claims. Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely called on the development agency to initiate an investigation “in order to ensure that an organization that is supposed to work toward peace and calm is not supporting a murderous terrorist group.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is a U.N. Aid Employee an Agent of Hamas? appeared first on Law Street.

The State Department confirmed on Thursday that the 13-year-old girl who was stabbed to death while sleeping in her bed in the West Bank was a U.S. citizen. The girl, identified by the State Department as Hallel Yaffa Ariel, held dual citizenship and her uncle lives in New York. On Thursday a 17-year-old Palestinian climbed the fence to the settlement where the girl lived with her family and stabbed her multiple times. She later died from her injuries.

State Department spokesperson John Kirby condemned the attack on Twitter:

We condemn the unconscionable terrorist attack in the West Bank where a 13-yr-old girl was stabbed to death at home https://t.co/jTVHzqXdKk

— John Kirby (@statedeptspox) June 30, 2016

In a press release issued on the State Department’s website, Kirby wrote:

We condemn in the strongest possible terms the outrageous terrorist attack this morning in the West Bank where a 13-year-old girl, Hallel Ariel, was stabbed to death in her home. This brutal act of terrorism is simply unconscionable.

The teenager who stabbed the girl fled the scene but was then shot and killed by security guards. This was only one of many violent attacks that have recently struck the city of Hebron in the West Bank. According to ABC, 33 Israelis, 200 Palestinians, and two American tourists have been killed in stabbings, shootings, and vehicular attacks in the past nine months.

An Israeli journalist posted a video clip from the girl’s funeral, showing hundreds of supporters.

Hundreds gathered and singing during the burial of Hallel Yaffa Ariel in the Jewish cemetery in Hebron. pic.twitter.com/ASB74x6c3X

— Judah Ari Gross (@JudahAriGross) June 30, 2016

“What makes someone slit the throat of a child? It’s not the quest for peace. It’s the mind flooded with hate and incitement, an ideology that says this child is not a human being,” Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a Facebook post . He went on to call the deed an act of terrorism that can’t be tolerated:

We will always fight the terrorists. We will fight their despatchers; we will fight the inciters; we will fight the sponsors. You do battle with terrorism by fighting the terrorists and those who back them.

Hebron is the home of many hundred Jewish settlers who live in a small and tightly guarded area surrounded by over 200,000 Palestinians. The slow–or nonexistent–progress in peace talks between the two nations, bad leadership, and instigation by the media are all named as reasons for consistently high tensions in the region.

In June, world leaders met in France to discuss how to move forward with the peace negotiations. At the meeting, world leaders planned an international conference that is to be held before the end of the year. But as violence continues to flare up in the West Bank, any sort of peace agreement between Palestinians and Israelis remains a far off goal.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post State Department: Israeli Girl Stabbed to Death in West Bank Was a U.S. Citizen appeared first on Law Street.

In 2010, 80 miles off the Israeli coast, in the Mediterranean Sea, Israeli soldiers raided a Turkish ship that was on a humanitarian mission to the Gaza Strip. The soldiers killed ten workers onboard. The bloody episode aboard the Mavi Marmara–which was attempting to breach Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip–resulted in  severed ties between Israel and Turkey. On Monday, in a deal that has garnered praised from Gaza to America, Israel and Turkey announced intentions to thaw their diplomatic relationship, ushering in a new era of cooperation. The deal will be officially signed on Tuesday.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the deal in Rome, where he was meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. In a speech broadcast from Rome to Jerusalem, Netanyahu touched on the primary tenets of the partnership moving forward: Turkey will be allowed to move aid to the Gaza Strip–a tiny parcel of Palestinian territory that is controlled by Hamas, a Palestinian group which the U.S. deems a terrorist organization–via the Israeli port of Ashdod. That means the naval blockade of Gaza–the point of contention in the 2010 IDF raid–will remain in place. Netanyahu called the blockade “a supreme security interest,” and said he was “not prepared to compromise on it.”

Turkey can deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, but shipments must stop through Ashdod for Israel’s approval first. Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, in his announcement of the deal in Ankara on Monday, said Turkey intends to send an aid ship of 10,000 tons of materials on Friday. He also said Turkey aims to build a 200-bed hospital, new residential buildings, a power station, and desalination plant in Gaza. The new deal also stipulates that Israel will pay $20 million to the families of the Mavi Marmara victims, and for their part, Turkey will not pursue legal action against the IDF soldiers who participated in the killings.

Netanyahu said an Israeli ambassador will be sent to Turkey, and a Turkish counterpart to Israel, “as soon as possible.” Because of normalized relations, Turkey will likely become a customer of Israeli natural gas, and Netanyahu said the deal would have “immense implications for the Israeli economy.” The partnership is especially important considering the calamity in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, which shares a border with both countries. Some analysts peg the deal as a tool against Iran, a rival for both countries in  regional prominence.

In Rome, Kerry congratulated Netanyahu on the deal. He said: “I think it’s a positive step, one of, I hope, the beginning of others.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israel and Turkey Re-establish Diplomatic Ties appeared first on Law Street.

An innocent evening at a busy chocolate bar in Tel Aviv turned deadly Wednesday night when two Palestinian gunmen opened fire killing two Israelis—reigniting terrorism fears in the country. Another nine people suffered gunshot wounds, and four people are still being treated at the hospital, including one suspect, according to Israel’s national emergency medical service.

The Israeli  military quickly responded Thursday morning, announcing it will deploy hundreds of troops to the West Bank, including soldiers from infantry and special forces units. In Tel Aviv, extra police units were sent to monitor public places like train and bus stations. Thousands of Israeli police will also be deployed to Jerusalem’s Al Aqsa Mosque for tonight’s Ramadan prayers, which tens of thousands of people usually attend.

Video footage from nearby shops show customers fleeing in panic, knocking over tables, rushing to escape the violence.

VIDEO: People running away after shooting in central #TelAviv #Israel – @AmichaiStein1 pic.twitter.com/A1HPYcEfbc

— Conflict News (@Conflicts) June 8, 2016

“People were having coffee. I saw a birthday cake on one of the tables,” said one witness. “And then you see the chairs upside down and glass shattered and blood all over.”

One of the attackers was shot by police and the other surrendered, but their names cannot be released because Israeli authorities have issued a gag order on details that could identify them. However, police did say that the attackers are cousins, both in their twenties.

PHOTO: Shooter being arrested. Caught on a nearby streat. Reports of 5-7 wounded #TelAviv #Israel – @AAhronheim pic.twitter.com/m6tNIRlM2p

— Conflict News (@Conflicts) June 8, 2016

The military froze work permits for 204 of the attackers’ family members, and plans are underway to demolish the family home of one of the gunmen–a tactic common in Israel to punish terrorists.

Other Palestinians are also being penalized for the terrorists’ actions. Israel has frozen nearly 83,000 Palestinians’ permits, barring them from entering Israel. Special Ramadan permits were also suspended for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to visit relatives in Israel, travel abroad, and attend prayers at the Al Aqsa Mosque, according to the Israeli defense organization, COGAT.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the shooting “a savage crime, murder in the heart of Tel Aviv. We will take the necessary steps to attack the attackers and defend those who need to be defended.”

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas issued a statement condemning violence against civilians, although he did not directly reference the Tel Aviv shootings.

“The presidency has repeatedly emphasized that it stands against attacks on civilians, regardless of their sources or justifications,” the statement said. “Achieving just peace and creating a positive atmosphere is the way to ease tension and end violence.”

The mayor of Tel Aviv took to Twitter to express his thoughts:

“We will continue to live in this city of #TelAviv. We will continue to build, create and enjoy the city. #Terror will not defeat us…”

— Mayor of Tel Aviv (@MayorOfTelAviv) June 8, 2016

Hamas, the Palestinian government arm of the Gaza Strip that has been deemed a terrorist organization by the West, and Islamic Jihadists, a militant group in Israel, both praised the attacks, but neither claimed responsibility for it.

The attack took place at one of Tel Aviv’s most popular spots, Sarona, home to dozens of shops, restaurants, and cafes. It is also located across the street from Israel’s Defense Ministry and main army headquarters. Being as busy as it is, it is nearly impossible to secure, according to CNN law enforcement analyst Steve Moore.

“It’s a classic soft terror target,” he said. “It is really indefensible. It is a mall. You are not going to set up a system whereby, absent body searches, you are going to stop these things.”

In the past nine months, Palestinians have killed 32 Israelis and two Americans in dozens of attacks against civilians and security forces. Israelis have killed about 200 Palestinians during the same time frame.

U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner issued a statement condemning the attacks:

“These cowardly attacks against innocent civilians can never be justified,” he said. “We are in touch with Israeli authorities to express our support and concern.”

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Israel Intensifies Troop Presence After Tel Aviv Shooting appeared first on Law Street.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo declared Sunday that he would sign an executive order to divest funds from any company or organization in his state participating in the Boycott, Divestment, or Sanctions (BDS) movement, a global campaign aimed at ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine through economic pressure. The Palestinian-led movement targets corporations and products that contribute to the violation of Palestinian rights, and calls for sanctions to be placed on the Israeli state.

Cuomo’s announcement took place Sunday at the Harvard Club in New York, the same day that the Governor participated in the Celebrate Israel parade along with Mayor Bill de Blasio, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and other public figures, as well as celebrities, organizations, and companies. Cuomo followed his announcement with a series of tweets in which he harshly criticized the movement and its participants:

We made a unity trip to Israel because they were under attack. Today, Israel is under attack on a different level. https://t.co/O3oXmEdnXp

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 5, 2016

This BDS movement is an economic attack and generating a corporate enemy to Israel. We cannot allow that to happen.

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 5, 2016

I am signing an Executive Order that says very clearly we are against the BDS movement. If you boycott Israel, New York will boycott you.

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 5, 2016

Why a state government feels the need to get involved in one of the most complex foreign policy issues of our time is unclear, but Cuomo’s actions highlight the deep roots of the U.S.-Israel alliance, in which an “attack” on Israel is treated as an attack toward the U.S. The official executive order declares that New York and Israel “enjoy a special historical relationship and share a commonly forged cultural bond,” and that the state “stands firmly with Israel.”

The order also declared the governor’s intentions to compile a blacklist of sorts, targeting companies and institutions that have participated in BDS activities and threatening to divest if they are proven to have participated in the movement. Once an organization has been added to the publicly-available list, it’s not easy to be removed: it must submit “written evidence” demonstrating that it no longer participates in BDS activities, and a “good faith” determination will be made by the Commissioner of General Services. The punishments make it nearly impossible for any organization to get involved in the BDS movement without facing major repercussions.

The order is already being criticized by many for being a blatant violation of free speech; Palestine Legal calls it a “dangerous precedent reminiscent of McCarthyism.”

The list of companies and organizations participating in BDS will be compiled in the next 180 days, according to the order. Once released, it will undoubtedly have a major impact on a large number of businesses throughout the state.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Bans Boycotts Against Israel appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine peace talks where the two parties vying for compromise are absent at the negotiating table. This is the reality in the long, fraught history of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. On Friday, France hosted diplomats from all over the world–including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon–to discuss a two state solution for Israel and Palestine, an elusive bargain that all sides say cannot materialize unless talks directly involve those two parties.

For decades, the U.S. has been the lead mediator for peace, and though France’s decision to host talks doesn’t mean it will take over that mantle, it is seen by the Palestinians as a step toward having a more neutral government at the forefront of the talks. The PLO–Palestinian’s governing body–views America’s close ties with Israel as a potentially problematic factor in hosting neutral peace discussions.

“We must act, urgently,” said French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, “to preserve the two-state solution, revive it before it is too late.”

The French effort comes at a time of deepening mistrust between Israelis and Palestinians, as months of stabbings and violence have cast a pall over an already darkening mood. Israeli settlements in the West Bank–which, along with the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem would likely make up a future Palestinian state–are an unmovable obstacle for peace.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected Friday’s discussions, saying peace can only happen with direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the PLO, while not present in Paris, embraced the French initiative, if only because it represented a step in shifting the mediating role from the Americans to a more neutral partner in France.

The most recent brush with peace came in 2012, when a majority of the U.N. General Assembly recognized Palestine as a state. Israel did not, so a two-state reality remained out of reach. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry tirelessly worked at achieving peace in 2014 but no deal was reached. On the latest stab at peace by the French, Kerry said: “We’re just starting, let’s get into the conversations.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Baby Steps: France Initiates New Round of Israel-Palestine Peace Talks appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI last week’s top stories on Law Street we’re pretty eclectic. Jillian Sequeira analyzed Israel’s efforts to dismantle cults, Sean Simon imagined the Republican party as an actual party, and Alexandra Simone reported on abortion activists phoning Governor Mike Pence to discuss their menstrual cycles. ICYMI keep reading to learn more about each of these top stories.

1. Israel’s Battle to Dismantle Cults: An Inspiration for the Rest of the World?

The Israeli parliament, the Knesset, has recently introduced an anti-cult law designed to dismantle New Age sects of Judaism that are considered explosive forces within the country by the lawmakers trying to regulate them. Take a look at that situation in Israel and how other countries have handled cults in the past in comparison with the proposed Israeli law. Read the full article here.

2. If the Republican Party Was an Actual Party

You open up your email after getting to work on Friday morning, and you see that right above an email from Amazon asking you to finally buy the panini press that’s been sitting on your wish list for months, you have an email from Reince Priebus. Confused, you open the email, and you realize that it’s an evite. “Who uses evites anymore?” you wonder. Read the full article here.

3. Periods for Pence: Update Your Governor on Your Menstrual Cycle Today!

Women in Indiana are getting fired up about HEA 1337, a controversial abortion bill signed into law by Indiana Governor Mike Pence this past week. To stand up for what they believe is an infringement on women’s right to privacy, women from all over the state are calling the governor to inform him about their menstrual cycles. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

In the United States last month, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints made headlines for committing food stamp fraud. The infamous cult, which the Southern Poverty Law Center referred to as “white supremacist, homophobic, antigovernment, [and] totalitarian,” has practiced polygamy and sexual abuse for years but the evidence of the food stamp case may be the key to shutting the organization down for good. Without lucky breaks like this food stamp case, law enforcement often has difficulty effectively disbanding cults.

Identifying a cult in the first place is often a difficult task, as the line between freedom to practice religion and illegal activity shifts depending on different cultural traditions. Members of cults rarely want to share information with the authorities which makes building a criminal case incredibly difficult.

However, eliminating cults should not be considered an impossible task. Consider the case of Israel. The Israeli parliament, the Knesset, has recently introduced an anti-cult law designed to dismantle New Age sects of Judaism that are considered explosive forces within the country by the lawmakers trying to regulate them. Take a look at that situation in Israel and how other countries have handled cults in the past in comparison with the proposed Israeli law.

Spotlight on Israel: The Knesset’s Decision

Israel’s proposed bill was put forward by Orly Levy-Abecassis, a Member of the Knesset from the Yisrael Beytenu party. Levy-Abecassis has been committed to dismantling cults for some time now, as evidenced by her 2014 protest of homeschooling. She argued that homeschooling could shelter cults, allowing them to corrupt younger generations and evade the gaze of Social Services ministries that monitor children’s health.

The proposed law defines a cult as any group that:

Rallies around a person or an idea, in a way that there is exploitation, dependency, authority, or emotional distress experienced by one or more members, uses methods of mind control or controlling patterns of behavior, and operates in an organized, systematic, and sustained fashion, while committing crimes under Israeli law that are felonies or sexual offenses or serious violence.

The bill also labels the act of leading a cult as an offense punishable by up to ten years in prison. The Ministry of Welfare would be tasked with compiling a database of information about members, leaders, and practices of cults. The final segment of the bill asks for the establishment of a department dedicated to helping victims of cult abuse. If this bill is passed into law, it will be the first Israeli statute to distinguish cults from other religious groups that enjoy protection under freedom of religion clauses.

There have been a series of high profile court cases involving cults in Israel over the past several years. In 2014, accused cult leader Goel Ratzon was sentenced to 30 years in prison in October 2014 for a slew of sex crimes but escaped persecution for a count of slavery. One of his former “wives” was interviewed immediately after the court’s decision and said:

It seems that in the State of Israel, pimps, people who pimp other peoples’ body and soul, can continue to do so…they have the right – because there is no law and there is no justice.

There have also been allegations against a man named Rabbi Aharon Ramati for cult behavior. Ramati was arrested and then moved to house arrest but his sentence was relatively short. Parents of the young women who have joined Ramati’s cult argue that the girls are being brainwashed and kept against their will in squalid living conditions but because the cult members are all adults, the Israeli state has virtually no power to intervene. Unless they can compile sufficient proof of crimes on Ramati’s part, joining the cult is legally considered to be a choice that anyone is entitled to make.

International Impact

While the bill is designed to target groups within the borders of Israel, it could potentially be used to condemn Jewish cults throughout the world. One such alleged cult would be the Lev Tahor sect, an anti-Zionist cult that opposes homosexuality, birth control and evolution, and has expanded from Canada into Guatemala. Canadian officials have connected Lev Tahor to dozens of cases of child abuse, human trafficking and forgery and there are no signs that the cult has planned to shut down those practices within their new operation in Guatemala. There are fears that Lev Tahor may become increasingly violent in future years, becoming a threat to both the Israeli community and the greater population. Lev Tahor does not currently exist within Israel and Israel’s bill only applies within national borders, but the rise of the cult has concerned Jewish leaders, no doubt contributing to the impetus to pass a formal anti-cult law.

How do Different Nations Deal with Cults?

Israel is not the only country that is host to a variety of cults.  Different legal systems and law enforcement agencies deal with cults in a variety of ways across the globe.

The United States

U.S. law enforcement has historically struggled with regulating cults because of a hesitancy to violate First Amendment rights. Authorities have to wait until they have sufficient evidence to file criminal charges, which sometimes results in cults being designated criminal organizations. During the latter half of the twentieth century, a host of cults dominated American headlines–the Branch Davidians, Heaven’s Gate, the People’s Temple–but just because many of these high profile cults were destroyed does not mean that cult worship is not alive and well in America. The Children of God (now known as Family International) is an active cult that continues to operate in the United States today. Individual leaders and members have been charged with criminal offenses, but never enough to permanently shut down the organizations.

France

In contrast, the French government has actively sought to disband cults and has even created a “cult-fighting” unit within its law enforcement branch of government. While France runs across the same difficulty defining cults that the U.S. has, the French government did take the time to create a list of ten cult characteristics in 1995 which has proved important for legal cases against cults. The same commission that published that list also put together a set of 173 organizations that it considers to be cults–including Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Scientology.

Indonesia

In Indonesia, new religious groups are emerging that Indonesian authorities are tentatively labeling cults or “deviant sects.” Movements such as Gafatar isolate their members from mainstream society, asking them to follow a charismatic leader and subject themselves a religious hierarchy that controls their lives. Indonesian law allows the government to control religion in the public sphere but does not extend into the private lives of Indonesian citizens. Sects such as Gafatar have come under attack from religious majorities, inspiring outcry from the international human rights community. At this point, it is difficult to identify whether Gafatar is a cult with the same violent potential as those that existed in America several decades ago or if it is simply an emergent religion. Gafatar subscribes to some of the characteristics included on the French commission’s 1995 list but is not as clearly cult-like as an organization like the Branch Davidians. The Indonesian government should be able to monitor the group but cannot take direct action to disband it unless there is evidence of criminal activity.

Conclusion

In the twenty-first century, cults are an uncomfortable reminder of the most archaic and brutal aspects of major religions. As mainstream religious institutions adapt with time and become more open to equality and change, these organizations remain in the past, controlling their members through mental and physical abuse. Bringing the leadership of cults to justice is a priority for law enforcement but it is difficult to disband cults without causing an uproar over the violation of the right to freedom of religion. Israel’s proposed legislation could have lasting effects not only within Israeli borders but beyond, setting a standard for condemning hate speech and brainwashing around the world. However, persecuting cults is a difficult task as the very act of defining them is controversial. Organizations such as the Church of Scientology and the Hare Krishna movement have been labeled cults in some countries and acceptable religions in others. Bills like the one the Knesset is considering take on the blurred lines between religious freedom and criminal activity in a public forum that world governments have historically skirted around.

Resources

Vice News: Polygamist Cult Has Been Running a Major Food Stamp Scam

Daily Beast: Israel’s Cult Crackdown Could Snare Yoga, Rabbis, and Meditation

Times of Israel: MKs Bid to Tackle ‘Harmful Cults’ That Ensnare 20,000 Israelis. But it’s Not so Simple

The Jerusalem Post: Committee on the Rights of the Child: More regulations on homeschooling

The Jerusalem Post: Law and Order: Cult-Busting Bill Gets Ministerial Approval

YNet News: Suspected Ramati Cult Re-emerges

NPR: Dogged By Controversy, A Jewish Sect Is On The Move Again

US News and World Report: How to Address Indonesia’s Religious Cults

Rappler: As Religious Cults Emerge in Indonesia, How Should Gov’t Deal?

Slate: Cult Busters: How Governments Decide if a Religion is Real or Not

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 Israel’s Battle to Dismantle Cults: An Inspiration for the Rest of the World? 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.

Despite passionate and zealous opposition in the Republican-controlled Congress, the Iran deal, negotiated by the P5+1 nations (U.S, China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, and Germany), has survived and will begin to be implemented by the Obama administration. President Obama, having already secured enough Democratic votes in the Senate to sustain what was considered a prospective resolution of disapproval, also managed to garner enough votes to constitute a viable filibuster, which effectively removed the need of a presidential veto. Although the nuclear deal with Iran is perceived by many as being President Obama’s most significant foreign policy achievement, the opposition and debate surrounding the deal has not been toned down but instead magnified as the 2016 presidential candidates have made this deal a key area of debate and discord.

Since the next man or woman to occupy the Oval Office will directly decide whether to comply and continue implementation or derail it, the fate of the deal in the United States is not yet secure in the long term. Arguments for and against the Iran nuclear deal will continue to permeate politics and media from now until election day, and beyond. Read on to learn about the major arguments against the Iran deal and their counter-points–arguments that we’ll be sure to see continued as we move toward 2016.

Iranian Theocracy and Extremism

Argument Against the Deal

For those who oppose the deal, perhaps the biggest objection to entering into this agreement with Iran is the despotic nature of Iran’s regime. Critics of the deal believe that such a regime cannot be dealt with through traditional diplomatic channels. They argue that a country without a democratic grounding, mainly run by religious and ideological extremists who have vowed to destroy the United States and its allies, namely Israel, cannot be trusted and that any agreement is annulled by virtue of the extremism and radicalism of the regime.

Proponents of this view have argued that as a requisite for any deal, the U.S should demand certain concessions that alter the fundamental makeup of the regime. These concessions include the recognition of the right of Israel to exist as a state, or perhaps a change in the perennial “Great Satan” chants, which occur occasionally in Iran and disparage America. Former New York Mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani agrees with this position, arguing,

You can’t negotiate with a man who is calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, death to Americans…the only thing they understand, because they are insane, really, is the exercise of power.

Ruhollah Khomeini, the first supreme leader of Iran, and a symbol of Iranian theocracy and anti-Americanism.

Counter Argument

The counter argument to this position, which has been put forth by supporters of the deal, is tri-faceted. First, they argue that it is unrealistic and overly demanding to expect Iran to suddenly and abruptly change such core aspects of its government. Anti-Americanism, and to a lesser extent anti-semitism, are political norms in Iran which have been guiding principles since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and have continuously shaped the evolution of the regime. Therefore, such demands would be completely unpalatable for a political elite in Iran.

Secondly, they point out that despotic regimes with interests in direct conflict with our own should not be precluded from diplomatic relations with the U.S for those reasons alone. The U.S has in the past negotiated with the communist Soviet Union, for example, and achieved detente and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Yet, the Soviet Union was arguably far more tyrannical, anti-American, and actually posed an existential threat to the U.S. Why should the U.S resist negotiating with Iran because of its political make up, if it did negotiate with the USSR?  

Lastly, they argue that these core complaints are in some senses non-threatening and toothless anyways, as Iran is more of a rational state actor than we give it credit for, and that its ideological fervor is subordinated by a recognition of its weakness relative to the United States. Iran surely understands that any attack on Israel or the U.S would provoke a military response that would depose its government and do irreparable harm to the country. Some argue that self preservation is not beyond Iran, and the chants of death to America are perhaps nothing more than political posturing.

Sanction Relief and Economics

Argument Against the Deal 

Another major criticism of the Iran nuclear deal is a natural extension of the previous criticism. Critics argue that if Iran is a theocratic despotic regime then we should expect the money that will flood into Iran upon sanction relief to be allocated to causes that are against our interests and the interests of our allies in the middle east, such as Israel.

Indeed, Iran, according to the U.S State Department, is one of only three countries in the world to sponsor terrorism and clearly pursues destabilizing efforts in the Middle East. According to a 2010 report released by the Pentagon Iran allocates between $100-200 million dollars a year to funding Hezbollah, a subversive terrorist militia based mainly in Lebanon which has caused many problems for the U.S and Israel.

All parties also agree, including the administration, that a sizable amount of the money received through sanctions relief could be channeled towards these terroristic, destabilizing pursuits. If all recognize this is true, then why should we consent to releasing this money to Iran, when we know they will use it to hurt us and some of our closest allies? Presidential contender Senator Ted Cruz argues this quite emphatically, by suggesting the Obama administration will become the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism:

Counter Argument

The counter argument to this objection is also multi-faceted. First, supporters of the deal point out that irrespective of U.S decision making, Iran will get a significant amount of money through sanction relief from the rest of the international community. The rest of the P5+1  will relieve sanctions regardless of what the U.S. does. These countries have have said so publicly to American leaders and as Michael Birnbaum from the Washington Post points out, the global community has already sent delegations. Birnbaum writes,

Congress is still deciding whether to approve the landmark nuclear deal with Iran, but European political and business leaders aren’t waiting for the outcome. Germany got in on the action first, with a government jet touching down at Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Airport just five days after the deal was signed. Since then, a representative from every major European power has visited or announced plans to do so.

The global community will not follow suit with American unilateralism when it comes to this Iran deal, and so Iran will receive sanction relief either way, some of which will most likely be channeled to its destabilizing activities. Indeed, in the scenario of an American rejection of the deal, Iran will still receive the influx of money.

A second point that serves to rebut the previous objection is that the current president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, was elected on a largely domestic economic platform. Therefore it would be unrealistic for the most moderate Iranian president in recent times to simply ignore his promises of economic reform, and not appropriate a good portion of the money coming in to domestic economic causes. President Obama expressed this point clearly in an interview with NPR when he stated the following in reference to the funds:

Their economy has been severely weakened. It would slowly and gradually improve. But a lot of that would have to be devoted to improving the lives of the people inside of Iran.

The final portion of the counter argument touted by supporters has to do with a recent historical juxtaposition of President George H. W. Bush and his son, President George W. Bush. President George H.W Bush conducted what many perceive as being one of the more successful military operations in U.S history: the Gulf War. The Gulf War was a multilateral effort through the United Nations and other great powers which successfully protected the sovereignty of Kuwait against Iraqi expansionism and belligerence under Saddam Hussein. The global community through almost universal consensus defended Kuwait from Iraq, defeating the Iraqi army.

A decade or so later, his son President George W. Bush, took a different approach to Iraq and unilaterally and in defiance to the U.N invaded and deposed the Iraqi regime and Hussein, orchestrating what many consider to be one of the least advisable, and catastrophic foreign policy initiatives since the Vietnam War. With that history in mind, those who disagree with unilaterally subverting the global community when it comes to Iran see that choice as a potential repeat of the mistake of Bush 43. America may not be able to act alone anymore. 

Conclusion

Regardless of which position is taken, the conversation regarding the deal is noteworthy and intriguing in and of itself. There has been little diplomatic or meaningful contact between Iran and the United States since the Islamic revolution, and Iran radically and indelibly pronounced its seemingly permanent departure and defiance to the United States, Europe, and Western civilization. Regardless of what transpires between now and November 2016, when the next president will either uphold or dismantle the agreement,  the United States and the global community are entering a definitive juncture in which a new relationship is forming. 

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of State: State Sponsors of Terrorism

Additional

Federation of American Scientists: Unclassified Report on Military Power of Iran

NY Daily News: Diplomacy With Iran is Doomed Because Terrorists ‘Only Understand the Exercise of Power,’ says Rudy Giuliani

NPR: Transcript: President Obama’s Full NPR Interview On Iran Nuclear Deal

Washington Post: These European Leaders and Businesses are Rushing to Do Deals with Iran

Bloomberg Business: Iran Gives Weapons to Re-Arm Hezbollah, Pentagon Says

Haaretz: Republicans Continue to Push Against Iran Nuclear Deal Despite Setbacks

PBS Frontline: The Structure of Power in Iran

John Phillips

John Phillips studied political science at the George Washington University. His interest are vast, but pertain mostly to politics, both international and domestic, philosophy, and law. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Iran Nuclear Deal: America Remains Divided appeared first on Law Street.

A historic breakthrough for international diplomacy was reached Tuesday when President Obama announced the conclusion of the Iran nuclear deal negotiations after 20 months of discussions and international debate. The deal ensures that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful and provides security measures that should instill trust in the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has agreed to dramatically decrease its nuclear infrastructure in exchange for relief from international sanctions that have suffocated Iran’s economy for years. A few fundamental points of the deal include Iran’s agreement to keep its uranium enrichment levels at or below 3.67 percent, a dramatic decrease. The deal reduces Iran’s nuclear stockpile by about 98 percent, allowing the state to maintain a uranium reserve under 300 kilograms, which is down from its current 10,000-kilogram stock. Iran has also agreed to ship spent fuel outside its borders, diminishing the likelihood of uranium enrichment intended to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran will be bound to extremely intrusive inspections by the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and will face the looming possibility of harsh sanction reimposition if it is found to be evading its commitments or in noncompliance with the deal.

On Wednesday afternoon, Obama held a press conference in the White House East Room where he welcomed critics and reporters to ask questions of him regarding the newly struck nuclear deal. The conference lasted more than an hour, and drew out several candid responses from an increasingly condescending President Obama along with a slew of entertaining commentary by the president toward critics of the nuclear deal. Frustrated, annoyed, or patronizing–whatever the president’s mood was, it was rightfully earned; the criticisms of the Iran nuclear deal thus far and during the press conference are almost disappointingly invalid or inadequate. It’s easy to see how it becomes aggravating to explain the details of a decision that has been 20 months in the making to politicians who had prearranged to lobby against the deal before it even existed. It’s also easy to see how he became flippant toward reporters who are asking questions about Bill Cosby in the middle of the press conference that is supposed to address one of the most critical, comprehensive, and complex diplomatic agreements in history. So with that in mind, here are the best and sassiest quotes from Wednesday’s press conference:

1. “Major, that’s nonsense. And you should know better.”

After CBS News reporter Major Garrett asked the President why he is “content” with the fanfare around the Iran deal when there are four American political prisoners currently in Iran, Obama was not happy. His response was that the United States should not act on this deal based on the detainees’ status because Iran would take advantage of the American prisoners and try to gain additional concessions by continuing to hold them captive. He stated that deal or no deal, we are still working hard to get these four Americans out.

2. “My hope is — is that everyone in Congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts… But, we live in Washington.”

Well, let’s be honest, those of us who actually live in Washington would prefer that Congress not be lumped in with the rest of us during this debate. Can they debate somewhere else?

3. “You know, the facts are the facts, and I’m not concerned about what others say about it.”

Sticks and stones, Barack, sticks and stones.

4. “The argument that I’ve been already hearing… that because this deal does not solve all those other problems, that’s an argument for rejecting this deal, defies logic: it makes no sense.”

Here, Obama made a direct jab at Republicans in Congress who are trying to justify their opposition to the nuclear deal by saying that Iran is not moderate and won’t change because of this deal. The President said that the deal was never designed to solve every problem in Iran. Obama says this rhetoric, besides being plain wrong and nonsensical, loses sight of the number one priority–making sure Iran does not develop a bomb.

5. “I’m hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about “This is a bad deal. This is a historically bad deal. This will threaten Israel and threaten the world and threaten the United States.” I mean, there’s been a lot of that.”

Condescending Obama strikes again, and reminded us that this deal won’t, in fact, make the world implode. Pro tip: read the quote within the quote in a nasally, Obama-making-fun-of-Congress voice.

6. “This is not something you hide in a closet. This is not something you put on a dolly and wheel off somewhere.”

Obama said that under the new safeguards and the international community’s watchful eye, the Iranian government simply won’t be able to hide any uranium or plutonium that they might be (but probably aren’t) covertly enriching. Because under the bed and in the closet is definitely the first place the United Nations will check, duh.

7. “Now, you’ll hear some critics say, “well, we could have negotiated a better deal.” OK. What does that mean?”

The Republicans are right. We could have also found a unicorn and put sprinkles on top.

8. “So to go back to Congress, I challenge those who are objecting to this agreement…to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they’re right and people like Ernie Moniz, who is an MIT nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong.”

Mic drop.

9. “It’s not the job of the president of the United States to solve every problem in the Middle East.”

Well that didn’t stop anyone with the last name “Bush” from trying.

10. “I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.”

While this wasn’t from the press conference, it was too good not to include. Obama faces a hard sell to Congress and is determined to push the deal through. He stated that if the nuclear deal fails in Congress, it won’t just be a slap in the face to the American officials who negotiated this deal, but to the international community and the other five countries who spent years negotiating.

The president left the press conference promising to address the deal again, stating, “I suspect this is not the last that we’ve heard of this debate.”

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Condescending Quotes From Obama’s Iran Deal Press Conference appeared first on Law Street.

After 13 years, the Supreme Court has reversed a controversial law passed by Congress back in 2002.  The issue with the law is that it gave American citizens born in Jerusalem the option to list Israel as their official country of birth on their American passports and birth certificates. Seeing that the recognition of foreign nations is entirely a political policy condition, the Supreme Court has decided that Congress should never have had the authority to make a law of recognition as they did in 2002 and therefore have struck it down, leaving powers of recognition to the president.

The outdated law previously stipulated that:

For purposes of the registration of birth, certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen’s legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel.

The law reversal stems from the prominent Zivotofsky v. Kerry case. More than a decade ago, the Zivotofsky family filed suit against the ­­­­­­State Department after they were denied the option to list Jerusalem, Israel as the place of birth for their newborn son.

While under the separation of powers Congress does indeed play a vital component in making laws, major decisions on  nation recognition has historically been left to the Executive branch. Looking back at  precedent, it should be noted that the Supreme Court has allocated the power and exclusivity of recognizing a nation as being a privilege exclusively for the President.

The president has taken those absolute measures as a result of Congress accepting the recognition of power as exclusive of his office, and at times even defending the President’s constitutional prerogative. Additionally, the Executive branch often has access to confidential information that the legislative branch does not.

Foreign sovereignty expert Juan Basombrio, who is the Co-Chair of Dorsey & Whitney’s International Law Group, commented on the Supreme Court’s decision in a press release saying:

Expressly recognizing that the status of Jerusalem is ‘a delicate subject,’ the Supreme Court has relied on Separation of Powers principles to strike-down a United States statute, enacted by Congress in 2002, which conflicted with State Department policy.  The Supreme Court has held that the question of who has sovereignty over Jerusalem must not be decided by the Congress or the Courts, but is within the purview of the Executive Branch, which has indicated that this is a matter to be resolved ‘not unilaterally but in consultation with all concerned.’  Today’s decision confirms former President George W. Bush’s statement, at the time of enactment of the referenced statute, that ‘U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed.’

Monday’s decision marks the end of an era of uncertainty over the loophole in the conflicting law that enabled American citizens born abroad to claim Israel as their country of identity. Basombrio makes a valid claim as he states that the decision should not involve American courts or Congress, granted that there are other political actors and nations involved; therefore the argument and decision should always remain with the Executive branch.

This decision is important because it demonstrates to the citizens of Jerusalem, as well as the rest of the world, that the U.S. will not be dragged into the identity crisis. Whereas the U.S. is often known for mediating terms between other nations, this time that is not the case. In reversing a 13-year clause, the Supreme Court has sent a message to Israel that the U.S. has no interest in intervening until the nations involved in the identity dispute resolve their issue.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Born in Israel? Not on Your American Passport appeared first on Law Street.

The United States and Iran, along with a number of other world powers, reached a tentative deal on April 2, 2015, that would prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons. The deal required a tremendous amount of time and work to come together. With all these moving parts it’s not surprising that there have been varied reactions around the world. Regardless, if finalized, the deal will have wide-reaching ramifications both regionally and across the globe. Read on to learn about the current agreement, its impact, and what could happen if it falls through.

The Deal

So what exactly is this “deal” to which Iran, the U.S., and the other nations agreed?

Iran’s Requirements

To begin, Iran will reduce its number of centrifuges and lessen its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. Excesses of both will be handed over to the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for safe storage. Iran will also stop enriching uranium at its Fordow facility and will not build any new enrichment facilities. Only one plant, Natanz, will continue to enrich uranium, although in lesser amounts. Additionally, Iran will halt research on uranium enrichment concerning spent fuel rods and will either postpone or reduce research on general uranium enrichment and on advanced types of centrifuges. Iran, by following through with these commitments, will abide by its requirements as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In addition, Iran will open itself completely to IAEA inspections. The overarching goal is to change the timeline of Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon from a few months to at least a year.

U.S. and E.U. Requirements

On the other side of the deal are the U.S. and the E.U. These parties will begin lifting sanctions on Iran once it has been verified that it is complying with the agreed conditions concerning the nuclear framework agreement. These sanctions include a number of limitations that have hurt the Iranian economy. Specifically, the E.U. sanctions include trade restrictions on uranium-related equipment, asset freezes, a ban on transactions with Iranian financial institutions, and a ban on Iranian energy products. The U.S. has been levying sanctions on Iran since 1979; these include most of those imposed by the E.U. as well as sanctions on basically all types of trade with Iran, other than aid-related equipment.

The sanctions lifted will only be those levied in relation to Iran’s nuclear weapons program; other sanctions that are a result of human rights violations for example, will remain in place. Additionally, if Iran violates the terms of the agreement, the original sanctions can go back into effect. The following video explains in detail what the Iranians agreed to and what the U.S. and other world powers are offering in return.

Roadblocks to the Deal

While a framework is in place and the Obama Administration hailed it as progress, there are still several potential challenges that could derail the agreement before it is finalized in June. Each side appears to have to contend with at least one formidable roadblock to the deal’s success.

In the U.S., Congress still isn’t quite on board. For the U.S. to lift sanctions, President Obama needs Congress to approve the deal; however, due to consistent fighting with Congress, the president has been reluctant to leave it in their hands. Nevertheless, thanks to an agreement on April 14, 2015, Congress will now get to vote on a finalized deal if it is reached by June 30, 2015. While this may appear as yet another defeat for the president and pose a dark outlook for the nuclear agreement, the compromise reached with Congress ensures they will have a say.

Another potential roadblock is Israel. While the country does not have any direct say in whether the deal happens or not, it is not without influence.  As Netanyahu’s recent visit to the U.S. shows, he has Congress’ ear, and could prove an effective lobbyist.

On the Iranian side, dissent has emerged from the arguably most powerful voice in the entire country, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the country. In a recent speech he called for sanctions to be lifted immediately upon finalization of the deal, meaning Iran would not have to proove its sincerity first. Khamenei is an unquestioned power in Iran, so this could be a big problem. The video below reiterates the obstacles to finalizing an Iranian nuclear deal.

Impact of the Agreement

The impact of a successful Iran-U.S. deal would be monumental on national, regional, and global levels.

National Importance

Perhaps no party will reap the benefits of this deal as much as Iran itself. With a deal in place, Iran’s economic struggles as a result of the sanctions will be softened. Iran has the opportunity to improve its economy dramatically. When the sanctions are lifted, Iran can enjoy a $100 billion windfall in oil profits that have been frozen as part of the sanctions. Additionally, Iran can follow through on a number of oil pipeline projects it had in place, but was unable to complete due to the sanctions. Lastly, with U.S. cooperation, Iran will be able to more efficiently develop its large oil and natural gas reserves with American technology.

Regional Importance

While Iran stands to gain the most, there will also be changes for the region as a whole. In agreeing to this deal, Iran did not agree to limit its actions in the ongoing conflicts in Lebanon, Syria, and its proxy war in Yemen, which is especially important as it is part of the larger feud between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been in competition with Iran, its ideological and religious counter, for leadership of the Middle East for years. The two have engaged indirectly in a number of conflicts for the hearts and minds of the region. While the nuclear deal likely eliminates a potential nuclear arms race between the conflicting sides, it does nothing to prevent Iran from continuing to vie for control of the region.

Israel shares a similar fear of Iran’s growing influence. Iran is a chief supporter of Hezbollah, a group based in Lebanon that strongly opposes Israel. Additionally, Israel, while not declared, is a well-known nuclear power. These nuclear weapons provide Israel with the ultimate deterrent against larger countries like Iran. Israel therefore fears the Iran nuclear deal because it believes the deal will further empower Iran.

Global Importance

Lastly is the impact of the deal within the global community, beginning with the United States. Many experts expect a huge increase in the world oil supply once the sanctions are lifted. American corporations will benefit not only from cheaper prices, but also from access to developing Iranian energy supplies.

The deal could also help countries such as India, which also benefits from cheap energy as well as increased access to development projects in Iran. China is yet another country that can use another source of cheap oil, but by agreeing to a deal with the U.S., Iran may have taken itself out of the orbit of a sympathetic China. Along a similar vein, Russia, whose economy lives and dies with energy prices, does not need another competitor to bring the price of oil down even further, which is likely to happen.  The video below explains further what the implications of the Iran nuclear deal are.

Thus the Iran deal means something different to all parties at every level of foreign affairs, but the consensus is that it is important to all sides.

 Conclusion

On paper the Iran nuclear deal is a win for most parties. The problem is the deal is not on paper yet, as only a framework has been reached. While even getting this far can seem like a monumental step when history is factored in, that same history has the potential to undo everything achieved so far. Whether or not all sides end up getting on board with this deal remains to be seen.

Resources

Business Insider: Here’s the Text of the Iran Nuclear Framework

Al Jazeera: Why Saudi Arabia and Israel Oppose the Iran Nuclear Deal

Reuters: Kerry Says He Stands by Presentation of Iran Nuclear Deal

The New York Times: Obama Yields, Allowing Congress Say on Iran Nuclear Deal

BBC News: Iran Nuclear Crisis: What Are the Sanctions?

Cato Institute: Remaining Obstacles to the Iran Nuclear Deal

Daily Star: Region to Feel the Effects of Iran Nuclear Deal

The New York Times: Israeli Response to Iran Nuclear Deal Could Have Broader Implications

Quora: What Could Be an Impact on a Global Level of Iran’s Nuclear Deal?

BBC News: Iran-U.S. Relations

Atlantic: What Are the Alternatives to Obama’s Nuclear Deal with Iran

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Castle Made of Sand? The Iranian Nuclear Deal Moves Forward appeared first on Law Street.

While traveling in Egypt recently I met a man in Luxor who was eager to share his opinion on the state of Egyptian politics. “Mubarak is good, when Mubarak here I am never poor. They get rid of Mubarak. Then, I go sign my name for Morsi, they get rid of Morsi. I don’t sign for Sisi. I’m done signing for this country.” Is this man wrong to feel unenthusiastic, or even cynical about the stability of his newly democratic country?

It’s true that, at the very least, Egypt’s future is very much up in the air. The nation recently had essentially two different revolutions, complete with protests, military involvement, and government overthrows. The first revolution was in 2011 during the Arab Spring; the second in 2013. Given all of that turmoil, there are many questions as to how President Fattah al-Sisi will proceed. Read on to learn about the path that Egypt has taken in recent years, and some of the most pressing questions facing the nation today.

Revolution History

First, some background. After Mohamed Bouaziz, a Tunisian fruit vendor, lit himself on fire in protest in January 15, 2011, a movement spread through North Africa to overthrow leaders whom the public found to be corrupt or unjust. Egypt was one of the first nations to act.

The Egyptian President at the time was Hosni Mubarak, who reigned from 1981-2011. Due to cronyism, bribery, and a lack of opposition representation in parliament, many Egyptians were unemployed and unhappy with the dictator. Additionally, his British-educated son Gamal was being groomed to inherit the throne.

On January 25, 2011 the Egyptian people took to the streets. After 18 days of protest in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, Mubarak submitted to the military’s ruling body, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. The constitution was suspended and parliament disbanded. Egypt’s Islamist groups wanted to see elections first, while Liberals and secularists preferred to write a constitution first. The Islamists won, and elections were held.

By November 2011, Egypt began to vote in parliamentary elections, a six-week process in which the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the main forces behind the Arab Spring movement in Egypt, won the majority of seats. Ultraconservative Salafis took another quarter, rendering Islamist religious groups in control of more than 90 percent of the seats. By June 2012, Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi became the first Islamist and civilian leader elected as head of state. He chose General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, former head of military intelligence, as his defense minister.

By December 2012, Morsi issued a decree allowing him to take any and all actions that he deemed necessary to protect the country. The Egyptian people interpreted this move as authoritarian, hearkening back to the Mubarak military regime. The new government’s conformity with Sharia law was also a large concern.

On January 25, 2013–exactly two years after the first protests to overthrow Mubarak–the people flooded to the streets to protest Morsi and his rule. Morsi claimed the minority should submit to the majority in a democratic fashion. Acting on behalf of the Egyptian people, al-Sisi appeared on state television, ordering Morsi to come up with a political solution within 48 hours. Morsi argued that he was legitimately elected, and could not be threatened by political opposition.

By July 2013 however, Morsi was removed as President by military coup. Islamist and Morsi supporters rallied and did not go out without a fight. By September more than 1,000 Morsi supporters were killed during protests. In March 2014, 528 Muslim Brotherhood supporters were sentenced to death in a mass trial for murder and attacks on property and people.

After al-Sisi’s appearance on television he was nominated as a Presidential candidate. Eventually al-Sisi won the pro forma presidential election with nearly 97 percent of the vote in May 2014, but with only 47 percent turnout.

Al-Sisi’s To Do List

Al-Sisi has now been in power for just under a year. While he’s made some progress with economic reforms, expanding the Suez Canal, and addressing concerns over the prevalence of sexual assault in the country, there are still issues that he will need to address moving forward.

The Shaky State of the Egyptian Constitution 

Cementing the Egyptian constitution has become increasingly important because it will define the new power balance between parliament and the executive office. While the constitution set up a system that includes both a president and prime minister, there are still many questions that need to be answered.

According to Human Rights Watch, “under Egypt’s 2014 constitution, all legislation enacted in the absence of a parliament should be reviewed by the new parliament when it takes office, but the constitution allows the members of the new parliament only 15 days for this review. That has raised concerns about the efficacy of the checks and balances in the system.”

Overall, aspects of the Egyptian constitution are up in the air as it is currently facing many changes. There are proposed amendments to Articles 277 and 289 of the criminal procedure code, which are primarily concerned with ensuring “access to prompt justice without prejudice to the rights of the litigants.” The changes would put “all matters concerned with calling or hearing witnesses” into “the hand of the court.” The amendments were drafted by the Supreme Committee for Legislative Reform (SCLR), a group of appointed officials created by al-Sisi. This vague language allows the Court all authority in calling witnesses; actions similar to the exploits of both Mubarak and Morsi, which proved detrimental to them both. While it’s possible the motivation behind the amendment is in the interest of speediness, critics claim it’s hard to see this in the true interest of justice.

Security Concerns

Under al-Sisi’s control Egypt has embraced a doctrine of active defense, changing its military posture. During the Mubarak years, Egypt generally responded to regional threats by working on its deterrence skills; however, since the coup against Morsi in 2013, Cairo has been more aggressive and ready in its approach to security and appears more willing to project force abroad, as seen in its recent involvement in Yemen.

In addition, the government recently passed a law that broadens the state’s definition of terrorism to include “anyone who threatens public order by any means,” and allows for security forces to accuse potential terrorists without a trial. Civilians are dying while in custody, and there are reports of brutalizing student protesters, and increasingly censoring journalists working in the country–by and large human rights groups are alarmed. On the other hand, many Egyptians would argue that the country did just experience two revolutions in three years, therefore increased security is necessary. Still, concerns remain that too much power is left in the hands of the military.

Additionally, even in Cairo there is increased military and police presence. There are consistent checkpoints with the intention of eliminating violent protests and uprisings. Whether those will remain or end up as a symbol of authoritarianism is another issue that needs to be addressed by al-Sisi.

Relationship With Israel

U.S. ally Israel should certainly enjoy the improved relationship with its southern neighbor. Under al-Sisi’s rule, thousands of tunnels between the Sinai and Gaza have been destroyed. Egypt also closed the formal border at Rafah. Without these two means of transportation, Gaza has no way of importing supplies, including goods and weapons. To al-Sisi, not only is Hamas a terrorist group, but also an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Egypt sees the weakening of Hamas as a squeeze on Brotherhood support.The Palestinians are finding little sympathy from their Muslim neighbor. Destroying these tunnels may have been an attack on Hamas, but the tunnels were also used to bring food to the Palestinian people residing in the Gaza territory. It’s easier to identify the reasoning for disposing the tunnels; anyone can smuggle anything. However, why the legitimate cross point Rafah, was shut down isn’t as apparent. Some accuse Egypt of being indifferent to the suffering of the Gazan people. Regardless, the Egyptian actions certainly benefit Israel in its security operations.

Urban Development

Egypt has an overabundance of unfinished buildings. The rebar, or reinforcing steel, and pillars strike upward from the top of the residences with large piles of bricks sprinkled through neighborhoods. With cities so densely populated it would be logical to see some, but the tenements are so frequent it’s concerning. This isn’t a new problem, but it does raise the question for al-Sisi and governments moving forward as the country develops economically: how long can millions of unfinished buildings be tolerated in a developed nation? These policies are bound to change.

Return to Tourism

The revolutions left many Westerners scared to visit the country and as a result the tourism industry is dwindling. Investors recognize the fall, but they also recognize the potential for investment. Private companies are getting involved, such as Cairo Financial Holding, which is backing a $1 billion plan to revive Egypt’s tourism sector.

After the fall of Russian currency, the slowdown in the Euro zone, and continued attacks in the Sinai peninsula, hotels, restaurants, and tour operators in the region are struggling. In order to attract tourists, hotels have been forced to offer all-inclusive deals, which often include flights as well. A recent poll of hotels revealed that less than five percent of the hotels in Sharm el-Sheikh were holding out and not offering all-inclusive packages. At the current rate, hotels are netting an unsustainably low amount.

There are some other changes in the works. A project was announced at the international economic development conference held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The plan is to shift the capital from Cairo to Sharm el-Sheikh; meaning all new administrative, government, diplomatic, technology, and innovative parks would be built there as a part of a greater goal to alleviate the congestion and overpopulation in Cairo. These plans aim to bring in more business, tourism, and wealth.

According to Minister of Tourism Khaled Ramy, the tourism ministry’s objective is to reach pre-crisis tourism revenue of $11.6 billion by 2016 and $15 billion by 2018. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates pledged to offer $12 billion as investment aid to the country.

Conclusion

After the massive upheavals to every aspect of Egyptian life–including politics, the economy, and civil society–Egypt is obviously a changed place. Whether that’s for better or worse will have to be seen, but it is indubitable that al-Sisi still has an upward climb in front of him. From crumbling infrastructure to an unclear political system, there are many things that are still up in the air for this once-thriving country.

Resources

Guardian: Egypt Siding With Israel Cost Gaza Dearly

Foreign Policy: Mubarak’s Nine Biggest Mistakes

Time: Al-Sisi Wins Egypt’s Presidency But is Stumbling Already

BBC: Egypt Court Sentences 528 Morsi Supporters to Death

Human Rights Watch: Egypt Law Changes Would Threaten Fair Trials

Foreign Policy Association: Does the Egyptian Military Regime Work For the US and its Allies?

The New York Times: Egypt Says it May Send Troops to Yemen to Fight Houthis

Washington Institute: A New Era For Egypt’s Military

Telegraph UK: Egypt Implements New Real Estate Tax

Travel Weekly: Tourism in Egypt Boosted by $1bn Private Equity Fund

Al-Jazeera: Egypt Plans New Capital Adjacent to Cairo

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fattah al-Sisi: Challenges for Egypt’s New Leader appeared first on Law Street.

This week’s most popular stories ran the full gamut from the sublimely ridiculously to the deadly serious. The number one article of the week, by Ashley Shaw, follows the story of a Nebraska man who tried to fool cops by labeling his weed “not weed;” the number two article, from Alexis Evans, takes a look into the world of people taking the law into their own hands and patrolling their streets as private cops; and the number three article, from Anneliese Mahoney, recounts Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s divisive speech to Congress.

#1 Man’s ‘Not Weed’ Label Does Not Fool Nebraska Cops

Jordan Meir of Nebraska thought he found the perfect way to disguise his stash–just mark it up as ‘not weed.’ After all, labeling it as weed is a sure fire way to get caught, so the opposite must be the solution, right? Maybe in the rest of the world, but the cops in Nebraska must be extra smart because this ingenious scheme actually did not end up working in their neck of the woods. Read full article here.

#2 Special Conservators of the Peace: Private Police Forces of One

If he looks like a cop, talks like cop, and acts like a cop, he’s probably a cop right? Well, sort of. A growing trend shows civilians are forming private police forces of one to patrol our streets. Armed with a gun and a badge, they can write citations and make arrests. The kicker? The whole thing is completely legal. Read full article here.

#3 Netanyahu’s Speech Shows Israel Isn’t Always a Bipartisan Issue

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United States Congress today. The speech was much anticipated after weeks of political back and forth regarding the invitation extended to Netanyahu by Speaker of the House John Boehner; however, Netanyahu did end up giving his speech as planned, and it focused heavily on Iran and the ongoing American-Iranian talks over nuclear power. That being said, in some ways the speech is less interesting from an international politics standpoint as it is from a domestic policy window. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United States Congress today. The speech was much anticipated after weeks of political back and forth regarding the invitation extended to Netanyahu by Speaker of the House John Boehner; however, Netanyahu did end up giving his speech as planned, and it focused heavily on Iran and the ongoing American-Iranian talks over nuclear power. That being said, in some ways the speech is less interesting from an international politics standpoint as it is from a domestic policy window.

The controversy leading up to the speech was, to put it bluntly, a total mess. It all started with House Speaker John Boehner extending an invitation to Netanyahu to speak in front of Congress. However, the White House was not consulted in this matter. Democrats called that a slap in the face to President Obama, given that it’s highly unusual for the legislative branch of one nation to interact with the head of state of another. Democrats argue that it undermines the President’s autonomy when it comes for foreign policy decisions.

The Obama Administration–including Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and President Obama himself–refused to meet with Netanyahu. The official reason given centered on a concern that Obama didn’t want to interfere with Israeli politics in the period of time leading up to the imminent Israeli elections.

For a very long time, Israel has been one of the few bipartisan issues in the United States. Almost ever politician, regardless of party, has at some point declared his or her commitment to Israel. Americans in general have a consistent history of supporting the country. We as a nation have given Israel more than $121 billion in foreign aid since 1948. A Gallup poll found a plurality–42 percent of Americans–thought Israeli actions against Hamas were justified this summer. Moreover, 62 percent of Americans sympathized with the Israelis. The United States and Israel have long had a close relationship, regardless of which American political party is holding office.

That being said, in today’s toxic political environment, no issue can every really truly be bipartisan. The scuffle over Netanyahu’s appearance today shows that. Obama refusing to meet with Netanyahu was just the beginning–many other prominent Democrats who are actually members of Congress refused to attend the speech as well. Seven senators, all Democrats (with the exception of Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent), sat out the speech. A pretty long list of House members, again all Democrats, didn’t attend either.

In addition, Obama spoke about what Netanyahu said. While he didn’t necessarily criticize it, he basically lamented “same old, same old” about Netanyahu’s concerns over the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks. According to NPR:

Obama, speaking at the White House, said, ‘as far as I can tell, there was nothing new’ in Netanyahu’s speech, adding, ‘the prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives.’ He said he didn’t watch the speech because it coincided with a video conference with European leaders.

Other Democrats had more overt reactions. Representative Nancy Pelosi stated:

I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech—saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.

I think what we saw today can be best described as a low-key game of political chicken. Republicans took one of the few sort of bipartisan issues and made Obama pick a political side. Had he gone along with the Republican Congress’ power play he would have kowtowed to his political rivals. Yet openly slamming them or Netanyahu could anger an American populace that has consistently supported a friendly relationship with Israel. In a lot of ways, it was a lose-lose situation. While Obama has said that he’s more than willing to keep working with Netanyahu if he wins the upcoming Israeli elections, the relationship may be more frayed moving forward.

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 Netanyahu’s Speech Shows Israel Isn’t Always a Bipartisan Issue appeared first on Law Street.

Politics in the Middle East have long been as fluid as the sands which make up much of the region. From the crusades to colonialism to the present, many political players have vied for power and found at best only temporary success. Since the discovery of oil in the region in the early twentieth century, politics have become mixed with business; however, other considerations have more recently come into play such as extremism, revolution, and non-state actors. Couple these with the long-standing animosity between major regional powers such as Iran, Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia and the Middle East seems like a political powder keg waiting to explode. In addition, there has been almost constant intervention by foreign countries, most notably the United States. Together all these events have turned the politics of the region into one of the world’s most difficult jigsaw puzzles. Learn more about the most pivotal issues currently embroiling the region–although this is by no means an exhaustive list–as well as their root causes and possible solutions.

Brief History of the Middle East

The history of the Middle East is extremely rich. As one of the starting points for civilization between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, settlement has existed continuously for thousands of years. These years saw the rise and fall of several empires such as the great Caliphates, and more recently the Ottoman Empire.

The region is also home to three of the world’s most prominent religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Islam in particular has played a pivotal role in shaping the region’s politics. So too did the great schism in Islam when it split into two factions–Shiites who viewed Muhammad’s true successor to be his son-in-law Ali and Sunnis who believed the next leader of Islam should be elected. Sunnis eventually won the struggle and today are the majority worldwide.

More recently the Middle East has been home to incursions from western powers, from the time of the crusades to the present. In fact, the way the present Middle East is constructed probably owes more to European influence, namely through the Sykes-Picot treaty between Britain and France that divided the region controlled by the Ottomans into respective spheres of influence of those two nations following WWI. When those powers eventually left, the power vacuum was filled by another western nation–the United States–which has had seemingly endless involvement there for the last century.  The video below provides a historical view of the powers that have ruled the Middle East for the last 5,000 years.

All this activity has done a lot to shape the Middle East. Nevertheless, it is still unclear at this point what the Middle East even is. The term itself originated from British field commands in Egypt during WWII. Today it includes places as far apart as Libya and Iran. Others go even further, including nations such as Algeria and Pakistan despite those two places being very dissimilar except for their Islamic faith. It is not surprising then that a place with a long history, heavily influenced by outsiders and home to disparate groups has a number of complicated political issues.

Political Climate

Like its history, the current political climate in the Middle East is extremely complicated and not easily discerned. Thus a few particularly important flash-points will serve to highlight the major political issues currently affecting the region.

Israel/Palestine

This is one of the world’s longest ongoing and seemingly intractable conflicts. For the uninitiated, the root issue here is that two groups, the Israelis and Palestinians, have claims going back millennia embroiled in a seemingly endless struggle for a small strip of land nestled in between Egypt to the south, the Mediterranean to the west, Jordan to the east, and Lebanon and Syria to the north.

The country of Israel is relatively young–it was just founded in 1948. Founding the nation was no easy feat however, after years of European Jewish immigration to what was then British Palestine, the United Nations in 1947 divided the area into two zones: one Israeli, one Palestinian. This decision led to continued violence between Jewish settlers and Palestinians, as well as other nations including Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria. When the dust finally settled, a Jewish homeland had been created, while a Palestinian country had yet to materialize.

The history of the conflict has only been made more complicated by a series of wars between Arab nations and Israel that branded an image of mistrust in the minds of the neighbors. Nonetheless, even these wounds may have healed if not for the continued violence between the two sides. This included frequent attacks by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which governs Palestinian territories. The PLO finally called off attacks on Israel in 1993 when its leader and founder Yasser Arafat reached an agreement with Israel in which both sides acknowledged the other’s right to exist.

Second were the intifadas or uprisings by Palestinians. Two such instances have occurred, one in the 1980s and another in the early 2000s. In both cases what started as relatively peaceful protests turned violent when protesters encountered Israeli military personnel, which then led to long and bloody struggles. Also in both cases, the number of Palestinian dead has far outpaced the number of Israelis killed, prompting the claim of disproportionate response by Israeli military leaders.

Third is the tactics of Hamas. Hamas is, in essence, a Palestinian terrorist group bent on the destruction of Israel, which it does not recognize. Hamas does garner support in Palestinian areas though, in fact in 2006 it won a majority of seats in Parliament. However, its inability to reconcile with Israel or that of the rest of its party led it to break away and rule Gaza separately from the rest of the PLO. Hamas’ political gains have not totally softened its edges, as just this past summer it was engaged in small-scale war with Israel.

The issue then at its core is somehow devising a solution that pleases both sides. Not helping matters further are Israeli settlers’ moves to live in areas long claimed by Palestine and frequent rocket attacks from Palestinian-controlled zones into Israel. At this point though with Israel in effect walling off and totally controlling Gaza something has to change dramatically for this situation to have any chance of improving.

Unfortunately however, this issue is unlikely to be solved for a number of reasons. On Israel’s side its continued building of settlements, strong political opposition to reconciliation, dubious military tactics, and inability to be recognized by its neighbors are some of the biggest obstacles. Conversely for Palestine, its support of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and unwillingness to compromise on territorial demands make lasting peace appear illusive.

Iran Nuclear Program

A second major political flashpoint in the region is the Iranian nuclear program. The program already has a long history; however, it is nearing a point of no return. The Iranians can either finalize preliminary negotiations with the United States, stop trying to enrich uranium, and take a step toward normalizing relations, or they can continue and risk an attack by the United States, Israel, and potentially Saudi Arabia that would be far more destructive than the Stuxnet Virus was. The Stuxnet Virus a computer virus that disabled the Iranian nuclear program a few years ago.

There is hope though, as Iran and the United States have already outlined a framework for Iran shutting down its program, but only time will tell. Both sides missed a key deadline before the New Year and seem entrenched in their respective positions so a deal may still fall apart. Nevertheless it does not help to have American Congressmen threatening more sanctions. Iran clearly already feels threatened by the United States as well as by its ally Israel, and likely started a nuclear program in the first place to deter against a possible U.S. attack.

Iran-Saudi Rivalry

Speaking of Saudi Arabia, much of its position also hinges on what Iran decides to do. As a predominately Sunni nation, Saudi Arabia views Iran, a predominately Shiite nation, as its main rival both theologically and militarily for influence in the Middle East. Any Iranian deal or further recalcitrance would likely impact the relationship between Saudi and another major political player in the Middle East, the United States.

Nevertheless, such a deal is quite possible as long as cooler heads prevail. An Iran deal has significant ramifications for Saudi Arabia. If Iran goes through with its nuclear enrichment program and is not then directly attacked by the United States and Israel it is quite possible that Saudi Arabia attempts to purchase a weapon of its own to counter its rival.

Conversely if Iran does agree to shutter its program that too could also have a major impact on Saudi Arabia. In this case the impact could have more to do with its relationship with the United States. Already with increased American energy production, the reliance on Saudi Arabia as a key partner has become more debatable. Factor that in with Saudi Arabia’s repressive government and extreme religious views, such as Saudi’s support of Wahhabisism, and the United States might find itself wanting a different partner in the region that is more in line with its own belief systems.

The video below provides a look at the Iranian-Saudi relationship.

 Extremism, Non-State Actors, and Revolutionaries

While dealing with countries is hard, at least they have things like delegates and embassies. Non-state actors are a whole different issue. Particularly difficult in this region are the extremist beliefs of many of the non-state actors such as ISIS and Hezbollah. To satisfy these groups and even others like Hamas, which is only nominally associated with a state, many concessions would have to be made, which could give these groups free reign and could jeopardize the future of US allies in the region such as Israel.

To address these challengers, drastic changes would have to be made from the ground up. This would include extreme economic reforms to create jobs and thus leave fewer disenchanted people ready to fight. It would also call for the reform of institutions such as Madrassas, or schools where extreme views of Islam are often taught and which have also served as breeding grounds for future extremists.

The political climate in the Middle East thus was not created overnight and cannot be fixed that quickly either. Nevertheless, however muddled it is, there are a number of possibilities that could ultimately lead to the end of conflict but also a complete reordering of the region.

Future Concerns

As the rise of ISIS and the continued existence of other like-minded terror groups in the region have shown, a wave of discontent and extremism is unlikely to end anytime soon. Furthermore, the success of ISIS may not only embolden extremists but other groups to seek greater self-determination. The most obvious example is the Kurds in northern Iraq who are already essentially operating autonomously of the government there. Once the ISIS threat has passed, it’s unlikely they would rush back into the Iraqi fold. Instead, it is much more likely the Kurds would seek to finally establish their own nation. This then would have a ripple effect across the region particularly to the north in Turkey, which has a sizable Kurdish population that has long been a source of problems for the ruling government there. The issue would only be further clouded if the two sides became embroiled in a conflict as Turkey is a member of NATO while the Kurds are a major ally of the U.S., as well.  The video below explains Kurdish aims and the impact of the ISIS assault.

Unrest would likely be found in other places, too. With falling oil prices the heads of state in places such as Saudi Arabia might have a harder time fending off revolutionaries than they did during the Arab spring. This may only be exacerbated further by the demographics of this region. Much of the population is below 30 years old and as history has taught us frustrated young men without jobs are not good for stability. Of course before most of these issues can be settled defeating ISIS is a primary goal and what that may entail is particularly fascinating.

Already the U.S. has bombed ISIS in Syria, which in many ways helps beleaguered president Assad. Would the United States ever dream of formalizing an alliance with the man it stated before should step down? Even further along the line of possibility, would the U.S. ever come to some agreement with the likes of Al-Qaeda in order to squash that group’s splinter cell and now main rival for the hearts and minds of disenfranchised Muslims? While it seems unlikely it is definitely possible and maybe necessary if the U.S. and its allies wants to stomp out ISIS once and for all. For a comparison one need only look at Afghanistan where the U.S. has openly suggested including the Taliban in the government.

There are no easy solutions and these are not the only problems plaguing the Middle East, after all the aftermath of the Arab Spring could potentially flare up if extremist groups fill the gap left by those nations’ deposed strongmen. Regardless of the issue however, several possibilities remain that could change the nature of existing conflicts and turn friends into foes or vice versa.

Conclusion

The Middle East is one of the oldest continually inhabited places on the planet and the complexity of its politics reflect this situation. Empires and religions have risen and fallen in this region over the past thousand years and it seems this trend is likely to continue now only with countries and leaders serving the roles previously mentioned.

Whatever happens, change seems imminent in one way or another; there are just too many groups tugging on the proverbial rope to hope it won’t snap. When change does come it is unclear what the new order will be and what alliances will form. Much remains to be deciphered and only time will tell.

Resources

Primary

Brookings Institution: Pakistan’s Madrassas

Additional

Vox: 40 Maps that Explain the Middle East

Vox: What are Israel and Palestine? Why are they fighting?

Encyclopedia Britannica: Middle East

History: Britain-France Conclude Sykes-Picot Agreement

The New York Times: Timeline on Iran’s Nuclear Program

Guardian: Saudi Arabia Urges

BBC: Middle East

Economist: The Arab Spring

Fox News: In Dueling UN Speeches

Rand: Iran After the Bomb

The New York Times: Nuclear Accord With Iran

Press TV: US Moving Away From Saudi Arabia and Israel

Today’s Zaman: Saudi-Iranian Rivalry and the New Equilibrium in the Middle East

Progressive: Six Steps Short of War to Beat ISIS

Council on Foreign Relations: Islamic Extremism and the Rise of ISIS

Guardian: Kurds Again Dare to Dream of Uniting in their Own Country

Financial Times: Saudi Billionaire

Forbes: Youth in Revolt

Quartz: Why Partner With Assad

Huffington Post: How to End Afghanistan War

Press TV: Republicans in Congress Threaten Iran With More Sanctions

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Middle East Politics: What Issues are Affecting the Region? 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.

Iran and the major world powers (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany) have less than two weeks to come to a deal on Iran’s controversial nuclear program. As talks continue in Vienna, here’s your guide to everything you need to know about why the United States doesn’t want Iran to have nukes, whether or not a deal will be worked out, and what options remain if talks fail.

UPDATE: July 22, 2014

How long has Iran had a nuclear program?

Iran has had a nuclear program in some form since the 1950s. Oddly enough, the United States helped Iran lay the foundation for their programs with President Eisenhower’s Atoms For Peace initiative. Atoms For Peace exported nuclear materials, including highly enriched uranium. This program was merely for developing peaceful uses for nuclear energy around the globe. Eisenhower did not intend to develop a nuclear weapons system in Iran.

Iran’s nuclear energy program was supported by the United States in some capacity until the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Iran was then left without international support and continued to develop its nuclear program.

Iran has always insisted that its program is merely for energy, but the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the leaders of many Western nations have accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons.

Is Iran allowed to have nuclear weapons?

If Iran is making nuclear weapons, and most signs point to this being true, then it would be violating international law. Iran is a signatory, along with every country but North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, and the South Sudan, to the The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). This treaty holds signatory nations to three main points:

1. The signatory nation must not create nuclear weapons.
2. Signatory nations must disarm themselves of all nuclear weapons.
3. All signatory nations have the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

It is important to note that the NPT labels the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China as nuclear-weapons states. This means that they do not have to disarm. They only have to negotiate in good faith to work toward disarmament.

Iran often cites point three in its defense, while critics argue that the country is violating points one and two.

Here is a NATO overview of the NPT:

Why does the United States not want Iran to have nukes?

There are few reasons the United States does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. The main reason is that the United States and Iran have not been on good terms in the past few decades.

In 1953, the CIA was involved in overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected government and replacing it with the Shah, a monarch who was friendly to the interests of the United States. The Iranian people remembered this when they overthrew this government during the Islamic Revolution. This, plus the fact that the United States took in the Shah after his exile from Iran, is why revolutionaries held diplomats hostage at the American embassy in Iran  for 444 days. Relations have been cold ever since. This video provides a more in-depth summary of U.S.-Iran relations:

There’s another big reason the United States does not want Iran to have nukes: Iran is geographically close to Israel, a close American ally. The Iranian government does not like Israel, and the Israeli government does not like Iran. For emphasis, these two countries really do not like each other. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one of the worst kept secrets in international politics, and letting its  adversary also have nuclear weapons is a recipe for trouble.

A third concern is that Iran could spark a domino effect of sorts in the region. If Iran has nukes, then Saudi Arabia will want nukes, which will motivate another Middle Eastern country after another to get nukes until the Middle East, a rather unstable region, is covered in warheads.

How has America tried to stop Iran?

For now, the United States, and many other countries, has used economic sanctions to make Iran stop its nuclear problem. According to the State Department, these sanctions target the Iranian sectors of finance, transportation, shipping, energy, and more.

Why is Iran willing to talk now?

There are two reasons that Iran is willing to come to an agreement with the world’s powers.

First, the sanctions worked. The economic punishments vastly increased the average Iranian’s cost of living and increased Iran’s inflation rate to a staggering 40 percent. This can be mostly attributed to the American and European embargoes on Iranian oil. In 2012, when the sanction took effect in Europe, Iran’s exports dropped from 2.5 million barrels per day (bbl/d) to 1.53 bbl/d. The Rial (Iran’s currency) also collapsed, dropping by 80 percent between 2011 and 2012.

Second, Iran’s current President, Hassan Rouhani, is much more reasonable than the last one. You might remember former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the crazy guy who said he wanted to wipe Israel “off the map” and that there were no gay people in Iran. This was not a man who would be willing to negotiate with America. Rouhani, on the other hand, ran as a reformer and campaigned on working with the West to ease the sanctions that devastated Iran’s economy.

The President is not the most powerful actor in Iranian. That distinction goes to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Still, the fact that Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run and win shows that he is willing to negotiate.

What has already been agreed upon?

In November 2013, Iran and six world powers, including the United States, came to an interim agreement. Iran halted parts of its nuclear program and in return Western nations eased some of the sanctions. This was a six-month deal that halted progress at every nuclear facility in Iran, and also prevented the building additional facilities. The idea was that a more comprehensive deal would come about in six months.

Here is an ABC News report on how this deal played out in Iran and the United States:

There is debate over whether or not this deal was a good idea. Watch CNN’s Crossfire discuss the issue. The introduction is obnoxious, but the rhetorical arguments are an accurate representation of both sides of the issue:

Six months will be up on July 20 of this year. That means Iran and the world powers have less than two weeks to come to a comprehensive agreement. While the option to extend the deadline is on the table, American diplomats have stated that they are unlikely to support such an extension.

What is still left to agree upon?

The main sticking point for a comprehensive deal is the number of uranium enrichment centrifuges Iran will be allowed to maintain. Iran currently has 19,000 centrifuges. Western powers would like to see that number reduced to the low thousands, while Iran would like to someday have 50,000 centrifuges.

Centrifuges are not the only problem that negotiators will face over the next two weeks, however. While Iran has accepted tougher inspection requirements and limits on production of enriched uranium, the country does not want its ballistic missile system to be on the table. It also wants more sanctions to be removed and is not interested in dismantling nuclear facilities.

Iran will resume nuclear production and the world powers will resume crippling sanctions if the two sides cannot resolve these differences.

What should the United States do if talks fail?

Continuing sanctions without any chance of an agreement would be foolish. In 2003, Iran approached the Bush administration under crippling sanctions to discuss a deal. Bush passed, believing that the sanctions would just lead to the collapse of the regime. Iran had 164 centrifuges at that time, which has increased by more than 11,000 percent to its current cache of 19,000.

Sanctions alone will not deter Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. If talks do not work, military force seems to be the only option left.

Should the United States bomb Iran?

This debate is best personified by Matthew Kroenig and Colin H. Kahl, two contributors to Foreign Affairs. Watch them debate the issue here:

For those of you who do not have an hour of free time, here is a summary of their arguments:

Advocates of a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities argue that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable for America and its allies. A nuke would give Iran too much leverage in the region. Worse, Israel and Iran would be at constant odds without the safeguards that prevented nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union. Kroenig claims that military action in Iran could be contained to just nuclear sites, involve few civilian casualties, and inspire little retaliation. As long as America assures Iran that it is only attacking nuclear facilities, Iran will react calmly.

Kahl argues that a surgical strike would be a disaster and that the United States should merely contain Iran as a nuclear power. Even if the strike succeeds, which is not a given, Kahl envisions a massive retaliation from Iran that includes closing the Strait of Hormuz, attacking American military forces in the Gulf, and providing lethal assistance to terrorist groups that the West is currently fighting throughout the region. Closing the Strait of Hormuz alone would send a shockwave through global markets, but Iranian attacks against American troops would be devastating. Plus, given how unstable the region is, there’s no telling what kind of violence this could cause in other Middle Eastern nations.

Even worse, Kahl does not believe that a military strike would deter Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. Such a strike would only set the program back by a few years, and has the potential to rally Iranians around rebuilding. It’s not as if America can remove the knowledge of how to build nuclear weapons from the Iranian people.

Conclusion

Iran and the West have until July 20 to come to an agreement. If diplomats fail, Iran will continue to develop its nuclear program and the Western world will continue to cripple the country’s economy with strong sanctions.

UPDATE: July 22, 2014

On July 18, negotiators in Vienna agreed to extend the deadline by four months to November 24, 2014. Negotiators also agreed to extend the terms of the stop-gap agreement. Iran will still halt its nuclear program and the United States will continue to suspend sanctions. Iran and the world powers have made some progress but they are still struggling to agree on how large the country’s nuclear program should be.

Resources

Primary

State Department: Iran Sanctions

Energy Information Administration: Energy Information Administration on the Iranian economy

Additional

Reuters: U.N. Nuclear Watchdog Rebukes Iran

Cold War: CIA Overthrows Iranian Democracy

CNN: Facts About the Iranian Hostage Crisis

NPR: Iran’s Economy Key in Nuclear Deal

Economist: A Red Line and a Reeling Rial

LA Times: U.S. Threatens to End Iran Nuclear Talks

Foreign Affairs: Not Time to Attack Iran

CNN: Final Talks Before Deadline Begin

CNN: What Critics Are Getting Wrong About the Iran Deal

Foreign Affairs: Time to Attack Iran

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 Iranian Nuclear Talks: Final Deadline Looming appeared first on Law Street.

It’s an all too familiar occurrence: violence has broken out between Israelis and Palestinians. This time, the fighting is over the murder of three Israeli boys and the apparent subsequent revenge killing of one Palestinian boy. Read on to learn more about the latest chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

UPDATE: July 9, 2014

Why is there tension between Israelis and Palestinians?

Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting for nearly a century over the rights to the land known today as Israel. Like many contemporary Middle Eastern conflicts, Britain shoulders some of the blame.

It all started in 1916 when Britain convinced the Arab people to turn against the Ottoman Empire during World War I by promising them an independent Arab state, including Palestine. One year later, however, British Foreign Minister Lord Arthur Balfour declared that Britain supported a Jewish state in the land of Palestine. These contradictory promises laid the groundwork for the current fighting. The two have fought violent battles ever since the United Nations gave Israel the majority of land in 1947, and Israel has gradually gained more land through these wars.

For a full recap and explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, click here, or watch the video below.

Today, Israelis and Palestinians fight over a variety of issues. Palestinians argue that the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank are a violation of human rights, and that Jewish settlements in these lands are illegal acts by Israel to gain more land from the Palestinian people. Israelis argue that they live under constant fear from Hamas rocket strikes and terrorist attacks from Gaza and the West Bank, and that these occupations are meant to protect themselves.

Who are the major players in this conflict?

There are three major organizations interacting with each other in this story.

First is the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It has control over the Jewish portions of Israel.

Second is Fatah, also known as the Palestinian Liberation Organization. This is the largest political party in the Palestinian regions of Israel, mainly the West Bank. The West Bank is land east of Israel that belongs to the Palestinian people. Jewish people have routinely settled in the West Bank. The legality of these settlements often come under question and are a major sticking point in peace negotiations

Third is Hamas, which took large control over the Gaza Strip after intense fighting with Fatah. Gaza is a small strip of land on the Western border of Israel. Hamas is labeled a terrorist organization by many governments across the globe and is responsible for rockets fired from the Gaza border into Israel.

Recently, Fatah and Hamas created a unity government to more effectively branch the West Bank and Gaza together. This has infuriated Netanyahu, who was previously working with Fatah to try to maintain peace.

What happened to these three Israeli boys?

On June 12, 2014, Eyal Yifrah, Gilad Shaar, and Naftali Frenkel went missing in the West Bank. A massive search ensued to find the boys. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which led the search, detained 400 Palestinians suspected of terror activities in the process.

The boys were found buried in shallow graves on June 30 in the West Bank city of Hebron, apparent victims of an execution.

One of the teenagers made an emergency phone call shortly before he was killed. You can listen to parts of that call here:

Who kidnapped and killed them?

Israel has identified Marwan Qawasmeh and Amer Abu Eisheh, two members of Hamas, as primary suspects. The two have since fled and are being searched for by Israeli and Palestinian forces. For a good profile on the family deemed responsible for this tragedy, click here.

Hamas has denied responsibility for the attacks and is claiming that the two men acted alone, not as representatives of the organization.

How has Israel’s government responded?

The Israeli government does not believe Hamas’ claim distancing itself from the killing. Netanyahu has said that Hamas will pay and referred to the killers as “beasts.” Watch his full statement below:

Hours after the boys’ bodies were found, Israel launched air strikes on the Gaza Strip. Israel says that these are retaliation for both the murder of the three Israeli boys and for the resumption of rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. The homes of the suspects were also destroyed.

Israel has moved ground troops to the Gaza border, but claims it is not seeking escalation, but rather that this is a defensive tactic.

How have the Israeli people responded?

The majority of Israelis and Palestinians have not reacted to this tragedy with racism and violence; however, those who have reacted this way are threatening to ratchet up tension and violence in a country that already has high levels of both.

On July 2, 2014, 16-year-old Palestinian boy Mohammad Abu Khieder was found murdered and badly burned in a forest section of Jerusalem. Authorities in the area have concluded that Kheider was most likely killed by Jews in an act of revenge.

Many Israelis have come out strongly against the killing, including family members of the Israeli victims. The Frenkel family released a statement that said, in part, “There is no differentiating between blood and blood, murder is murder, whatever the nationality or age.”

Shelly Yachimovich, an Israeli politician, referred to the killing as “a barbaric challenge to the sovereignty of the state, to the army, the police, the courts, and the government.”

This revenge killing is not the only example of a visceral reaction from Israeli citizens. Watch this rally of mourners turn into an angry protest. The protesters are screaming “death to Arabs.”

Thousands of Israelis have posted on a Facebook group calling for vengeance over the death of Israelis. The moderators of the group claim that they are not calling for the murder of innocents, but for the murderers of the three boys to be brought to justice. Some comments, however, appear to support the revenge killing of Khieder.

This, along with reports of random attacks against Palestinians by Israelis, has created a very tense environment.

How are Palestinians responding?

Palestinians are outraged over the revenge killing of Khieder, and the protests are already getting violent. Some have responded by clashing with Israeli security forces. Protesters have been throwing molotov cocktails and stones at security, who have been responding in kind with tear gas and stun grenades.

Watch this Associated Press report about the clashes:

There are also reports that hundreds of Palestinians lit train stations on fire in east Jerusalem.

Hamas has stated that they are also uninterested in escalating the conflict, but are having trouble convincing rogue militants to hold their fire.

Conclusion

The execution of three Israeli children, the revenge killing of a Palestinian boy, and the return of Gaza rockets are all dangerous developments for Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides need to exercise caution and restraint in order to spare more lives.

UPDATE: July 9, 2014

On July 8, Israel began Operation Protective Edge, a military offensive that has attacked more than 450 targets in Gaza. Different sources report different casualty numbers, but according to public health officials in Gaza, 35 people have been killed by these attacks, including 16 children.

This operation is a response to a massive number of rocket attacks on Israel coming from Hamas in Gaza. Hamas has fired more than 160 rockets at Israel in the past week. These rockets are reaching further into Israeli land than they ever have before. Warning sirens have sent Israelis running for bomb shelters, and many schools have canceled classes.

All observers agree that this is the worst violence the region has seen since 2012. The Israeli military has called up 40,000 reserve troops, 10,000 more than were called up in 2012. With Netanyahu’s supporters pressuring him to use ground troops and Hamas trying to prove they can stand up to Israel, the death toll and number of rocket strikes are likely to rise.

Resources

Primary

Jewish Virtual Library: The British Palestine Mandate

Additional

Global Issues: The Middle East Conflict: a Brief Background

Guardian: Air Strikes Hit Gaza as Israel Blames Hamas

Breaking Israel News: Bodies of Three Kidnapped Teens Found by IDF

Buzzfeed: Who Are the Kidnappers?

The New York Times: Deeply Divided Israel Unites in Grief

The New York Times: Israel Mobilizing Forces Around Gaza

Jerusalem Post: US Says Hamas Involved in Death of Three Boys

Yahoo: Hamas Member Killed After Death of Three Boys

The New York Times: US Envoy Blames Distrust for Problems

The New York Times: Arab Boy’s Death Escalates Clashes

Buzzfeed: Revenge Attack on a Palestinian

Fox News: Palestinians Clash With Israeli Police

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 Kidnapping and Revenge: The Latest Chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict appeared first on Law Street.

Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor is the last Jewish Republican in Congress, but he was just beaten in the primary by Tea Party candidate Dave Brat. As a result, some Jews (and some Goys) have been schvitzing over the lack of Jewish representation in the GOP. Minority representation in the Republican party is one concern, regardless of how disingenuous that concern is among Republicans. Another concern that carries some actual weight in the GOP is that American relations with Israel could be strained. The discussion is posed as though Cantor himself is some sort firewall between American support of and disregard for Israel. While I am Jewish and I do care about Israel, I know that Jerusalem isn’t going to be affected by Cantor being gone. At all.

First, the Republican party is going to be just as pro-Israel as it was before. According to the Pew Research Center, 68 percent of Republicans already sympathize more with Israel than with Palestine. Among conservative Republicans, the statistic is even higher at 75 percent. Only seven percent of the GOP would support Palestine over Israel, while the rest said “neither” (nine percent) or “both” (16 percent). Republicans have their reasons for supporting Israel. Well, they have the one reason: the Muslim Middle East is still a bad thing in the eyes of Republicans; as recently as the last midterm election, Pew revealed how Republicans were one of three main groups to view Islam “unfavorably.” The other two groups were the elderly and less-educated people.

It’s not like the GOP is trying to support a demographic in their constituent base. Again, a Pew study shows the political leanings of different Jewish denominations. Only Orthodox Jews have a majority that identifies with the Republican party. All others identify as or at least lean Democratic: Conservative Jews at 64 percent, Reform Jews at 77 percent, and no denomination at 75 percent. On the whole, 70 percent of Jews favor Democrats. Republicans will continue to support Israel fiercely, not because Jews support the GOP, but because of the state’s position as a counterweight against the Muslim Middle East.

When considering the president’s stance, it’s even more evident that Israel’s fate won’t be affected by Cantor’s defeat. In a piece from Bloomberg, Jeffery Goldberg writes about an interview he conducted with Obama. ” Obama will warn Netanyahu that time is running out for Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy…Obama was blunter about Israel’s future than I’ve ever heard him.” The president’s policies on Israeli-relations, as detailed by Goldberg, seem to be some of his strongest and most balanced policies ever. Obama is quoted saying, “I’ve said directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu he has an opportunity to solidify, to lock in, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel that is at peace with its neighbors and…has an opportunity also to take advantage of a potential realignment of interests in the region, as many of the Arab countries see a common threat in Iran.” It’s a mitzvah we have someone in office who can deal with the complexities of an alliance, and not be sorry about being straight with our friends.

Constructively criticizing one another is an essential part of friendship. And what does pro-Israel mean, anyway? In the long run, would the state be better off struggling with its own Arab citizens and belligerent neighbors? Or, isn’t it more likely that Israel’s future will be secure if Jerusalem negotiates with Palestinians? The difference between being a mensch and a shmendrick here isn’t about dogmatism and hostility toward Palestine. Being powerful and pro-Israel means looking down the road and understanding that a peaceful compromise is the greatest possible outcome. It would be enough if we had a president who even acknowledged this, but Obama and Kerry have been actively seeking this goal, too. Dayenu, am I right?

With Cantor gone, no, there won’t be any Congressional Republican Jews. But between the conservative funding of everyone’s least favorite chosen person Sheldon Adelson,a Republican party that’s consistently defensive of Israel, and a president who may be taking the most level-headed approach to the matter in U.S. history, our relationship with Jerusalem will remain solid. We’ll remain the shmeer to their bagel, they the capers to our lox. Still, it’s amazing to me that people care so much about the lack of Jews in the Republican party when it seems as though the Republican party cares so little about Jews. The conservative pro-Israel stance is based on defining Jews against the rest of the Middle East. Should I kvetch that American political parties actually bring Jews into the national conversation? Maybe not. But it may be less insulting to ignore Jews than to use us as a means to end. 

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kevin J. Steinberg via Wikipedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cantor Defeated in Primary, Israel Will Be Just Fine appeared first on Law Street.

The U.N News Centre announced new members of the UN Security Council. Among the new members,  Chad, Lithuania, Nigeria, and Chile, to accept non-permanent seats, was suppose to be Saudi Arabia. The operative word is “was”, as Saudi Arabia turned down the seat, instead adopting a double standard.Released on October 17, the U.N. News Centre announced the new member, along with videos of the event. In an informal interview after the announcement, the Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia Mr. Abdallah Yahya A. Al-Mouallimi congratulated the other elected countries, and spoke about Saudi Arabia’s concerns and interests with its new position. More specifically, Saudi Arabia reiterated its support of the rebel forces in Syria, and also stressed the paramount importance of finding a solution to the Israel- Palestine conflict. He broadcasted, “we take this election very seriously as a responsibility, to be able to contribute to through this very important forum, to peace and security of the world.Our election today is reflection of a longstanding support of moderation and in support of resolving disputes in peaceful means”.

These same troubles, however, caused Saudi Arabia to shift its position. The following day, the country refused the seat. The Saudi Foreign Ministry stated that the United Nation’s inaction toward Syria’s government handle of rebel forces demonstrated the deep-rooted errors with the council, “allowing the ruling regime in Syria to kill its people and burn them with chemical weapons in front of the entire world and without any deterrent or punishment is clear proof and evidence of the UN Security Council’s inability to perform its duties and shoulder its responsibilities.”

Given this position, Saudi Arabia was granted a platform to fix the problems it believed existed in the UN Security Council. Ironically, Saudi Arabia’s critique of UN Security’s inaction did not deter them from following suit. By rejecting the position, Saudi Arabia, too assumes inaction.

[un.org] [aljazeera]

—

Featured image courtesy of [United Nations Photo via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post Inaction is an Action: Saudi Arabia Declines UN Security Council Seat appeared first on Law Street.