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.

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.

“Change is the law of life,” John F. Kennedy said. And assuming this to be true, 76-year-old Andres Carrasco and his attorney should have been expecting what just happened to them. When Carrasco received a settlement against his former insurance company, I can only assume he was more than pleased (though I don’t know the exact amount of the settlement, so maybe he wasn’t as pleased as I might think.) At any rate, what I do know is that this man was going to get more than $20,000. And boy did he get it!

Change Would Do You Good

After receiving a check for part, Carrasco’s lawyer, Antonio Gallo, was surprised to have eight people deliver 17 buckets worth of change to his lobby. (Probably what happened was the insurance company was at home the night before watching a re-run of Parks and Rec’s “End of the World” and got mixed up with Andy Dwyer’s declaration of “Nickels! I want nickels! A billion nickels!” for something Mr. Gallo had said earlier that day. Honest mistake.)

Courtesy of GIPHY.

As Gallo has apparently never won that competition where you guess how many jelly beans are in a jar, he refused to accept the delivery on the grounds that he couldn’t ascertain whether the full payment was there. Not to be deterred, the deliverers apparently still left the coins and bolted, ensuring Mr. Carrasco and future Carrasco generations would be equipped to go through tolls or hit the laundry mat for generations to come.

Gallo has asked that the insurance company, which must have a really big swear jar it was trying to empty, send a check and pick up its coin buckets — though if I were him, I would first sort through the bucket of pennies to see if there are any lucky ones in there. If not, they will be forced to count the change — so hopefully they don’t have one of those annoying people who start saying numbers  while you are counting to mess you up…I’d hate for them to have counted out to 15 or 16 thousand dollars or so only to have to start all over. If the money is short, they will have to go back to court to get the rest, as well as the coin counting costs.

Weird as this payment is, the really weird part is that it isn’t as weird as you might think. The insurance company that paid Mr. Carrasco (Adriana’s Insurance for those wishing to avoid a similar fate) was not the first or even the second to literally nickel and dime someone. Take, just as one example, Brian Kiros who once got so mad at his bill for back taxes that he drove to ten different banks to collect more than 30,000 pennies — and then spent hours unrolling said pennies to really make the government pay.

Money (That’s What I Want)

Other than just the pure annoyance of coin payments, I do see another potential pitfall. What if someone were to do something like, say, for example, sue for every penny on the earth? Then, everybody who just got more pennies than they know what to do with could be in jeopardy of losing the money they just worked so hard to receive and count and carry to the bank and stress about.

That’s just silly, though. Since nobody would ever sue for every penny in the world, penny payees have nothing to worry about, right? Wait. Somebody is suing for all the world’s pennies?

Okay, okay. That isn’t fair. He isn’t specifically asking for every penny in the world, as the media is incorrectly reporting. That would be ludicrous. So, I guess all the penny holders are safe. All Mr. Anton Purisma is really asking for is for 2 undecillion dollars (that’s $2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) or, in other words, more money than currently exists in the world. So basically, if he wins, we better all start emptying out our pockets because this man isn’t just after our pennies.

Courtesy of GIPHY.

Now obviously, to be worthy of all the money in the world plus a whole lot more, the suit is going to be one that is so horrible and makes us feel so bad for Mr. Purisma, that we are all going to get a collection going to just get him through the lawsuit and none of us will have any problem handing over our life’s savings. Well, the man isn’t suing just one person or for just one incident. So, let’s examine some of the more atrocious acts performed on this man that makes him deserve this settlement:

• A rabid dog bit his finger;
• A Chinese couple took a picture of him without permission; and
• LaGuardia airport always overcharges him for coffee.

All of these events added to “civil rights violations, personal injury, discrimination on national origin, retaliation, harassment, fraud, attempted murder, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy to defraud.” So, yeah. I think he deserves a huge payment for his stress.

Mr. Purisma, who has sued many, many times before, represented himself (because, well, duh. Who else was going to take the case? I mean, a lawyer who works on a commission might make half an undecillion dollars or something, but then they’d just have to give it right back to Mr. Purisma since he won way more than actually exists in the entire universe — assuming any extraterrestrials out there have separate forms of currency and probably even if they have the same currency — and he’d probably want to pay his lawyer with the portion of the award that doesn’t actually exist). But proving once again the injustice of our judicial system, the court dropped the case without even giving Mr. Purisma his day in court or a jury of his peers…as if they think the case is frivolous or something.

The real losers in this story are Mr. Carrasco and his like. They needed Mr. Purisma to win so that they wouldn’t have to visit a CoinStar. But while I truly feel for Mr. Purisma, I do have some bills due and it might have been awkward if I had to call them up with that lame, overused excuse that “this guy took all my money when he won all the world’s coinage so I won’t be able to pay you this month.” I don’t think they’ll accept that again.

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured Image Courtesy of [filigran via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sue Big, Win Chump Change appeared first on Law Street.

I’m a messy eater — ask anyone who knows me. I can make a mess while eating plain bread. So if there is anyone who knows the importance of a steady supply of napkins, it’s me. And also Webster Lucas. Especially Webster Lucas. Because when he asks for napkins, he isn’t playing around.

Lucas recently filed suit against McDonald’s. McDonald’s has been sued many times, so this may not in itself surprise you; however, the claim in the suit just might. Lucas, having received only one napkin with his Quarter Pounder, asked for some additional ones. Instead of getting so many complimentary napkins that he couldn’t possibly use them all, thus ensuring a solid supply of backup napkins for the road as given by every other Mickey D’s, Lucas was told to make do with what he had. So he is now suing for $1.5 million.

Courtesy of Quickmeme.

(I don’t know any napkin synonyms, so please bear with me while I overuse of the word – it is hard to talk about a napkin scandal without constantly saying ‘napkin.’)

The Story

Lucas went to McDonald’s to eat, not to argue about napkins. I know this because when the napkin debacle occurred, he told his server this very thing. (As I usually go to fast food chains with the intention of getting in a fiery debate over a ketchup packet at the very least, I find Lucas’ plan here very strange.) Lucas pointed out that he should have gone to Jack in the Box, where napkins are apparently given in a non-Grinch manner. Unfortunately for him, Lucas did not go to Jack in the Box and he did argue about napkins, so overall the food trip was less than a success.

Lucas, a self-described clean person, realized two things at the beginning of this doomed hamburger visit: 1.) His table was crumb filled, and 2.) He only had one napkin. He wanted that napkin to wipe down the table, but he didn’t want to be left with just his shirt to clean his hands when he actually got to eat, so he went to the counter and asked for more. Employee Angel Arciga refused the request.

Courtesy of Tumblr.

(Quick aside: Was the napkin dispenser empty? Because how else would this happen? I need this to be explained as it’s driving me crazy.)

Lucas should actually be grateful that his problem was only a lack of cleaning material, by the way. In a London KFC, a boy was served a deep-fried paper towel, and I bet he wishes that place had a “wipe your hands on your shirt” policy in place.

After being turned down, Lucas claimed that Arciga began to have an attitude with him. When Lucas asked him why he was being so hostile, the man began to curse and mumble under his breath.

Despite how thankful he should be at not being served napkin for dinner, Lucas asked to talk to the manager and was aghast to learn that he already was. He got Arciga’s name, after a lot of “playing around” about the spelling, and left to go shoot off an email to Arciga’s higher ups about their customer service, or lack thereof.

The general manager of the store responded with a simple apology, a promise to investigate, and an offer of free food – there was no mention of whether free napkins came with the free burgers though, so I do not blame Lucas for being a little leery.

Courtesy of Wifflegif.

Mr. Lucas then talked to Arciga again, who apparently was asleep during customer service training class, and was again offended by his attitude. Because of his mental anguish and the intentional infliction of mental distress, Lucas was unable to work. This means he needed another source of income and getting $1.5 million from McDonald’s seemed a reasonable alternative, or, at the very least, he assumed that with that much money he could just use some measly twenties when his hands got a little greasy. Either way, the situation led to the suit at hand.

The Motive

Part of Lucas’ claim was that napkin-gate was racially motivated. That was his only rationale as to why his request was refused, and as I personally cannot think of many other good reasons, I have to concede that he might be right. (Though my other thought is that perhaps the store was almost or completely out of said napkins and, as the manager, Arciga was incredibly embarrassed at his lack of proper inventory stocking thus making him unable to divulge the shortage to a customer. But that’s just pure speculation on my part.)

Lucas, an African American, was eating at a place “filled with Mexican Americans,” Arciga being one. In fact, Lucas asked if this was all “because [he was] black,” and claimed that Arciga mumbled something under his breath – the only understandable words being “you people.”

Which brings me to a serious point directed to all businesses dealing with customers: take claims of discrimination seriously. It may seem like just a napkin, but one restaurant’s napkin is another man’s $1.5 million lawsuit. So make sure to give proper training, and when a customer complains about service, actually do something about it instead of making vague assurances.

Will McDonald’s have to fork over a million and a half dollars for its napkin drought? I’d say no – though sometimes a ruling will surprise and possibly offend you. However, I feel safe in saying that even if Lucas doesn’t win his suit or doesn’t get as much money as he wanted, the time, bad press, legal fees, and everything else that goes into a legal proceeding makes these the most expensive napkins in the history of the world. Though if we’re including paper towels…

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time.

Featured imaged courtesy of [anaxolootl via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Case of the Million Dollar Napkins 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.