By Noga Shanee, Amnon Keren, Evelyn D. Anca, Tamar Fredman, Omer Polansky & Yael Cohen Paran

There are certain biases that characterize the global efforts to tackle wildlife crime, restricting their effectiveness. Firstly, wildlife crime is considered mainly a problem of developing source countries, while the role of developed consumer countries is largely ignored. Secondly, illegal trafficking and legal wildlife trade are treated separately, while the first is considered harmful to the environment and the latter is often considered tolerable, and even a conservational tool. In this study, we use the case study of Israel, a small, developed country with a solid legal framework to control the illegal wildlife trade. For the period between 2021 and 2023 we reviewed national and international laws and regulations from different sectors relevant to wildlife law enforcement. We monitored social media, online commerce platforms and instant messaging groups in order to assess online trade, and interacted with the wildlife authorities to assess their responses. We found six overarching legal themes: (1) species permitted for trade and possession; (2) trade and possession permits; (3) health permits; (4) animal welfare laws and regulations; (5) wildlife shows; and (6) general commerce and money laundering laws. Our results demonstrate that although there is a regulatory infrastructure which allows legal wildlife trade, the vast majority of the trade violates at least some of the related laws and standards. We also found biases in the authorities’ readiness to tackle different types of wildlife crime. Therefore, this study challenges the false dichotomy between legal and illegal wildlife trade and calls for further research and improved enforcement and control of authorized wildlife trade in developed countries.

Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, Volume 28, 2025 - Issue 1

By Sherry, Suzanna

Last October, progressive Jews were shocked by the raw antisemitism displayed by their erstwhile allies on the political left. After Hamas terrorists tortured, raped, or murdered more than 1200 Israeli civilians and took some 200 civilians hostage, some progressives – especially on college campuses – celebrated. They chanted the Palestinian mantra “from the river to the sea,” seeking to erase Israel (and Jews) from the face of the earth. The number of antisemitic incidents on campus soared, coming from both students and faculty. A Stanford lecturer forced Jewish students to the back of the classroom and labeled them “colonizers.” Jewish students had to barricade themselves inside a library at Cooper Union, and Jewish students at MIT were told by faculty to avoid the university’s main lobby for their own safety. Many university presidents who had previously sent out campus-wide emails condemning the murder of George Floyd, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the overruling of Roe v. Wade, and countless other world events suddenly discovered the Kalven Principles and claimed it would be inappropriate for them to take sides, or issued weak statements about how the situation in the Middle East was complicated. This double standard continued as some universities responded to student calls for genocide of Jews by invoking principles of free speech, principles that had been notably ignored when the speech in question was directed at other groups. Most campus DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) offices, especially at the most elite universities, had nothing to say about the surging antisemitism. This essay explains why no one should have been shocked, or even mildly surprised, by the progressive response to the massacre. Progressive or “woke” culture –as exemplified by critical race theory, anti-racism of the Ibram X. Kendi variety, and, especially on college campuses, the DEI juggernaut – is necessarily and inevitably antisemitic at its core. That these related movements have now exposed their antisemitism publicly is no surprise: antisemitism is bred in their bones.

FIU Law Review from Vol. 25 to Vol. 19, Vanderbilt Law Research Paper No. 24-4, 2024.