Articles Books

This article notes that Israel has experienced violence for much of its history. And it blames Israel for that, even when Israel clearly wanted to avoid violence.

It starts with a reminder that Zionists used violence in the past. That's true. For example, there was a spectacular (and to my mind, totally counterproductive) bombing of a Haifa vegetable market by Jews in 1939, in response to Arab pogroms at the time. But I'd hardly call it Zionist policy! The bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, on the other hand, was indeed agreed upon by Zionist leaders at the time. It was during the revolt against the British. And I think it is fair of Salt to compare Israeli responses to attacks on Jews now with Zionist responses back then. What is unfair is to dismiss Israeli attempts to protect the rights of its citizens to life, liberty, and property.

Salt says that Algeria was liberated from the French forty years ago, and that an "ominous parallel" is that Israel will be liberated as well. But it already has been liberated, way back in 1948! What he is doing is taunting those of us who support human rights by implying that the Israelis will be expelled not from Algeria, but from their homeland. Maybe after the French get kicked out of Europe, he'll have a more appropriate parallel!

The author says that "since the 1970s Israel could have had peace simply by holding out its hand and agreeing to comply with a minimalist interpretation of international law." That's totally untrue. He says that even a total Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank would still have left Israel with 78% of the 1947 British Mandate. Well, that's not true. A withdrawal would not have stopped the war. Israel would still have had to win its fight to survive. And, by the way, what is so special about 78% of the 1947 British Mandate? It's well under 20% of the original 1921 Mandate.

Salt teases us by misquoting someone who called the Levant "a land without a people for a people without a land." That statement was basically correct. Salt intentionally says "a land without people for a people without land." Um, if he can't make his case without these sorts of misquotes, I suppose he has nothing of value to say.

The author goes on from there to tell us that Zionist agencies "had been able to acquire by legal purchase no more than 6 or 7 per cent" of the land, and thus force would be required for Zionism to succeed. This is outrageous. In the Jewish portion of the partition, the Jews were the majority. Had there been no force, the Zionists would have simply settled on the land. And guess what percent of the land the Arabs had? 93 or 94 per cent? Um, no. The majority of the land was state land. This dishonesty from Salt is anything but enlightening.

Salt also claims that the idea of transferring the Arabs from the region was part of Zionism from the start. But this claim is false too. The Jews were getting kicked out of countries about once per decade for many centuries. They were not about to walk into a place virtually unarmed and try to expel the other inhabitants. It was anything but Zionist policy. Even had the Zionists wanted to do something so suicidal, they lacked the ability to do it until after Israel became a nation. And the Arab population of Israel has been steadily increasing. If the Arabs were being expelled or even harshly persecuted, I would expect that population to drop.

Next, Salt tells us that Israel became a state with the help of the British. That's hilarious. At least, it is funnier than saying that the United States became a nation with the help of the British.

The author says that Israel is stuck in a trap of its own making. That's true. In World War Two, many Jews died. Had the rest committed suicide, they wouldn't be having problems now. But I think that most of us would rather stay alive and have problems than simply roll over and die. And I think we ought to applaud those who resist tyranny, as the Israelis have been doing.

The author is clearly hoping that Israel will be defeated in a war. But what good will that do anyone? Would that benefit those who get to steal the land? Not really. There is rather little land, and there are few resources. The biggest value is the people, and most of them will be gone. Besides, what goes around can come around. Today, some folks have made it a major goal to deny human rights to Asian Jews. In the future, maybe their own rights will be at stake.

The extent to which Salt blames Israel for the attacks on it is simply amazing. Even more puzzling is his reliance on extremely misleading statements, irrelevancies, and total untruths to support his argument. This article is not part of some reasoned dialog, but simply an assault on human rights.

This is a good article. It shows the violence in modern Israeli history and how in some sense their own policies have pushed them into a corner. It lists out the use of terrorism by many groups before Israeli independence and how while Israel was founded by originally by open-minded liberals, by the 1970s the old terrorists and ultra-nationalists had displaced old liberals as the leaders of the Israeli state.

The far right in Israel, with its terrorist roots, led Israel down the path of settlement expansion and military solutions such as the 1982 war in Lebannon to solve the palestinian problem. As the article shows, these policies led to anger in the occupied territories (leading to an uprising), turned large parts of the world against Israel and pushed Israel into a corner. Attempts by Israel to back away from the corner have led to internal turmoil and splits within Israeli society.

The article highlights the cautionary tale of Algeria as regards the west bank and gaza. The French minority in Algeria fought a war they could not win. When the war was clearly lost, the country (France) was driven to the brink of civil war and military revolt. The meaning of the parallel is that Israel needs to pull back from the occupied territories or it risks being swept up into a chaotic war it cannot win and which could destroy Israeli civil society.

The absurdities that come out of the Israeli right are almost delusional. They have sources (Joan Peters) to tell them that all those millions of palestinians don't exist. They are just arab migrants who all came to Israel between 1946 and 1948.

They also tell the old one that "Jordan is Palestine" and that somehow modern Jordan was stolen from the Jewish national home even though the orginal text of the mandate has no border for Palestine east of the Jordan. No contemporary Zionist leaders in the 1920s thought that they were promised Jordan. They advocated for it, but they knew that even jewish historic ties to Jordan beyond the immediate area of the river valley are non-existant. The zionists were promised a national home, not the empire of king david restored! Evey if Jordan were Palestine, no country or people has the right to ethnically cleanse the existing palestinian population from their homes. Israel cannot claim the land without claiming the people who live there.

Jeremy Salt details the sad history of the palestine mandate under the british. And how the entire policy from the beginning was unworkable and would inevitably lead to violence and civil war. Salt details the development of anti-palestinian ideology and Zionists from the beginning. He shows in great detail the internal dialog about ethnic cleansing that existed since the beginning and the difficulty they had in figuring out how a jewish state could be established given that the pre-1948 population could not give them one where they were the democratic majority. The 1948 war and palestinian refugees solved the problem for the 1948 borders. But the 1967 occupation brought up all these old questions again. And it re-ignited the ligering debate in Israel over ethnic cleansing (transfer).

Salt effectively shows the trap that Israel is in. He is not so good about giving credit to the brave visionary Israelis like Rabin and now (shockingly) Ariel Sharon who also saw the trap and tried to get Israel out of it. This is an important time to review articles like this because Israel will soon be facing again the question of staying stuck in the trap or moving on.

The nature of the trap is that the real victim of it is Israeli civil society. It drives the people apart and gives power to the voices of fanatics. Its time for everyone to admit the policies of the right in the 1970s were an unworkable disaster and abandon them for a better future.

Many times a teacher is unable to perform what he/she teaches but the content of the instruction has value for the learner. Such is the case here. A talented writer following the author's directions will be successful.

This guide to hack magazine writing suffers from a big problem: The author can't write. Her own writing samples are wretchedly uninspired. You'd be much better off simply reading the New Yorker, GQ, Esquire, the Atlantic, and other outlets of fine magazine writing. Steer far away from Kevles' advice--it just might infect you.

This is just a one page summary of Hank jr's discography, birthdates, divorces, etc. Hardly a 'biography'. $9.95 for a 4 minute 'read' of dates?!?!?

this is another good bocephus book, i dont own it myself but have a friend who does own it, and i have borrowed his a few times. and its worth a reed. most anything about hank jr aka bocephus is worth reeding- to me anyways. cool stuff i didnt know before i have found out in this book, and by the way you should also check out the book about hank sr, the biography, i own that one, and reed it alot.... thanks to author's for a good reed...

Kate Bowman article will wake you up! Rachel Corrie was desperately trying to help stop one of the thousands upon thousands of yet another home demolition of a Palestnians Doctors home, WHILE this helpless family was still in their home AND this Palestinian home was on Palestinian land! The Israeli-Jew who murdered Rachel Corrie, had no business being in another country, murdering helpless people - Palestinians. This Israeli fanatic ignored any rules of human decency and decided to kill the young student "AMERICAN," Rachel Corrie because he knew that Dumbya would do nothing about it, and continues to do nothing about "Americans," now being murdered by Jews. Kate Bowman makes this very, very, very clear.

Let a brave Kate Bowman, as President Jimmy Carter has in"Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, as Mearsheimer and Walt have in "The Israeli Lobby," As Ghandi has, as John and Robert Kennedy have, as Pope John Paul II has, as Abraham Lincoln has, as Lech Walesa has, as Mother Theresa has, as Norman Finkelstein has, as Chomskey has, as all peoples working for a better and peaceful world have written, spoke out about, and given their lives for trying to stop genocidal atrocities around the world: Palestine and Darfur must stop being abandoned by the world. Sad Fact: The same people murdered Rachel Corrie and Jesus Christ, but by attempting in doing so, they are truly more alive and around than ever! When will nazi-minded people learn that Killing innicent People will take you nowhere but further and further backwards against your cause, as it has done for Jews and Israel. The Image of Israel to the world is one in the same of the worlds image of Hitlers Germany in WWII. stop killing, and the hate from you and at you will dissipate. More about the article...

Pure objective truth. Rachel Corrie has been placed along people like Ghandi, Mandela, Martin Luther King and many other peaceful activists I've mentioned. Rachel Corrie and these heroic icons stood up against countries comitting murder and genocide, like that against the helpless, homeless and destitude Palestinians today. Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, was my true awakening to the Palestinian Holocaust. You may also want to watch Jimmy Carter; The Man From Plains. Both book and Movie excellent, objective and well done! Thank you President Jimmy Carter, again and Sojourners for opening our minds to the truth.

It's simple, but it's not: No killing, no hate, no wounds to heal and no continued cycle of resentment. the Peaceful way, Rachel Corries way, like all other world heroes and icons mentioned is the only way. Peace

Is it now okay to kill Americans?

Kate Bowman refers here to the death of Rachel Corrie, who died in an accident while intentionally interfering with Israeli counterterrorism operations.

Bowman quotes "a World Council of Churches accompanier" who says "my root reason for being in the midst of the oppression and abuse" of Arab civilians is to walk beside them and share in their lives. Well, that is nice, I suppose. Some of those "civilians" are actually supporters of rather violent, gratuitous and counterproductive attacks on Israeli civilians. I doubt that it is a good idea to support that.

Well, in just a couple of months, from August 15, 2003 to October 15, 2003, there were ten American citizens murdered by Arab terrorists. Here are their names:

Goldie Taubenfeld, 43, of New Square, New York
Shmuel Taubenfeld, 3 months, of New Square, New York
Mordechai Reinitz, 49
Yitzhak Reinitz, 9
Tehilla Nathanson, 3, of Monsey, New York
David Applebaum, 51, originally of Cleveland, Ohio
Nava Applebaum, 20, originally of Cleveland, Ohio
John Branchizio, 36, of San Antonio, Texas
John Martin Linde, Jr., 30, of Washington, Missouri
Mark T. Parson, 31, of New York

They died in a bus bombing in Jerusalem, in a café in Jerusalem, and in a car bombing in Gaza. And they are by no means the only Americans who have been killed by Arab terrorists in the past few years. There are many more.

Bowman is right to ask if it is now okay to kill Americans. But she should not have offered such support to those who are applauding such acts.

I find the attempts of comparison of Lubavitch and Christianity morally and religiously offensive

Various Jewish Christian authors explore aspects of the
messianic hopes/doctrine held over Jewish history, Discussion includes messianic texts in the Tanakh, the Dead Sea scrolls, time calculations, Jewish objections to Jesus, Messianic Jewish Believers in Israel. It also includes discussion of the shocking view of those Lubavitcher Hasidic Jews who held now-deceased Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson to be the Messiah.
"In its attempt to prove that Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson was the potential Messiah, Habad has used biblical texts and messianic ideas that up until a few decades ago were not even whispered in hiding places," points out Tsvi Sadan in Chapter 11. Interesting reading indeed, for those interested in Jewish messianic ideas, biblical foundations for such... and who want to learn of One whose coming was in accord with Jewish tradition, Scripture and validated historically. Enjoy!

In this article, Uri Avnery discusses two "shocking manifestos." The first says that dismantling the Jewish towns in the Gaza Strip is a "'crime against humanity.'" Well, whether we agree or not, dismantling such towns is ethnic cleansing. It does not seem at all shocking to call it that. Avnery complains that the manifesto does not mention that the Jewish towns were set up on "the land reserves of a million" Arabs crowded in a tiny strip. But these towns were set up legally, on disputed land. Both Arabs and Jews were allowed to build homes and live on them there. Avnery does not mention that. Nor does he extend his argument to discuss Arab towns in Israel. After all, Israel could just as well be called the land reserves of five million Jews, crowded into a tiny strip. Does Avnery think that Arabs need to be expelled from Israel?

Avnery says that those who signed this first manifesto are fascists who are united by a primitive, atavistic morality. I've been called that before. I'm a Pagan. And some folks say that all Pagans are united in subscribing to a primitive and atavistic morality. And that we need to grow up and become monotheists! I'm not impressed by such arguments. Nor am I impressed by the argument that those who oppose ethnic cleansing on moral grounds are all fascists!

The second manifesto is more intriguing. It is about situations in which one's citizens are in mortal danger. And when strong measures, including the killing of enemy soldiers, can be used if necessary to save their lives. The question is whether it is morally permissible to kill civilians as well, as collateral damage in a military operation designed to save the lives of one's citizens. And if so, under what circumstances.

This manifesto says that according to Judaism, it is okay to do such a thing in some circumstances. But according to the author, the rabbis who wrote this manifesto have perverted their authority by making a bad ruling! And as proof, Avnery says that Jews are not supposed to kill innocents even to save their own lives.

Well, I'm certainly no expert on this latter question. So I'll have to avoid the question of whether self-defence is permissible in Judaism when it puts innocents at high risk. But from a practical standpoint, I think we can all agree that there is a line somewhere. We may disagree enormously on where that line is. But it is somewhere. In some circumstances, we'd all agree to risk the life of one civilian to save the lives of a large number of other civilians. In some circumstances, none of us would agree to risk the lives of many civilians to save one civilian. Somewhere between these cases is where each of us would draw our own lines on the question.

However, the question of drawing lines does not seem to occur to Avnery. Instead, he takes issue with the idea of killing people in the name of religion! Well, welcome to the club, Uri! I've been right here for decades, opposing the idea of killing people in the name of religion. Maybe Avnery will now say it was wrong to support Arafat and the rest of his gang when they busily murdered people in the name of religion.

More seriously, all the major monotheist religions permit (or even encourage) the killing of people in some circumstances. I think if Avnery wants to argue against this, it makes no sense to do so from a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim point of view. Such an argument is doomed: once you accept the authority of such a religion, you have to accept some killing. Instead, I think Avnery should have made an argument from some secular or Pagan point of view, so that he would not already have conceded that he was wrong.

Why did Avnery make all these logical errors? I think it is because he was too intent upon finding fault with anyone who wants to allow Jews in Gaza or the West Bank to have human rights, and overlooked the problems with his arguments.

This piece covers two dangerous manifestos published in Israel during 2004.

The first calls on the Israeli police and army to disobey orders with regard to the dismantling of the Gaza Settlements. The Army and the police are called on to mutiny against the elected democratic government in favor of unelected extremists. Such calls are a danger to democracy and any kind of rule of law in Israel. Like something out of a fascist nightmare, an appeal is made to the soliders and police to obey a higher morality than the elected government of Israel. This first mafesto was signed by 150 public figures mostly of the right including mayors, scientists and former army leaders.

The first manifesto isn't about the right or wrong of removal of settlements from Gaza. Its about if groups like the army and the police have a right to refuse to carry out the policies of the elected democratic government and the orders of their superior officers. The same people, however, who would claim that soldiers have a right to ignore orders concerning Gaza would scream up and down that anyone who refused orders to serve in the territories guarding settlers or orders to serve in Lebannon is a traitor to Israel. Orders only seem to matter on the right when they like the decisions being made by the politicians.

The second manifesto is far worse. It claims that Jewish religious law commands the killing of innocent civilians if those killings would save jews in some way (not necessarly directly save them). It was signed by a large number of promenent religious leaders in Israel including those of the Arrangement Yeshivot. The Yeshivot controls ideological army units in Israel, supposedly to allow religious students to serve in the army, but in practice these units have become a political militia for the most fanatical extreme political groups in Israel.

Avnery points out how this manifesto is written in such broad language that it might encourage the worst sort of atrocities. It effectively gives a moral free hand for the killing of civilians as long as those civilians are killed during activities that have something to do with the defense of jews.

In any case, these strong manifestos were so much hot air in the end because the majority of people in Israel don't follow manaics or fascists. And the army is loyal in the end to the state rather than the extreme political parties. In the end, two individuals massacred several palestinians but they could not stop the progress of peace represted by the dismanting of the worthless Gaza settlements which so much government money and Israeli military service have been wasted on for decades.

Anyone who actually reads Steigmann-Gall's review, which apparently Colorado Chris has not done, will read a lengthy four page examination of every part of Goodrick-Clarke's book. Apparently Locke will stoop to false accusations to support his otherwise untenable assertions. Steigmann-Gall has done a very thorough job. Chrissie, you can like the book without defaming a reviewer who doesn't. By the way, you should read Steigmann-Gall's book to see just how "jealous" of Goodrick-Clark he is. Either that, or pass judgment on a subject you actually know something about -- like UFOs.

Steigmann-Gall seriously misrepresents the book. "The reader is strongly encouraged," he writes, "to believe that Nazism had more to do with 'the occult, Green issues, vegetarianism, and the New Age' (p. 92), all cast as eastern in inspiration."

What Goodrick-Clarke actually wrote on page 92 -- regarding Savitri Devi's A Son of God (1946) and Impeachment of Man (1959) -- was this: "Mindful as she was of the general opprobrium attaching to the Third Reich in the postwar years, these books make only coded references to her idol Hitler and National Socialism. Free of any obvious Nazi taint, both books have been recently republished for new audiences interested in mysticism and the occult, Green issues, vegetarianism, and the New Age."

That's called reporting, not a la Steigmann-Gall, something we are "strongly encouraged to believe." That this was the opportunistic enticement Savitri Devi's neo-Nazi publisher pitched to a New Age audience was also explained at some length on page 3. Perhaps Steigmann-Gall's clear error on this point can be simply written off as one more reviewer who never read the book. Or, less simply, as one more jealous academic trashing a more competent colleague.

In recent years, the political right in Israel and its followers abroad have taken to claiming that any opposition to Israel is simply anti-semitism and that the best way to deal with criticism of Israel is a quick accusation of anti-semitism. Some have even tried to apply this idea within Israel itself. As if Israelis who didn't follow the agenda of the far right were anti-semites.

Hillel Halkin wrote an inflammitory article in the right-wing magazine commentary where he equated Israel as a country with the jewish people. In other words, to be critical of the country, its policies or the politics of its leaders was equal to hate of the jewish people. Neuhaus is rightly critical in the article of that idea. The leaders, policies and politics of any particular Israeli government or group are not those of the jewish people as a whole.

Halkin's article is as critical of Jews as it as of anyone else. Halkin says at one point "The Holocaust has made some Jews less, rather than more, able to see anti-Semitism around them". That one comment will give the reader some idea of how off the road Halkin is and what the basis for Neuhaus' article is in part. Halkin understands that even most of his audience will initially be reluctant to accept his ideas and start mindlessly screaming anti-semitism at all criticism of Israel. What Halkin fails to see is that by adopting that tactic, the supporters of Israel will have effectively conceeded the world of facts and reason to their critics. They will be left only with shrill emotional name-calling as a defense and what good will that do Israel?

Halkin himself admitted that international anti-Israel attitudes have tended to change based on events. When Israel signed the camp david accords, they got better. When Israel invaded Lebannon and then faced the intifada in the terroritories, they got worse. Again, when Oslo started, the image of Israel got better and when Oslo collapsed, they got worse.

But even though Halkin lays these facts out himself, he turns suddenly in his original article and claims "anti-Semitism [criticism of Israel] has grown in direct proportion to Palestinian violence against Israel". He refuses to accept that Israel's image abroad is directly affected by the commitment or lack of commitment of the government to a peace process of some sort. He also refuses to even comprehend that every wave of so-called "anti-semitism" has been matched inside Israel by political turmoil and deep disagreements.

Halkin finishes by denoucing the idea that progress toward or away from a peace process (which he opposes in total) has anything to do with criticism of Israel. He claims that the critics will never give up until Israel is destroyed. He dismisses the idea that changes in Israeli behavior ever affect international opinion of it. That is on its face an absurd claim to make given the history he himself admits earlier.

Halkin also includes a pointless and lengthy attempt at rehabilitating Sharon's reputation with regard to the 1982 Lebannon war and its massacres. He again uses the tactic of admitting the truth (Sharon was wrong and Israel accepted that he was wrong) and then launching into a false defense (What Sharon did was no worse that what the US is doing in Afghanistan). These quick snaps back and forth are self-defeating. They also point to a high level of self-deception and double arguements on Halkin's part.

Neuhaus' material is very effective in countering Halkin's simple minded and hostile ideas. I recommend the article.

Hillel Halkin claimed that anti-Israelism is simply anti-semitism. And he cites the UN "conference against racism" in Durban in 2001. Richard Neuhaus thinks that may be fair. But is it also fair to say that to be against Israel or Zionism, one has to be anti-Semitic?

The argument Halkin makes is that only a Francophobe could think the world would be better off without France (and therefore only a Judeophobe could think the world would be better off without Israel). Neuhaus disagrees with this argument, on the absurd grounds that France was established long before Israel! Israel has been around only since 1948, you see. So there can be people who feel that the creation of Israel was just a mistake. Nothing wrong with that. Well, Richard, I suppose I could happen to think that the creation of France was just a mistake too. And that France did little to help the French in World War Two. And I suppose I could say that had France not existed, it would not have been attacked.

I'm not impressed by Neuhaus' argument here. And no matter what one calls anti-Zionism, it is not an innocent comment that the creation of Israel was an error. It is outright opposition to human rights for Levantine Jews. So Halkin is right, not Neuhaus.

On top of that, the world saw what happened in World War Two when Israel did not exist. Had modern Israel come into existence fifteen, or even ten years earlier, many of the Jews who were killed during World War Two would have been able to escape to Israel from Europe.

Neuhaus makes one other point. Namely that the main problem facing Jews is isolation of Israel. That puts some Jews at risk (and it gets some Jews to refuse to support Israel). An isolated Israel might eventually lead to a catastrophe in which many Jews get killed. Well, if that is the problem, why do many Jews focus on more trivial issues, such as Holocaust denial, or the role of Pius XII or the Catholic Church? Here, I think Neuhaus is partially right. The reason to support Israel is a moral one. The threat is that thugs will use propaganda to try to undermine Israel's moral standing. Well, supporting morality always has a price. It's a price worth paying, but it is a price. I agree. The attacks on Israel are indeed an attack on human rights. And the shortsighted approach to them is to abandon one's commitment to human rights. Neuhaus is right to say that Jews ought to spend more time on this issue. But that is no reason to avoid other issues as well, some of which may even be linked in some manner to the attacks on Israel.

Brownfeld says that Shahak rejected ethnocentrism. But by going out of his way to single out and defame Judaism, I feel that Shahak encouraged ethnocentrism.

The author says that Shahak opposed racism and oppression. But given his tendency to tell untruths about Judaism, I think Shahak practiced racism and oppression.

It's fine that Shahak did not like Judaism. I'm a Pagan. I do not like monotheism. And that includes a dislike of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. But that is no reason to lie about them. And it certainly is no reason to incite people to mistreat each other.

Brownfeld claims that Shahak told the truth and supported human rights. But Shahak did neither.

excellent! prophetic and a must know. Shahak is a lone voice against the silence of our greed and corruption, a beacon in the darkness of evil that threatens to engulf our globe. Before taking any reviewers point of view please check their track record by looking at the books they have reviewed. Anything that criticizes Israel is bad no matter what the source or the evidence...Neo-cons aren't just in the white house.

This well researched and written book documents the negative effects of the pet reptile trade on human health, animal welfare, native ecosystems, and the conservation of reptiles in the wild. If you read this book, instead of getting a pet reptile, you'll want to teach those around you about the dangers of the reptile trade and support efforts to protect them in the wild!

As a herpetologist and member of a herpetological society, I appreciate the HSUS for highlighting some of the problems associated with the trade in live reptiles. However, I strongly disagree with their conclusion that the reptile trade must be ended. Maintaining captive reptiles can be a rewarding and educational experience, and in some cases may have significant conservation value. The problems highlighted in this book can be better overcome by effective education and research.
While it is true that reptiles may carry salmonella, the disease is easily prevented through practicing basic hygiene such as washing one's hands after contact with a reptile. A great majority of salmonella cases are from improperly cooked poultry. The CDC (center for disease control & prevention) has identified 17 zoonotic diseases (diseases transfered from animals to humans) in dogs and 16 diseases in cats. Why are there no political persuasive reports asking for a ban on cats and dogs?
I also find it quite erroneous that the pet trade is the largest conribution to the demise of wild reptiles. In truth, the pet trade's effect on the native population has been dwindling as herpetoculture continues to improve and offer healthier, captive bred reptiles.
Lastly, the report highlights that some reptiles are dangerous (such as venomous snakes, large constrictors, and crocodilians). However, the number of fatalties and incidents resulting from captive reptiles is extremely low compared to domestic dog attacks, where according to the dog bite law website, at least 800,000 individuals are attacked and of that number, at least 15,000 are serious enough to require hospitalization. Shouldn't the HSUS (or H$U$ I should say) be calling for a dog ban instead?