Abstract
Israeli law, in some aspects, is rather progressive as to the protection of non-human animals. While “animal abuse” is interpreted as causing animals “unnecessary suffering”, the content given to this phrase defeats some characteristics attributed by Gary Francione to “legal welfarism”. In some instances the interests of nonhuman animals override substantive human interests, anchored in institutionalized forms of exploitation. An example is the ban on force-feeding of geese and ducks. Animal protection organizations were granted a broad mandate by the Israeli legislature and courts to represent the interests of animals in civil, administrative and criminal procedures. This solves the problem of standing which undermines animal protection in other jurisdictions. While Israeli law protects the interests of animals for the sake of the animals and gives them some weight, social power relations are still based on the cruel exploitation of nonhumans by humans. This chapter describes the principles of animal protection in Israeli law, discusses aspects that may inspire animal protection in other countries, and goes into some detail regarding the specific provisions of Israeli laws that are difficult to access without the knowledge of Hebrew.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
There are some exceptions regarding pigs, sheep and goats, industries that also have smaller political influence.
- 2.
The title of the law uses the Jewish Law phrase ‘tzaar baalei hayim’, literally ‘animal suffering’, and hence is sometimes translated as ‘Prevention of Animal Suffering’ or in similar ways.
- 3.
Justice Strasberg-Cohen does comment that the regulations do not even implement all the measures that may reduce the birds’ suffering. However, this is not the ratio of the decision. In a later verdict (HCJ 7713/05 ‘Noah’ – Israeli Federation of Animal Protection Organizations v. The Attorney-General [2006], no English translation available) the court rejected a claim by the industry that there are available techniques that allow for the production of fatty liver without violating the Animal Protection Act.
- 4.
Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves as amended.
- 5.
Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (Codified version).
- 6.
The Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs, Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee, Adopted 30 September 1997, Section 4.4.6.
- 7.
EFSA (2005) Opinion and Report on the Welfare of Weaners and Rearing Pigs: Effects of Different Space Allowances and Floor Types pp 56–59.
- 8.
For a more comprehensive overview of these, see Wolfson (2012).
- 9.
For religious reasons, slaughter of poultry in Israel is done by hand. A worker takes the birds one by one out of the transport cage, and hands them to a religiously authorized slaughterer, who cuts their throat. Only then the bird is put upside down in a cone-shaped container or hanged on a conveyor to bleed and then be processed.
- 10.
For more details and scientific references see Wolfson (2012).
- 11.
Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens.
- 12.
- 13.
The number is higher than the number of female chicks marketed to Israeli breeders, mentioned above, because some female chicks are marketed to the Palestinian egg industry.
- 14.
That is killing not for human consumption. The act of killing of an animal for human consumption is not covered by the Animal Protection Act to avoid debate on ritual slaughter.
- 15.
The average number of the years 2004–2013 was 309,621 animals per year. The number for 2013 was 299,144 (The Israeli Board for Experiments on Animals 2014).
- 16.
Rishon LeZion Municipal Company for Culture and Sport vs. The Nature and Parks Authority (2009).
- 17.
- 18.
The State of Israel vs Yurovsky (2001).
- 19.
The case itself was closed later without a ruling, after the plaintiffs withdrew their claim. In another case, brought by the Mazor breeding facility for monkeys destined to vivisection, the Supreme Court upheld El-Al’s policy not to ship animals destined for vivisection.
- 20.
E.g. even the human right to life is not absolute. Life may be legally taken in war, and its protection by traffic laws, torts and the like is not absolute.
References
Aharoni, Efrat. 2014. Survey: A quarter of Israelis reduced meat consumption. 10% became vegetarian. Globes, 2 January 2014 (In Hebrew).
Compassion in World Farming. 2007. Alternatives to the barren battery cage for the housing of laying hens in the European Union. https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/3818829/alternatives-to-the-barren-battery-cage-in-the-eu.pdf. Accessed 11.12.2015
Compassion in World Farming Trust. 2002. Laid Bare – The case against enriched cages in Europe. https://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/l/laid_bare_2002.pdf. Accessed 11.12.2015.
E.U. Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare. 1998. Welfare aspects of the production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese. http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out17_en.pdf. Accessed 11.12.2015.
Francione, Garry L. 1995. Animals, property and the law. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Israeli Central Bauru of Statistics. 2014. http://www.cbs.gov.il. Accessed 13 Sept 2014.
Israeli Milk Council. 2013. Annual report for 2012. (In Hebrew).
Israeli Veterinary Services. 2013. Annual report for 2012. (In Hebrew).
Israeli Veterinary Services. 2014. http://www.vetserv.moag.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/F3F80D77-8B72-4737-AB6B-D547EC72EB2B/0/import_12_2013.pdf. Accessed 13 Sept 2014.
Kligler, I.J., A. Geiger, S. Brombeg, and D. Gurevitch. 1931. An inquiry into the diets of various sections of the urban and rural populations of Palestine. Bulletin of the Palestinian Economic Society 3: 5–58.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2000. Standing for animals. UCLA L.Rev 47:1333.
The Israeli Board for Experiments on Animals. 2014. http://www.health.gov.il/Services/Committee/animax/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 19 Sept 2014.
The Israeli Egg and Poultry Board. 2014. http://www.ofotm.org.il. Accessed 13 Sept 2014. (In Hebrew).
Vickers, W.J. 1944. A nutritional economic survey of wartime Palestine 1942-1943. Palestine: The Government Printer.
Wolfson, David J. 1996. Beyond the law: Agribusiness and the systemic abuse of animals. Animal Law 2: 123–154.
Wolfson, Yossi. 2012. Reporting from the field: The Israel adoption of transportation regulations for poultry. Journal of Animal & Natural Resource Law 8: 171–177.
Israeli Cases Cited
CA 4398/06 Rishon LeZion Municipal Company for Culture and Sport vs. The Nature and Parks Authority [2009] (Available only in Hebrew).
Civil Case Central District 54789-12-11 Let the Animals Live vs Israel Institute of Technology [2012]. Translation available at https://www.animallaw.info/
Criminal Case Jerusalem 897/01 The State of Israel vs Yurovsky [2001] (Available only in Hebrew).
Family Case Tel-Aviv 32405/01 Doe vs Doe [2004]. Available only in Hebrew.
HCJ 466/05 Reise vs The National Board for Planning and Zoning [2005]. Available only in Hebrew.
HCJ 4884/00 Let the Animals Live vs The Director of the Veterinary Services in the Field [2004] (Available only in Hebrew).
HCJ 6446/96 The Society for the Cat vs Arad Municipality [1998] (Available only in Hebrew).
HCJ 9232/01 ‘Noah’ – Israeli Federation of Animal Protection Organizations v. The Attorney-General [2003]. Two different English translations exist: one in the Israeli Supreme Court website court.gov.il and one on CHAI’s website http://www.chai.org.il/en/compassion/foiegras/foiegras.pdf (Both accessed 11 Aug 2014).
LCA 1684/96 Let the Animals Live v. Hamat Gader Recreation Enterprises. 1997. An English translation of the decision is available in the Israeli Supreme Court’s website court.gov.il. accessed 11 August 2014. While citations in this article are based on this translation, I did edit it when found to divert from the original text of the decision.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wolfson, Y. (2016). Animal Protection Under Israeli Law. In: Cao, D., White, S. (eds) Animal Law and Welfare - International Perspectives. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 53. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26818-7_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26818-7_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26816-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26818-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)