The eagle interned as a Mossad agent, and other animal spies

Inside the bizarre world of animal espionage.

Earlier this month a stork was arrested in Egypt on suspicion of spying. The apparent spy devices were in fact monitoring equipment geologists had attached to the bird to track its migration path, but sadly the suspected spy never received a fair trial. Instead it was killed and eaten by villagers, which no doubt sent out a powerful message to other feathered agents.

It isn’t the only bird to have fallen fowl (sorry) of the law. One eagle was arrested in Sudan last year, and a vulture was detained in Saudi Arabia in 2011, both on suspicion of being Israeli spies. As with the stork, they had been electronically tagged by scientists. In India, a pigeon was arrested for spying for Pakistan in 2010. The pigeon fared much better than the spy stork, as it was reportedly given its own air-conditioned cell.

In 2010 Egypt blamed a series of shark attacks on the Israeli spy agency, Mossad, claiming it had deliberately introduced man-eating sharks to damage Egypt’s tourist industry.

While sharks are in cahoots with Israelis, squirrels are the preferred weapon of choice for the British intelligence services – or so the Iranians believed when they arrested 14 spy squirrels.

Animals can be criminal masterminds, too. In Nigeria in 2009, a goat was arrested for armed robbery. Police detained the goat after it was claimed the creature was in fact an armed robber, who had used black magic to transform himself into an animal after stealing a Mazda.

This all sounds very silly, but MI5 did consider using gerbils to identify spies and terrorists at airports in the 1970s, while the US is looking at inserting spy equipment into insects to create insect cyborgs and training bees to detect explosives. In the 1960s the CIA tried (and failed) to bug cats as part of Operation Acoustic Kitty.

But it is sea creatures you really have to be suspicious of. Dolphins and sea-lions have been trained by the US to locate and mark landmines, as well as suspicious swimmers.

This squirrel may be cute, but can you trust it? Photo: Getty

Sophie McBain is a freelance writer based in Cairo. She was previously an assistant editor at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

On the "one-state" solution to Israel and Palestine, what did Donald Trump mean?

The US President seemed to dismantle two decades of foreign policy in his press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu. 

If the 45th President of the United States wasn’t causing enough chaos at home, he has waded into the world’s most intricate conflict – Israel/Palestine. 

Speaking alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump made an apparently off-the-cuff comment that has reverberated around the world. 

Asked what he thought about the future of the troubled region, he said: “I’m looking at two-state and one-state and I like the one that both parties like.”

To the uninformed observer, this comment might seem fairly tame by Trump standards. But it has the potential to dismantle the entire US policy on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Trump said he could "live with" either a two-state or one-state solution. 

The "two-state solution" has become the foundation of the Israel-Palestine peace process, and is a concept that has existed for decades. At its simplest, it's the idea that an independent state of Palestine can co-exist next to an independent Israel. The goal is supported by the United Nations, by the European Union, by the Arab League, and by, until now, the United States. 

Although the two-state solution is controversial in Israel, many feel the alternative is worse. The idea of a single state would fuel the imagination of those on the religious right, who wish to expand into Palestinian territory, while presenting liberal Zionists with a tricky demographic maths problem - Arabs are already set to outnumber Jews in Israel and the occupied territories by 2020. Palestinians are divided on the benefits of a two-state solution. 

I asked Yossi Mekelberg, Professor of International Relations at Regent's University and an associate fellow at Chatham House, to explain exactly what went down at the Trump-Netanyahu press conference:

Did Donald Trump actually mean to say what he said?

“Generally with President Trump we are into an era where you are not so sure whether it is something that happens off the hoof, that sounds reasonable to him while he’s speaking, or whether maybe he’s cleverer than all of us put together and he's just pretending to be flippant. It is so dramatically opposite from the very professorial Barack Obama, where the words were weighted and the language was rich, and he would always use the right word.” 

So has Trump just ditched a two-state solution?

“All of a sudden the American policy towards the Israel-Palestine conflict, a two-state solution, isn’t the only game in town.”

Netanyahu famously didn’t get on with Obama. Is Trump good news for him?

“He was quite smug during the press conference. But while Netanyahu wanted a Republican President, he didn’t want this Republican. Trump isn’t instinctively an Israel supporter – he does what is good for Trump. And he’s volatile. Netanyahu has enough volatility in his own cabinet.”

What about Trump’s request that Netanyahu “pull back on settlements a little bit”?

“Netanyahu doesn’t mind. He’s got mounting pressure in his government to keep building. He will welcome this because it shows even Trump won’t give them a blank cheque to build.”

Back to the one-state solution. Who’s celebrating?

“Interestingly, there was a survey just published, the Palestinian-Israel Pulse, which found a majority of Israelis and a large minority of Palestinians support a two-state solution. By contrast, if you look at a one-state solution, only 36 per cent of Palestinians and 19 per cent of Israel Jews support it.”

 

 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.