Egypt’s animal rights activists tackle pet shops of horror

1 / 3
Conditions inside a Cairo pet shop. Legislation against mistreating animals is unclear and rarely enforced. (Mohamed Mosaad for Arab News)
2 / 3
3 / 3
Updated 29 August 2018
Follow

Egypt’s animal rights activists tackle pet shops of horror

  • Pet Shop Watch Egypt now has more than 1,500 members committed to tackling the inhumane treatment of animals in pet shops
  • Shop owners complain that activists put the animals ahead of their livelihoods

CAIRO: A group of animal rights activists have come together to take on the woeful conditions in Egypt’s pet shops, in a country notorious for the ill-treatment of animals.  

The campaign started in May, when a social media post about a Husky dog that died outside a Cairo pet shop caught the attention of Arielle El-Bagory. 

Soon after, another activist, Leila Gheita called for action after a cat died in similar conditions in a nearby shop.

El-Bagory and Gheita combined forces and started calling on people to join them in approaching  pet shops.

“Sixty people showed up and all were interested in taking this further so Leila and I started the group on Facebook,” El-Bagory told Arab News. “Ideally we hope to close down the pet shops that keep animals in horrific conditions, which sadly is most of them.”

Pet Shop Watch Egypt now has more than 1,500 members committed to tackling the inhumane treatment of animals in pet shops. The group organizes regular visits to different shops around the country, with members bringing food and water for the animals, as well as making demands to move animals out of the sun during the hot summer days and improve the conditions of the cages animals are kept in.

While some shops have been cooperative at first, group members complain that these changes are not maintained.

Egypt’s record on animal abuse has been in the spotlight in recent years.

The Gezira Sporting Club, popular among Cairo’s wealthier residents, sparked outrage in 2014 when a security guard caught someone leaving the club with a bag full of dead cats, apparently beaten and poisoned to death in an attempt to control their numbers.

In February the following year, a video of three men brutally torturing and killing a dog in the street went viral. 

Until recently, Egypt’s constitution did not contain any laws for the protection or welfare of animals, with the exception of animals used for agriculture. This was extended in 1982 to include domesticated animals like dogs and cats. An amendment in 2014 was introduced for the protection of the environment, including the “prevention of cruelty to animals.”

However, penalties for breaking these laws are still limited to a maximum of six months in prison, and a fine not exceeding 200 Egyptian pounds ($11).

According to a 2014 report by World Animal Protection, Egypt obtained an “F” ranking on the Animal Protection Index, with “G” being the lowest. The report stated that the country’s “existing legislation presents an imprecise framework of protection.” 

This, in addition to a lack of serious penalties, means that protection of animals is often inadequate. 

There are currently three government bodies in Egypt related to animal welfare, The Ministry of Agriculture and the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, both responsible for legislation, and the General Organization for Veterinary Services. 

The latter, in collaboration with local police, has organized the culling of Egypt’s stray animals, with graphic photographs and videos being circulated of them torturing and poisoning large numbers of street dogs and cats.

The organization is also ment to be used by  people in Egypt to report the inhumane treatment of animals.

El-Bagory said one of their success stories was when they shared a photo of a Macaw parrot in a sorry state at the Rehab Animal Park in Cairo. 

Enough people complained to the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, that the birds were confiscated and transferred to improved conditions at Giza Zoo.

The group is still trying to find the best approach for dealing with non-exotic animals, as the laws do not cover domesticated animals in captivity.

With so few governmental organizations playing an active part in the protection of animals, it is left to groups like Pet Shop Watch Egypt to take the lead.

“We are trying our best to use public pressure, as well as following the legal avenues to report these shops,” El-Bagory said. “One of the things we hope to achieve is to convince buyers to boycott those that sell animals.”

The group has also tried to educate shop owners and employees in an effort to reduce the number of animals suffering. They distribute pamphlets that discuss the proper treatment of animals, as well as excerpts from the Quran that encourage kindness and mercy towards animals. 

Poverty and a lack of education are two major factors that play a role in the welfare of animals in Egypt.

Katie McManus, an English teacher and member of Pet Shop Watch Egypt, joined the group knowing that the country faces a significant problem.

“It’s mostly down to lack of education,” McManus said. “If pets are going to be your business, you should be informed about how to properly care for them.”

Abu Bakr, a 38-year-old employee at one of the pet shops visited by members of Pet Shop Watch Egypt, showed his frustration at the way they were approached by the activists, saying he felt the rights of the animals were of more importance than his own. 

“They were very aggressive with us, most of them using offensive or irritating language,” Abu Bakr said. “They wouldn’t treat a dog the way they treated us. They come and yell about animal rights, but what about human rights? I am walked all over on a daily basis.”

Abu Bakr’s sentiments are shared by many Egyptians, who see the plight of animals as secondary to their own deeply-rooted and pervasive struggles.

He explained that if he had been approached calmly he would be more willing to listen. “In the end this is a business. Even if I work here because I love animals, the aim is to make a profit. If someone comes and gives me advice on how to do my job better, I’m happy to listen,” he said. “We cleaned up the cages and stopped selling dogs completely because they were difficult to keep clean.

“The only dog we keep is mine,” he said, pointing to a dog lying down on the road outside the shop, “for breeding.”


Israel’s Somaliland gambit: what’s at risk for the region?

Updated 7 sec ago
Follow

Israel’s Somaliland gambit: what’s at risk for the region?

  • Somaliland’s strategic location near the Bab Al-Mandab raises fears an Israeli security presence could turn the Red Sea into a powder keg
  • Critics argue the decision revives Israel’s “periphery” strategy, encouraging fragmentation of Arab and Muslim states for strategic advantage

RIYADH: It perhaps comes as no surprise to seasoned regional observers that Israel has become the first and only UN member state to formally recognize the Republic of Somaliland as an independent and sovereign nation.

On Dec. 26, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar signed a joint declaration of mutual recognition alongside Somaliland’s President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi.

For a region that has existed in a state of diplomatic limbo since declaring independence from Somalia in 1991, this development is, as Abdullahi described it, “a historic moment.” But beneath the surface lies a calculated and high-stakes geopolitical gamble.

While several nations, including the UK, Ethiopia, Turkiye, and the UAE, have maintained liaison offices in the capital of Hargeisa, none had been willing to cross the Rubicon of formal state recognition.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, assisted by Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, signs the document formally recognizing Somalia's breakaway Somaliland region on Dec. 26, 2025. (AFP)

Israel’s decision to break this decades-long international consensus is a deliberate departure from the status quo.

By taking this step, Israel has positioned itself as the primary benefactor of a state that has long sought a seat at the international table. As Dya-Eddine Said Bamakhrama, the ambassador of Djibouti to Saudi Arabia, told Arab News, such a move is deeply disruptive.

“A unilateral declaration of separation is neither a purely legal nor an isolated political act. Rather, it carries profound structural consequences, foremost among them the deepening of internal divisions and rivalries among citizens of the same nation, the erosion of the social and political fabric of the state, and the opening of the door to protracted conflicts,” he said.

Critics argue that Israel has long lobbied for the further carving up of the region under various guises.

This recognition of Somaliland is seen by many in the Arab world as a continuation of a strategy aimed at weakening centralized Arab and Muslim states by encouraging peripheral secessionist movements.

Somaliland’s President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi. (AFP file photo)

In the Somali context, this path is perceived not as a humanitarian gesture, but as a method to undermine the national understandings reached within the framework of a federal Somalia.

According to Ambassador Bamakhrama, the international community has historically resisted such moves to prioritize regional stability over “separatist tendencies whose dangers and high costs history has repeatedly demonstrated.”

By ignoring this precedent, Israel is accused of using recognition as a tool to fragment regional cohesion.

In the past, Israel has often framed its support for non-state actors or separatist groups under the pretext of protecting vulnerable minorities — such as the Druze in the Levant or Maronites in Lebanon.

This “Periphery Doctrine” served a dual purpose: it created regional allies and supported Israel’s own claim of being a Jewish state by validating the idea of ethnic or religious self-determination.

However, in the case of Somaliland, the gloves are off completely. The argument here is not about protecting a religious minority, as Somaliland is a staunchly Muslim-majority territory. Instead, the rationale is nakedly geopolitical.

Israel appears to be seeking strategic depth in a region where it has historically been isolated. Netanyahu explicitly linked the move to “the spirit of the Abraham Accords,” signaling that the primary drivers are security, maritime control, and intelligence gathering rather than the internal demographics of the Horn of Africa.

The first major win for Israel in this maneuver is the expansion of its diplomatic orbit. It could be argued that the refusal of the federal government in Mogadishu to join the Abraham Accords was an artificial barrier.

The evidence for this claim, from the Israeli perspective, is that Somaliland — a territory with a population of nearly six million and its own functioning democratic institutions — was eager to join.

Abdullahi said Somaliland would join the Abraham Accords as a “step toward regional and global peace.” Yet, this peace comes with a clear quid pro quo — formal recognition.

Residents wave Somaliland flags as they gather in downtown Hargeisa on December 26, 2025, to celebrate Israel's announcement recognizing Somaliland's statehood. (AFP)

Israel can now argue that the “Somaliland model” proves that many other Arab and Muslim entities are willing to normalize relations if their specific political or territorial interests are met.

This challenges the unified stance of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which maintain that normalization must be tied to the resolution of the Palestinian conflict.

The second major gain for Israel is the potential for a military presence in the Horn of Africa. Somaliland’s strategic position on the Gulf of Aden, near the Bab Al-Mandab Strait, makes it a prime location for monitoring maritime traffic.

This is a ticking time bomb given that just across the narrow sea lies Yemen, where the Houthi movement — whose slogan includes “Death to Israel” — controls significant territory.

Israel may claim that a military or intelligence presence in Somaliland will boost regional security by countering Houthi threats to shipping. However, regional neighbors fear it will likely inflame tensions.

Ambassador Bamakhrama warned that an Israeli military presence would “effectively turn the region into a powder keg.”

Ambassador Dya-Eddine Said Bamakhrama, Djibouti's envoy to Saudi Arabia. (Supplied)

“Should Israel proceed with establishing a military base in a geopolitically sensitive location... such a move would be perceived in Tel Aviv as a strategic gain directed against the Arab states bordering the Red Sea — namely Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, and Djibouti,” he said.

The Red Sea is a “vital international maritime corridor,” and any shift in its geopolitical balance would have “repercussions extending far beyond the region,” he added.

The recognition is also a clear violation of international law and the principle of territorial integrity as enshrined in the UN Charter.

While proponents point to exceptions like South Sudan or Kosovo, those cases involved vastly different circumstances, including prolonged genocidal conflicts and extensive UN-led transitions.

In contrast, the African Union has been firm that Somaliland remains an integral part of Somalia.

The backlash has been swift and severe. The Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the OIC have all decried the move. Even US President Donald Trump, despite his role in the original Abraham Accords, has not endorsed Israel’s decision.

When asked whether Washington would follow suit, Trump replied with a blunt “no,” adding, “Does anyone know what Somaliland is, really?”

This lack of support from Washington highlights the isolation of Israel’s position. The OIC and the foreign ministers of 21 countries have issued a joint statement warning of “serious repercussions” and rejecting any potential link between this recognition and reported plans to displace Palestinians from Gaza to the African region.

Israel’s recognition of Somaliland appears to be a calculated gamble to trade diplomatic norms for strategic advantage.

While Hargeisa celebrates a long-awaited milestone, the rest of the world sees a dangerous precedent that threatens to destabilize one of the world’s most volatile corridors.

As Ambassador Bamakhrama says, the establishment of such ties “would render (Israel) the first and only state to break with the international consensus” — a move that prioritizes “narrow strategic calculations” over the stability of the international system.