America should stop giving aid to Israel as long as Israeli companies are going to assist in getting journalists arrested/murdered/dismembered.
This will just continue to get worse. More journalists and human rights activists will die because some delusional maniacs feelings were hurt, some ex IDF techs want to make some money and a President wants to keep jobs at Lockheed Martin.
Maybe the BDS list should include more countries. Maybe tech as a whole should replace lip service and instead redirect (and/or reject) major funds to fight injustice on a geopolitical level. Maybe VC funds shouldn't "techwash" despot dollars.
The tech industry has a lot of power in itself and can push the needle without the need to rely on 'America' to do something.
This thin veneer of NSO being a legitimate company has been exposed
They are just as, if not more, responsible.
https://thenextweb.com/in/2020/01/08/kashmirs-police-want-pe...
https://m.thewire.in/article/government/kargil-police-asks-a...
https://www.firstpost.com/india/jammu-and-kashmirs-kishtwar-...
https://theintercept.com/2020/12/06/kashmir-social-media-pol...
the one thing these media outlets don't outrightly say is the reason why admins are told to report to police stations and someone on twitter has an answer to that.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CRolanova/status/1260932017916506...
Thanks for sharing
So instead of a democratically elected US Govt dropping freedom from a 1 billion bomber on a 10$ tent, A bunch of hippies in a small part of the US should use the power of social media to control and direct conversation, culture and world events like some sort of a uber-exclusive shady techbro-illuminati?
The problem is genuine but any solution involving tech would only worsen the problem
The tech industry internationally should participate in some form of BDS (as much as they are comfortable with I guess) with these countries.
Also, I believe there should be something akin to the Hippocratic Oath but for developers and engineers.
Most Israelis I talked to (about this specific subject; including the ones, working for NSO Group) do not understand the concept of human rights. First two questions I get are "How gives these rights?" and "Where does the list written?" in this order with the same intonation. My guess it is result of some kind of indoctrination during high school and army service.
P.S. I'm israeli
They're known to be "the bad guys". The tech courses we took in the army had plenty of emphasis on ethics, both the moral kind and conflict-of-interest kind.
Source: I'm an Israeli.
All the things done to all citizens of Israel (for example, indiscriminate movement and contact tracing) and residents of occupied territories are made possible by graduates of these courses.
Main emphasis of "emphasis on ethics" is explanation to soldiers how each choice made during a chain of events resulting in underage kid, teenager or old woman in her sixties being shot point-blank is correct and no other choice is possible.
I've written and rewritten this reply maybe four times, but there's really no way to phrase it in a way you won't twist it to fit your "you're personally responsible for civilian murder" narrative. But I know what we did (my dept. at least), and that was not it.
The problem with Iran is their development of nuclear weapons, their ballistic missile program which now extends in range to cover the Europe, their support in weapons, money and training of various paramilitary groups such as the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, their oppression of their own citizens, hanging gays from cranes, various bombing and attack operations (US forces, Saudi facilities), attacks against oil tankers and calls to annihilate Israel. Not their support of Palestine.
As long as US and Israel are fundamentally aligned on long-term foreign policy objectives, aid will continue to be provided no matter what. Dirty work has to be done by someone.
When exactly does the US give a shit about killing journalists?
I suspect the reason that does not happen is because NSO does the US's dirty work for it, otherwise the US would have stopped it already. After all, the US directly supports those same governments NSO works with. It's probably not too upset its dependents are getting support from a different actor.
If you have really been paying attention to the US-Israel relationship you know that this is not true.
More accurately, he ran campaign ads arguing that he fought for Israel against the Iran deal. He further presented himself as a victim of Obama's disrespect, especially since the 'shoe on table' incident.
[EDIT: "while getting Obama to give him a record $38 billion aid"
Longstanding American policy to bolster its client, also a part of the Camp David accords. I do think the aid agreement should not be renewed next time since it's counterproductive to both sides. ]
"He colluded with Flynn and the Russians to undermine Obama and promote Trump."
Wrong. Note however that focusing on this conspiracy shows where the true power lies. When America interferes in Israeli politics it does so openly and without even much mention, because there's no point, it's that powerful (e.g. Clinton helping Peres and Barak, or V-15's funding).
"He gets whatever he wants from the US."
That's why he got the same terms from Obama as he did from Trump, right? After all, it's the same Nethanyahu. Nah. It's American policy that changed.
All your list is part of Nethanyahu's mystique ("I speak perfect English! I can get the Americans to work in our favour! Even when the administration doesn't support me, because I have so many connections and am so convincing it doesn't matter!"), which is very good for him electorally, but most Israelis have woken up from that.
P.S.
"That's more US political power than Chuck Schumer."
That's a trick question, right? Since Schumer has almost no power - no stage presence, minority in Senate. He can't even threaten the filibuster. (What would he filibuster? The Judicial filibuster has been cancelled, and the Republicans barely have a legislative agenda.
After the GOP keeps majority, everything will be decided by Biden-GOP negotiations, and Schumer will have to sign the dotted line.)
“America” may be more powerful than Israel, but no single American politician is more powerful than AIPAC
I'm not arguing Nethanyahu played no role, he did deploy whatever influence and persuasion he could muster, and that helped overpower the influence of those who supported the deal, like French President Macron. But ultimately it was Trump's decision, and Nethanyahu would have had to live with it had Trump made a different call.
Aside, note that nobody even thinks of easing up US sanctions on Cuba again or rejoining that agreement with Cuba. The Democratic party got such a signal from Hispanics last elections it's not even on the agenda.
I'm not holding my breath on America ever making the right decisions with respect to foreign policy.
I also don't think his nationality should matter, but you're right that he was only a US resident.
Should the US government be equally responsible for your life if you decide to put your head inside a crocodile's mouth? Yet the US government does its part *1000 to get its own citizens back to safety (or kills them with drones, but that's another story). Most countries don't even bother with such hassles - on the contrary, if you're unlucky enough to be British, your government will try to use you as a bargaining chip.
At the risk of sounding pessimistic, there's no value in changing anything if the current course of action aligns with the long term interest of US policymakers and their stakeholders.
It's more likely that it is simply the influence of Israelis and Jews in America, who are powerful enough to determine US foreign policy (Jared Kushner, as far as I can tell, is not a "religious right" but a zionist Jew).
Related to the pro-Israel lobbying, the documentary "The Occupation of The American Mind"[2] delves into the propaganda effort that was carried out for years to shape the American public opinion about Israel. I quite recemmend it.
IANAL but I think the case can be made that the export of NSOs software is against US law and a violation of the Wassenaar Arrangement. See: 5D002.C.1
So in theory if Israel is allowing one of its companies to break US law then it would make sense to use that as a basis to stop aid to Israel which may be what OP is alluding to.
If I reverse engineered and sold exploits of American missile systems while in Somalia would that mean everything is A-OK?
Idk. Again, not a lawyer.
Iirc, hacking team dissolved or greatly downsized after their leak. I do not recall any cases against them for their export license to be revoked. I'm sure if the Italian courts rejected the case baselessly then there would be consequences (maybe further legal action/sanctions on specific individuals) as Italy does not operate with the same unique impunity that Israel does.
The difference with Italy is that it does not receive state aid from the Americans. I'm sure if they were then people would be calling for cuts in a similar situation.
This isn't true. On top of the general disaster aid, including $10 million for COVID, we have seven US military bases in the country which accounts for millions a year in aid.
Look to Scandinavia and you'll see actual aid instead of (poorly) hidden state sponsoring of defense contractors. They even give more per capita than the US without those strings attached. US aid is embarrassing.
Besides, US bases are not aid to the host country but aid by the host country to the US.
They eliminate some need for the host country to spend on their military, often provide rent money, and stimulate the local economy. It's done to usurp sovereignty, but the host agrees as it benefits them financially.
I don't disagree with your broader point, but I don't see how it changes anything. Calls to stop aid to a country differ even if the countries do the same thing.
My first assumption is that the act isn't covered by any US law at all. For some analogy, the murder of Jamal Khashoggi does not violate any US law as the many US laws regarding murder (i.e. the separate criminal statutes of each of the US states plus any federal laws that may apply) do not regulate acts done by Saudi citizens to Saudi citizens in Istanbul.
So the question becomes not about legality but about policy - whether the act harms US interests. And arguably selling of arms and tools by US allies (e.g. Israel) to US allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia) is not against US policy and thus there's no grounds to apply any sanctions - now, if NSO would sell the same things to Iran, that would be a different issue.
USA could have standing if NSOs tools have been used to hack journalists in USA - but this is not what this article is about. If NSOs tools have been used to hack journalists in Saudi Arabia or United Arab Emirate or Mexico, that's not a violation of USA laws; and if this has happened according to the legal permissions of the respective government (no matter how lax or arbitrary granting these legal permissions may be) then it's not a violation of any law; if we look from the purely legal perspective and not the moral one, it's perfectly legitimate for sovereign states to make laws that abuse their journalists as much as the state wants as long as it doesn't rise to the level of crimes against humanity. Almost any act or argument against a dictatorship abusing their people is inherently political, not legal.
One incident where NSO may be in hot water is the hacking of Rania Dridi described in the original article if the events happened in London (it's unclear to me from the description) - then this may be cause to assert that NSO are complicit in violating UK law (but not USA law).
I am speaking in more general terms regarding the history of NSO and pegasus.
I am not certain if Jamal's phone itself was hacked but if it was then, in all likelihood, his phone was hacked while he was residing in the US.
His compatriot, who lives in Canada, was definitely hacked using pegasus and that happened in Canada.
I have no hope that the UK government would do anything about this unless the Qataris apply pressure.
The whole "assist[ing] in getting journalists arrested/murdered/dismembered" thing still seems like pretty good justification to me. I'm not sure "but everyone else is doing it!" makes that acceptable. Requiring that we deal with every single one of those problems simultaneously else we shouldn't bother with any of them doesn't seem productive.
I'm also not sure I'd describe the refusal to actively fund that behaviour as punishment, but I suppose that's somewhat beside the point.
Then deal with the domestic ones first, the ones we have the most control over. People only care about these issues when the solution is "punish the country," a solution that likely causes more suffering than it stops.
You have to start somewhere. But yes, let’s also cut off all the others you mentioned.
Then start with yourself. I'm not condoning Israel's actions but punishing them for what we still do is tyranny.