Someone asked why Israel is considered a "beacon of democracy" in the region. That opens the conversation to why liberal democracies elevate it over the region's autocracies. The tolerance it shares with other liberal documents is germane.
Unfortunately it only takes a few brain cycles for even the simplest of persons to realise that upholding apartheid because #girlpower is a sad stretch and a half.
It's relevant because the goal is to delegitimize criticism of apartheid and it's export of oppression to its neighbours.
There is no other point of relevance to my original comment and, in all honesty, it amounts to blatant propogandising. I'll just leave it at that.
It's equally reductive to ignore those progressive elements on account of certain elements of repression.
It doesn't make them less murderous. And it doesn't de-legitimize criticism. But reality doesn't offer perfect choices. Every government is flawed; most have redeeming values. We must balance the former against the latter. Armchair enthusiasts can imagine perfect options, but reality isn't that forgiving to decision makers.
Israel's unregulated spyware, bordering on terrorism, is an international issue. Its apartheid state is an international issue. But the freedoms it affords a large number of its citizens stands in sharp contrast to its neighbors. That, too, is of international interest. Acknowledging that is not a diversion and does not de-legitimize the criticism--it contextualists it.
The only way the contextualisation is relevent to the original comment is if there's some value in appending this racist myth that "if those Arabs had their say then women would be on leashes and gays would be made into smoothies on-sight". Ironically, the contextualisation is the status quo. The contextualisation is a direct result of, among other things, Israel and it's complicit export of cyber oppression weapons.
And before someone claims that this is separate from the state, just consider that the export license would not be granted for a sale which would be detrimental to Israel's interests as a state. The base deduction is that it's in the interest of the state to keep its neighbours citizens in-check and for Israel to be known worldwide to be an exporter of these exact tools.
I think you're conflating Israel the state with this Israeli company. AFAIK it has no ties to the state, and should no more be conflated with it than we should conflate McAfee or Facebook with the USA.
That doesn't mean everything the company does is to support the objectives of the state, or approved by the state, but it does mean they're not unaffiliated either.
You can't conflate that with the company being an extension of the state though, as the GP did.
They're separate entities with separate objectives. A reasonable comparison would be to Lockheed Martin or Raytheon in the US.
Lockheed Martin is not going to sell to China right ? So saying say for example sales of weapops to Saudi Arabia used to kill civilians in Yemen is not supported by U.S. does not hold water. US also absolutely is responsible for any weapons being sold to countries with questionable government and human rights practices
In both cases they are complict and responsibile for failing to regulate adequately. Israel is additionally responsible as they are also shielding the company from being sued.