
Israel accused of planting mysterious spy devices near the White House - spzx
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house-spying-devices-1491351
======
scottlocklin
It's not like the Israelis haven't done this before and not paid any
consequences for it.

2000: [https://www.wrmea.org/000-june/despite-coverup-israel-
caught...](https://www.wrmea.org/000-june/despite-coverup-israel-caught-
spying-in-washington-again.html)

2015 caught greasing politicians: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-net-
on-israel-snares-co...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-net-on-israel-
snares-congress-1451425210)

2011:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us/08spy.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us/08spy.html)

2015: [https://theintercept.com/2015/03/25/netanyahus-spying-
denial...](https://theintercept.com/2015/03/25/netanyahus-spying-denial-
directly-contradicted-secret-nsa-documents/)

2014: [https://www.newsweek.com/israels-aggressive-spying-us-
mostly...](https://www.newsweek.com/israels-aggressive-spying-us-mostly-
hushed-250278)

1999: [https://nypost.com/1999/03/03/israel-blackmailed-bill-
with-m...](https://nypost.com/1999/03/03/israel-blackmailed-bill-with-monica-
tapes-spy-hunt-ended-after-mossad-bugged-prez-sex-chats-book-exclusive/)

2019: [https://thebulletin.org/2019/02/trained-in-israeli-
intellige...](https://thebulletin.org/2019/02/trained-in-israeli-intelligence-
agencies-former-spies-get-involved-in-us-elections-as-private-sector-
information-warriors/)

2018: [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-firm-
bl...](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-firm-black-cube-
says-hired-by-business-entity-not-trump-1.6063162)

2018: [https://www.thenation.com/article/how-israel-spies-on-us-
cit...](https://www.thenation.com/article/how-israel-spies-on-us-citizens/)

First page of a google search on "Israel spying on US" excluding last few
weeks.

This one's my favorite though: Netanyahu and some Hollywood freak were
apparently involved in stealing atomb bomb triggers from the US:

[https://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/netanyahu-implicated-in-
nucle...](https://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/netanyahu-implicated-in-nuclear-
smuggling-from-u-s-big-story-in-israel/)

I mean, they're in non compliance with the NPT, so they shouldn't receive any
foreign aid, but good luck on that.

~~~
chimi
Without support from the USA, it would not be possible for Israel to defend
itself. Much of their spying on the USA is not to harm the USA, but to ensure
the USA is still on _their_ side. I don't think they want to hurt the USA, but
I do think they would support an opponent of a politician that had been
"heard" expressing a lack of interest in financial and military support _for_
Israel.

~~~
remarkEon
So, their spying is justified because they need to know in advance if US
politicians wouldn’t fully support a potential WWIII-esque intervention on
their behalf, ostensibly so they could throw their own support behind a
different US politician?

And this is ... not viewed as insane by normal people?

~~~
chimi
I'm not justifying it. I'm explaining Israel's rationale for doing it.

I am staunchly opposed to national borders. I don't think it's right to
discriminate against people for where they are born.

IMO, all human beings should be allowed to freely travel and work anywhere on
planet earth.

EDIT: Or outer space for that matter...

~~~
i_call_solo
The No Borders belief is very idealistic. How does that work with state
benefits like universal healthcare? And taxes? Yes it would be nice to be able
to pick up and live/work anywhere but it's not as simple as one might think.

~~~
chimi
Why are nations geographical? Corporations are not bound by borders. You get
benefits from your employer. You pay for insurance for the insurance benefits.
If you don't work and don't pay taxes, you still get benefits from the govt
just because you were born there. There's no need to _earn_ anything.

It's all just random chance and it seems very unfair to me that being citizen
of a first world nation affords you a good quality of life, while someone born
somewhere else has bombs going off outside and isn't allowed to leave.

Imagine being trapped in a horrible situation with no freedom to escape.

It's not right. Nation states are anachronistic at best.

~~~
coldtea
> _Why are nations geographical?_

The same way family houses are geographical. Because the people in them live
on some place, cater for it, historically inherit it, and do as they please
inside their own premises.

Nations are groups of people who grew in the same area, had gone through the
same historical experiences (e.g. attacks, famines, wars, etc), worked
together to make their place better, and built their culture and cultivated
their ways of life over centuries, often making heavy sacrifices to free and
keep their land...

> _Corporations are not bound by borders_

Corporations also don't belong to their "citizens" (employees) but to the few
owners/shareholders, are not bound by democracy (they are despotic kingdoms
internally), and only care for profit, and would "exile" (fire) any number of
their "citizens" (employees) if the profits said so. So not the best example
to base social paradigms on...

> _It 's not right. Nation states are anachronistic at best._

According to most scholars, the nation state is a product of enlightenment and
modernity.

We had empires before.

And federal like unions, are just nation states minus the political autonomy
(sovereignty), so decisions are made by some bureaucrats away from where it
matters.

------
kryogen1c
> The U.S. government concluded within the last two years that Israel was most
> likely behind

> But unlike most other occasions

I don't know if im spoiled by Wikipedia, or jaded from age, or wisened by age,
or rightfully lost trust in the media, or wrongfully lost trust in the media,
but i find myself entirely unwilling to accept to accept claims like this.

Citation. Needed.

In order to believe this article, i need to learn about this publication, and
then learn about the author, and then learn about this article specifically.

This shit is so much work. We need a new reporting format. Citationless
articles are too infotainment-y for me now.

~~~
habnds
Citations in journalism is a really interesting thing. Unlike science, where
at least in theory, everything is built from the ground up using first
principles or built upon raw data collected, the "raw data" of journalism is
just various types of conversations with people the journalist then has to
verify, and gauge the reliability of. In other cases it's the journalists
first person experience of an event.

Citations, (IMHO) aren't a solution to this because human judgement is
inherent in explaining human behavior and events.

I personally don't think efforts to "fix the news" as a result of facebook or
whatever make a lot of sense in this context. Instead, consumers of news need
to habitually engage in the process that you call too much work.

I agree that it's a lot of work, but I don't see an alternative to critically
engaging with reporting on human events.

~~~
roenxi
Wikipedia does context amazingly well. If I go to the Wikipedia article on
sandals I not only get information on sandals, I get information about why
people might want to look at an article on sandals (eg, infectious disease
control) and if I care to drill a little deeper a list of all the people who
cared enough about sandals to edit the article. And a talk page to cover any
controversies although sandals appear to be an uncontroversial subject.

Jumping to this article however I lose 80% of that. This article is light on
that data and metadata. I can't tell much about the author (I can see his last
5 articles though) and I certainly can't tell what is primary research or not.
Did this journalist see the 'cell-phone surveillance devices'? Is he working
off a press release? Are there challenges to this narrative viewpoint? Is this
written more out of a sense of entertainment or is there an effort being made
not to embellish facts?

I'm going to guess that GP meant 'Citation needed' in a slightly broader sense
than just name-the-source. There is a whole culture of open metadata and
transparency that has grown up in the last two decades that is simply better
than journalism. Wikipedia is trustworthy because the slightest suspicion can
be investigated. It is frustrating to think that we are going to rely on
journalism for political information when the articles are simply devoid of
political context in the sense that is freely available on Wikipedia.

~~~
habnds
Just putting myself in the shoes of someone at Politico, I think they would
point out a few things.

Is it reasonable to compare this article to a wikipedia article? The
publishing time frame and the number of people involved are way different.
Wikipedia isn't intended to be a source for current events. It isn't
journalism.

Maybe more importantly, is Wikpedia really an objective or fair look at an
issue? For sandals sure, but look up a controversial event page and I bet
things start to seem more questionable. That's a point where the reputation of
a newspaper is an advantage over Wikpedia because at wikipedia, each page,
each sentence can have a different author with a different viewpoint or
agenda.

Is the author as important as the publication itself? The editors are the ones
making final decisions on things. For example, The Economist doesn't even use
bylines. Journalists see themselves as researchers more than authors. The role
of the "Author" if there is one is the editor.

An exhuastively cited and sourced article is difficult to read. The narrative
is easily lost, and the source content is skipped over by most readers. And
you still need to spend a lot of time combing through the source matter for it
to be a meaningful improvement over an unsourced article

Last, journalists rely on an idea of common knowledge. They aren't going to
provide sourcing on a commmonly reported facts like "stingray-like devices
have been found near the whitehouse". That isn't as true in academia where
citations probably would be used for that type of fact.

Overall, I'm not unsimpathetic to what you and OP are saying, I think with the
internet news media could link articles and sources together better for easier
validation.

However, the idea that this type of stuff can eliminate the need for a high
level of engagement with the news, critical thinking skills, I don't agree
with.

~~~
nradov
There are many Wikipedia pages on current, ongoing events. The editors even
label them as such. So apparently it is intended for that purpose.

~~~
habnds
This?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events)

which led me to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_protests](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_protests)

Its sources are the very articles that are being criticized in this thread.

Wikipedia isn't a news gathering organization. It aggregates information
collected by others.

------
wahern
2019:

> An Israeli Embassy spokesperson, Elad Strohmayer, denied that Israel placed
> the devices and said: “These allegations are absolute nonsense. Israel
> doesn’t conduct espionage operations in the United States, period.”

2014 ([https://www.newsweek.com/israel-wont-stop-spying-
us-249757](https://www.newsweek.com/israel-wont-stop-spying-us-249757)):

> Aaron Sagui told Newsweek "Israel doesn't conduct espionage operations in
> the United States, period. We condemn the fact that such outrageous, false
> allegations are being directed against Israel."

I have to say, placing stingrays around D.C. is pretty bold, but not exactly
surprising. It's not even an open secret that Israel aggressively spies in the
U.S.; it just is what it is, I guess.

~~~
writepub
And how's this different from America spying on Israel, or any of the five
eyes nations it claims to not spy against?

Every country spies on everyone else.

~~~
wahern
Every country spies on everyone else, including allies. But the extent and
depth of Israeli spying in the U.S. is considered to be particularly extreme
for allies. Importantly, there are rarely any repercussions, and Israel never
cops to it, which is sort of a slap in the face.

When it was discovered that the U.S. was tapping Angela Merkel's cellphone
there was public outrage in Germany, shock in the international community, and
substantial consequences in terms of further reduced intelligence cooperation.
It's worthwhile to mention that U.S. and German intelligence sharing is much
more limited than between the U.S. and Israel, which is _why_ Obama approved
the tapping in the first place.

When U.S. espionage efforts in Japan were publicized, Obama ended up
_apologizing_ to Shinzo Abe.

AFAIK, the only other ally in recent U.S. history (past 50 years) that came
close to the extent and depth of Israeli espionage is France. But nobody in
the U.S. gave them a pass, either.

There are countless ways to distinguish Israeli efforts. Attempts to
equivocate here basically amount to whataboutism. Until recently it would be
hard to make strong value judgments because Israel is of course a sovereign
nation with its own self interests, and their obnoxious spying seemed harmless
enough considering they know how to keep a secret and were careful not to
obstruct finalized Washington policy. But the problem with spying is that it
can injure trust, and allies need to be able to trust each other as much as
practicable. Now that Israel doesn't even pretend to be non-partisan wrt
American politics, and even aggressively lobbied to kill the signed & sealed
Iran nuclear deal, their efforts have arguably crossed a line even given the
"special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel. (OTOH, I wonder which came
first, the stingrays or Trumps public disclosure of secret Israeli
intelligence. Perhaps Israel took the risk partly because of their distrust in
Trump, either his honesty generally or at least his ability to keep a secret.)

~~~
writepub
Regardless of the attempt here at painting a country's foreign policy as
partisan, any given country favors one U.S. party over the other. Right now,
China probably favors a Democrat led government, so does Iran. The U.S.
probably favors one Israeli party over the other. Your entire issue with this
is likely because you perceive Israeli spying to oppose your political party.
On those lines, would you classify Chinese/Iranian spying efforts as harmless,
just because they currently bat for the Democrats? Or Canada, given that they
are allied?

Also, it is being taken as fact that Israel is the originator of the sting
rays, when in reality this isn't conclusive.

I believe the U.S. and Israel have proportionate response to each other being
caught spying, it makes _zero_ common sense for the U.S. to undermine it's own
national security by repeatedly going easy on Israel.

So, citations outstanding on the following open ended claims made:

1\. Extent and depth of Israeli spying in the U.S. is considered to be
particularly extreme (and U.S spying in Israel isn't)

2\. US is easy on Israeli spying efforts despite Israel being hard on US
spying efforts

3\. Israel is definitely behind the sting rays

4\. Your reaction to this story is partisan

~~~
wahern
Because you managed to get under my skin, I'll give you some freebies:

2004: [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-sep-03-na-
spypr...](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-sep-03-na-
spyprobe3-story.html)

2008: [https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-spy-
who...](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-spy-who-loves-
us/)

Notice the thread: Israel is uniquely aggressive, especially as an ally.

This article is full of innuendo and conjecture (they say this up front), but
provides insight into the complex web of business and intelligence
relationships that make it easy for Israel to accomplish electronic
surveillance in the U.S.: [https://www.wired.com/2012/04/shady-companies-
nsa/](https://www.wired.com/2012/04/shady-companies-nsa/)

A specific case of spying intended to undermine U.S. policymaking:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_sc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_scandal)

And the same thing 10 years later, except now patently partisan:
[https://theintercept.com/2015/03/25/netanyahus-spying-
denial...](https://theintercept.com/2015/03/25/netanyahus-spying-denial-
directly-contradicted-secret-nsa-documents/)

Another thread: Allies typically spy on each other to understand their
motivations and to predict their next moves. But Israel is increasingly doing
it to enable them to directly interfere in domestic American politics. Some
might excuse it as Israel being justifiably paranoid about Iran; others won't
excuse it. But you can't deny that it stands apart.

The reported examples are just the tip of the iceberg. As people readily
report, it's widely known/believed that the above is just the tip of the
iceberg. Sometimes this results in misleading and false accusations, but this
is a consequence of consistent, significant, long-term espionage activity, as
well as the fact that their intelligence activities run the gambit of
methodologies (legal and illegal), much of which doesn't fit the Hollywood
definition of espionage.

~~~
writepub
> Because you managed to get under my skin...

I'm not betting on the remainder of your comment being objective. In 2019 if
someone can get under your skin by just politely asking for evidence, maybe
just maybe, you aren't engaging objectively.

Nonetheless, while there is some evidence pointing to aggressive spying by the
Israelis, if you disconnect it from the context of what the U.S. does in
Israel, the suggestions of favoritism seem disingenuous.

Most of all, there's no real evidence that 3-letter agencies and career state
department employees, who largely handle domestic and international spying,
would undermine U.S. interests, regardless of who is in the White House.

------
2rsf
> Israel doesn’t conduct espionage operations in the United States, period.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard)

~~~
ceejayoz
In fairness, Israel claims they learned a lesson from that incident and
_implemented_ the policy you're quoting as a result.

 _edit:_ Some weird downvotes here. I'm not saying I believe they don't
actually spy, but they _have_ made that promise:
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/22/israel-
condemn...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/22/israel-condemns-us-
spying-nsa-edward-snowden)

> Since Pollard's conviction, Israel has promised not to spy on the US.
> Israeli ministers said on Sunday that Israel does not spy on the US
> president or defence secretary. "I think we should expect the same relations
> from the US," Steinitz said.

~~~
ghani
> "In another top-secret document seen by the Guardian, dated 2008, a senior
> NSA official points out that Israel aggressively spies on the US. "On the
> one hand, the Israelis are extraordinarily good Sigint partners for us, but
> on the other, they target us to learn our positions on Middle East
> problems," the official says. "A NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] ranked
> them as the third most aggressive intelligence service against the US."

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-
americans-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-
personal-data-israel-documents)

------
factsaresacred
> _In 2010, the secret covers of a Mossad hit team, some of whom had been
> posing as tennis players, were blown after almost 30 minutes of surveillance
> video was posted online of them going through a luxury Dubai hotel where
> they killed a top Hamas terrorist in his room._

For those who have not yet seen the footage in question, here it is:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJujIwtdk8w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJujIwtdk8w)

Captivating stuff.

~~~
electriclove
Thank you for sharing! It is quite incredible how they were able to piece all
that footage together!

------
stateofnounion
Not surprising.

It's intriguing to think about how this might intersect with the recently
departed Jeffery: [https://www.mintpressnews.com/mega-group-maxwells-mossad-
spy...](https://www.mintpressnews.com/mega-group-maxwells-mossad-spy-story-
jeffrey-epstein-scandal/261172/)

~~~
hbosch
There are a lot of people in this thread oddly pointing links to this "Mint
Press News" site. For anyone curious and reading my comment, don't click. It's
a propaganda site and has almost no reputation for trustworthiness or
accuracy.

------
gnu8
I still don’t understand how the Stingray is a saleable product. There’s no
way such a device could obtain FCC certification, or for a prospective user to
obtain a license to operate one. So notwithstanding the fact that the
government wants these things, Harris shouldn’t be making or selling these
things, and rightfully belongs in jail.

~~~
souterrain
Harris can manufacture this under the guise it’s never intended for use within
the U.S. They can claim it is for counter-insurgency surveillance in certain
central Asian countries.

Alternatively, they could seek FCC OET authorization for the product as test
equipment, but I doubt it, and my quick searches have yielded nothing.

I suspect this is why Harris, FBI and other LEAs conceal their use [1].

1\. [https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-stingray-
mu...](https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-stingray-murder-
evidence-suppressed-20160425-story.html)

------
zed88
Tbh...with the kind of politics in the world, I won't be surprised if US is
doing the same to Israelis or some other country.

Another example would be Turkey bugging the Saudi Embassy in Khashoggi
killing.

But the other thing that irks me is how easily one can get labelled an
antisemite for an honest cricism of Israeli politics.

------
cwkoss
With the billions of dollars the US gives to Israel as foreign aid every year,
we are arguably funding the spying on ourselves.

------
buyingarmor
Israel and the U.S are extremely strong alliance

Also the Mossad is working a lot with the secret service in the U.S

I believe there is a deeper reason behind those actions that won't be revealed
to us (it can also explain the lack of actions of the U.S towards this case)

~~~
deathhand
Leaks have shown that with the 5 eyes 'one hand washes another' and probably
spying on US citizens on behest of the US.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
Israel isn’t part of five eyes.

~~~
corey_moncure
True but I don't think it refutes GP's central point.

The intelligence community has their hands tied when it comes to their own
citizens due to strong constitutional protections, so in order to get what
they desire, they operate quasi-extrajudicially (i.e. exploit a loophole)
where they just get a friendly foreign power to do the spying and then trade
intelligence for intelligence on their own citizens. I'm pretty sure this kind
of scheme is behind GP's post and such an arrangement is not limited to
members of the five eyes.

------
stefd
Wondering if this might explain similar spying around the Canadian
parliament...

[https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-csis-cell-
surveillance...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-csis-cell-
surveillance-1.4701449)

------
mmoez
As Robert Greene said, "You have more to fear from your friends than your
enemies."

------
dahart
> The miniature surveillance devices, colloquially known as “StingRays,” mimic
> regular cell towers to fool cell phones into giving them their locations and
> identity information.

I realize that roaming is a thing, and I don’t know how cellular protocols
work, but I am curious why at this point phones don’t connect to towers
anonymously, authenticate towers by default, encrypt identity, etc..? Surely
the phone could be made to ask you before attaching to a service of unknown
origin without compromising you, especially in higher security scenarios. Is
this difficult or impossible to do for some reason? Is it already in the works
and just not here yet?

~~~
Miner49er
Even if it is possible, why would it ever be implemented?

The vast majority of users don't care about this. And even if they did, it's
not like there's any real competition in cellular carriers, so there still
wouldn't be incentive for carriers to implement this.

On the flip side, there is lots of demand from law enforcement for them _not_
to. Law enforcement uses stingrays and would certainly pressure carriers to
not implement something that stops them from continuing.

~~~
dahart
Isn't that a bit like asking why HTTPS would ever be implemented, and saying
that the vast majority of users don't care about internet privacy, and law
enforcement would very much prefer we don't use encryption? The reason I see
it being implemented is to prevent StingRay from being a thing.

~~~
smhenderson
The barriers to entry for building HTTPS software are a lot lower than
building out cellular infrastructure. For HTTPS you have a lot of altruistic
people and companies, like letsencrypt and Mozilla willing to give some
resources to make HTTPS everywhere possible.

There really isn’t a similar entity in the cellular carrier world. Trying to
start something new tomorrow that is more secure would take a huge investment
and would likely take a very long time to recoup that investment in today’s
climate, as mentioned it’s not enough to get regular users to switch.

So unless the government mandates it which I think we all agree is not in
their best interest or some very rich person comes along and offers carriers a
compelling reason to switch I just don’t see it happening.

And I totally agree with you that it should be done. I just don’t see how
given where we are today.

~~~
dahart
> The barriers to entry for building HTTPS software are a lot lower than
> building out cellular infrastructure.

Why assume extra cell security would be a hardware build-out? Surely all
towers in existence can get remote firmware upgrades, the same way all of
todays routers can?

> For HTTPS you have a lot of altruistic people and companies, like
> letsencrypt and Mozilla willing to give some resources to make HTTPS
> everywhere possible.

That seems true in retrospect, but there was lots resistance to, and futility
thinking about HTTPS before it happened, I remember it, I was there. It only
seems like there are altruistic people helping now that it basically is
everywhere and now that it’s easy & cheap to do, and everyone knows it’s a
good idea.

> So unless the government mandates it

Agreed that’s unlikely to happen, but it doesn’t seem like a real barrier to
me. Maybe GDPR or Europe will take the lead on this one too. But very little
of the security & privacy we have in the US has ever come from a government
mandate, yet we do have some. HTTPS wasn’t a government mandate. They didn’t
oppose it either, possibly because they have keys and/or cooperative ISPs, but
they sure didn’t do anything to push it forward.

> I just don’t see how given where we are today.

Public awareness about the issue for one. Rather than saying it’s futile and
will probably never happen, talking to your friends and family about it will
help. Though we have a super long way to go, improvements in privacy do tend
to happen once the public truly understands how they’re being spied on.
Privacy pushes by Apple and Google could make it happen. Even Apple alone
might be able to make it happen, and they’re currently on the side of privacy.
It might also unfortunately take more widely reported cases of StingRay before
people perk up to this issue.

~~~
smhenderson
True, firmware updates are a possible upgrade path, I don't know much about
cellular hardware so I can't speak to what capabilities can be added that way.

I agree about public awareness but if I'm pessimistic it's because I do talk
to my friends and family about it and they all think I'm just paranoid. :-)

They just can't understand why I don't have a FB account, don't use iCloud or
Google Docs. Everyone uses it, they say, how could it be bad if everyone is
using it? Granted having phone calls spied on might get their attention a bit
more but I still get an attitude from people like "I'm not doing anything
wrong, why would they ever listen to or track me?".

------
hsnewman
I know that NSO group, based in Israel, has advanced cell phone hacking
skills. 60 minutes did an article on it a while back:
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/interview-with-ceo-of-nso-
group...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/interview-with-ceo-of-nso-group-
israeli-spyware-maker-on-fighting-terror-khashoggi-murder-and-saudi-
arabia-60-minutes/)

------
stunt
That’s what countries do! Right? Everybody spies on others. Pretty sure the US
and the UK are spying on each other too despite both being five eyes members.

------
exabrial
Sort of related: if you're ever in DC on the Hill, a trip to the Spy Museum is
a worth it if you're into that kind of thing.

------
thefounder
Israel spies on the US and the US spies on Israel (and everyone else)...what
are the news?

------
dstola
Feels like there is quite a bit of an attempt to sway the conversation in the
comments

~~~
TKWasRight
In what way?

------
ndidi
Wait until they find out about all the fleshy spy devices that Israel planted
in the Congress.

------
ceejayoz
It's common knowledge that Trump regularly uses a personal, non-secured iPhone
to communicate with friends and advisers.

[https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/24/18020746/president-
donal...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/24/18020746/president-donald-trump-
iphone-personal-calls-china-russia-spies-eavesdropping)

It'd be malpractice by a major intelligence agency _not_ to attempt this, and
I'd suspect there are a bunch of these things from various countries
(including allies) within range of the White House.

~~~
jpmattia
> _It 'd be malpractice by a major intelligence agency not to attempt this_

And the countermeasure is so simple that even the most simple of simpletons
can understand it.

"Hey, this room is bugged. Don't talk there if you want a private
conversation."

~~~
ceejayoz
"Don't talk about classified stuff around the President because his phone is
probably compromised" is easy to understand, but a difficult instruction to
follow.

~~~
jpmattia
I was kinda assuming that the president would be the simpleton to figure out
that the phone was bugged and take care of the issue. But perhaps I
overestimate simpletons.

------
SuoDuanDao
What does the US get out of the special relationship with Israel? Anti-Israel
sources mostly talk about the strong Jewish lobbies, while pro-Israel sources
mostly cite being the only democracy in the region.

Both seem misleading at best. What's the US's argument from self-interest for
tolerating this kind of thing?

~~~
kstenerud
Israel and Saudi Arabia are America's eyes and ears into the Middle East. It
could have been any nation (indeed, America tried to get Iran as well, but
was... less than successful).

These kinds of relationships require a fair bit of quid pro quo, and of course
for a country like Israel whose very national security depends upon a cozy
relationship with America, it's perfectly understandable that they'd be spying
on American influencers wherever and whenever possible. In fact, it's
unofficially tolerated in the intelligence service as a cost of doing
business. Same goes for the foibles of the crown prince in Saudi Arabia (which
have by now been conveniently forgotten by the press and everyone else).

Once you've made friends who are useful to your grander plans, it's best to
ignore the annoying things they do.

~~~
tracer4201
It’s unfortunate we would rely on either of these countries to be our eyes and
ears. Both are corrupt. Saudi appears worst to us in the west because their
daily way of life isn’t so compatible with western values, especially with
respect to religion in government (or freedom of, rather) and general human
rights and women’s rights.

Israel appears to be democratic but discriminates heavily and are also driven
to a great extent by extremist hardliners and outright corruption (ie
Netanyahu's numbers are down, so he wants to annex more of the West Bank).
Also, you’re not supposed to criticize anything they do out of fear of being
labeled an anti Semite.

~~~
docdeek
Accepting your premise, is there a non-corrupt alternative in the region?

~~~
refurb
This is key. If your filter is to never partner with countries who have done
unethical things, you're never going to partner with anyone.

------
ntetsuo
“On the other hand, guess what we do in Tel Aviv?”

------
not_a_cop75
No...not our "best" ally! I don't believe it!

------
apta
Why the antiemetism?

------
uasm
No proof, no citations, no names. A lot of third person language. Anonymous
"former officials". Great journalism right there!

~~~
AnimalMuppet
On this kind of topic, those who know won't say if it's on the record. You're
lucky for them to say when it's _not_ on the record.

~~~
uasm
> "On this kind of topic, those who know won't say if it's on the record.
> You're lucky for them to say when it's not on the record."

Honest question:

Would WikiLeaks "work" if all we had was anonymous "former officials" making
broad/general statements, providing no proof whatsoever?

What about Snowden's leaks? Imagine a really long article on Politico listing
every single thing exposed in the Snowden docs, but without the
names/documents/specifics. In a style very similar to what we have here in
this Politico piece. Without us even knowing it was leaked by Snowden, but by
some random "former NSA official".

Look, I'm not saying this Politico piece is right or wrong. All I'm saying is
- this piece is making very big statements, backed by absolutely no proof
whatsoever. And yet people are taking out the pitchforks... this isn't
journalism, it's just spreading unsubstantiated FUD. And we should be
discouraging this, not defending it.

------
tryitnow
If this is true can you blame the Israeli government? The US has an incredibly
volatile, unpredictable president. Israel is a country surrounded by states
that are openly hostile and the continued survival of Israel depends, in part,
on the behavior of the US.

I would be disappointed if Israel wasn't doing something like this.

And I'm willing to bet the US government does this sort of stuff all over the
world, including Israel.

~~~
balls187
You don't have to bet.

Wikileaks publicized that very fact that US (NSA) spies (monitors) it's allies
back in 2013.

