
Israel Retaliates to Cyber-Attack with Immediate Physical Action in World First - mzs
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/05/06/israel-retaliates-to-a-cyber-attack-with-immediate-physical-action-in-a-world-first/
======
andrenth
More than 600 rockets were fired into Israel last weekend. It doesn't seem the
retaliation is merely due to a cyber attack.

------
close04
> sends a clear message to any state or non-state actor that threats
> promulgated through cyberspace can and will be met with a physical response

As long as that state is Palestine? Would North Korea, Iran, Russia, US (you
name it) get the same treatment under similar circumstances?

~~~
dogma1138
No because this is part of the current tit for tat conflict that has been
going over the past few days.

If this wasn’t in the midst of 600 rockets being fired this wouldn’t have been
greenlit either.

Blowing up a building in Moscow has a different repercussion to blowing up a
building in Gaza.

Same goes for rockets fired at Israel than say the US or Germany.

I can guarantee to you that if 600 rockets would’ve been fired into the US
from Mexico the response would not have been so limited in scope.

~~~
close04
My point was that the statement should be amended since it sends no such
signal related to hacking.

As for the rest of the reaction, I doubt there are many wars going on right
now in which so many atrocities and war crimes were committed, with the rest
of the world attributing them to a "response to a hack".

~~~
dogma1138
The Israeli Palestinian conflict is irrelevant heck the casualties of it
including all the wars Israel had with it’s Arab neighbors amount to far less
than the ongoing Mexican drug war, not to mention the war in Syria or what has
been going on in the Philippines.

I don’t think you realize just how disproportionate the amount of media
attention this gets.

I can think of many ongoing conflicts both in the region and anywhere else
that are far bigger in scope.

~~~
close04
> if 600 rockets would’ve been fired into the US from Mexico the response
> would not have been so limited in scope.

What I meant is that the reactions are not comparable. If the US used methods
classified as inhuman by every single humanitarian organization that was ever
involved in that conflict, then the hundreds of crude and inefficient rockets
that rarely make victims would be be framed differently. Wars kill but _how_
they kill is the difference.

Even in your examples the official justification usually involved more than a
hack. You can tell how much one party cares about giving legitimacy to its
actions by the effort it puts in building a justification.

~~~
dogma1138
These crudes and inefficient rockets cause billions in damages and the only
reason they don’t cause more casualties is because Israel has bomb shelters,
early warning systems and kinetic interceptors.

As far as the “human rights” organizations go they have little legitimacy
considering how most of them operate and their selection bias.

This is the easiest conflict to cover it’s pretty much risk free and they can
still get Sushi in Tel Aviv over the weekend, same goes for the media there
are more foreign journalists and media staff stationed in Israel than the
entirety of Africa.

I’m not entirely sure what you expect Israel to do besides going back to the
days where they had a suicide bombing on average every 3 days and the
casualties were essentially 1:1 like it was during the mid 90’s and early
2000’s.

Hamas is classified as an enemy of the state by Israel as far as targets go
this is a legitimate target.

Now if you have a solution that does not exchanges casualties on one side for
casualties on the other I’m all ears but until then I don’t see here an
argument other than a misguided appeal to emotions.

~~~
close04
> As far as the “human rights” organizations go they have little legitimacy
> considering how most of them operate and their selection bias

> Hamas is classified as an enemy of the state by Israel as far as targets go
> this is a legitimate target.

Surely your opinion is more legitimate and weighs more than their's right?
Your bias is barely showing, especially when proudly declaring that war
crimes, atrocities, and human rights violations are irrelevant or justified
because "they be the enemy".

It's the kind of explanation you'd imagine was used in the Nuremberg trials by
those who also considered anything done to "the enemy" was justified and
legitimate. I hope you'll excuse me, I'll have to make my exit here before you
plumb new depths of abjection.

I have made my point pretty clearly: considering what happens in that war,
claiming that a hit was the natural response to _hacking_ is both a needless
excuse and a load of BS (given that no other non-Palestinian hacking attempt
triggers this reaction).

------
panarky
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

These 16 words were the pretext for the disastrous US war against Iraq. These
words were false and US officials knew they were false when they were uttered.

But at least after the fact we can examine the evidence and know that our
leaders used yet another false pretext to lead us to catastrophe.

How will we ever determine if a presumed cyber attack (a) actually occurred,
(b) was dangerous enough to justify a response, or (c) could have been dealt
with in some way other than blowing up people?

Seems like the perfect pretext for another catastrophe.

~~~
mfatica
Hamas has been firing missiles at Israel for some time now. Let's not pretend
this is an entirely unprovoked attack, even without the cyber incident they
have been firing missiles at Israel. Why do you jump to defend a terrorist
state?

~~~
panarky
Please read my comment again. I'm not defending anyone.

Why would you accuse me of something so outrageous?

