Given that Israel has universal conscription you might just as well call them Israeli and be done with it.
On the other hand, whenever people tout “ex Israeli military” as a positive or negative, I also find it silly. That’s the vast majority of the country!
99XX and 81XX are each more than 1% of the active IDF personnel and they are much smaller than 8200.
Stop actively and vocally supporting the violent consolidation of power that the murder was part of?
> We can't go to war over some guy who wasn't even our citizen, killed in Turkey, by a foreign government.
We could, especially since he was a US permanent resident and a journalist for US publications; we won't, but then going to war isn't exactly the only possible action.
As well as he aforementioned steps, we could just stop aiding the war being wages by he regime.that committed the murder. The political threshold of support for such an action is much lower than going to war.
But again, this Khashoggi guy is one guy, a Saudi citizen...not ours. We don't deal with any other country like this...what makes Khashoggi so important as to disrupt treaties and trade deals between nations?
The purpose of trade is to serve people, not the other way around. Whoops, I meant make a lot of money for corporations.
Also, even if you approach this from a pure self-interest angle, at some point, the US might start to lose influence if they keep undermining their own stated values, not to mention allowing other powers to murder their residents with impunity.
Also, if the Americans are looking for a reason to get involved, his son is American.
My guess is this case was specifically targeted by media influencing government agencies to exert pressure on SA.
The case itself is also almost a perfect fit - a good link to the USA and English speaking world, very solid evidence collected by Turkey, etc.
I suspect there are also some where there is reasonable evidence a foreign state was involved, but the victim simply wasn't sufficiently noteworthy for the media to care, and the case not being worthy of getting high level politicians involved in. For a state, using the brief time the president has talking to another state president to discuss a missing person rather than finalizing a new trade deal is a bad move.
We're hearing more about Khashoggi because he was a journalist, I suppose.
If these things happened all of the time they wouldn't be reported in national papers. A mugging in San Francisco isn't in the Washington Post.
He was a columnist for The Washington Post. He was known for having interviewed Osama Bin Laden a couple times.
News was slow and after the Chinese trade imbalance/conflict (finally someone stepped up to address it), so it looked like there was news to be had against another objectively-bad-government. Even if just to see what Trump might do to resolve (or sabotage) our uncomfortably close relationship. Nope, he just tried to promote it like the moron he is, in context of the assassination.
I really wish he woulda dumped another of these 19th century (depending on when they became stable) strategic allies, as I'm certain there's 0 chance the next POTUS will.
There are many, many methods of leverage short of war. International relations happens all the time between every country on earth; only a tiny number of those interactions involves violence. In fact, a primary job of the people who practice international relations is to get things done without risking wars - sort of like doctors whose job is to get things done without killing the patient.
> some guy who wasn't even our citizen, killed in Turkey, by a foreign government
Human rights are widely considered to be universal, both in philosophy and in law. The U.S.'s own Declaration of Independence says 'all men are created equal ...'; it doesn't say 'all Americans'. Also, it's widely believed that if you let human rights deteriorate elsewhere, you are creating more risk for yourself. If your next door neighbor doesn't have freedom, there are many reasons to think you might be next. Finally, free, democratic countries tend to be much better partners on the world stage - they tend to be peaceful, stable, and prosperous.
Finally, Khashoggi was a journalist, which implicates a specific human right, freedom of the press.
> not doing business with any non-democratic countries
That would be a pretty extreme measure; I don't think anyone, or anyone respected, is calling for it. Another drawback to disengaging completely is that you lose future leverage; it's a punishment, in a way, but once it's done then you have no more relationship with the other party. 'I'm taking my ball and going home' is very amateur diplomacy.
> The U.S. should serve as an inspirational example as it did in the past but we can't be nation builders and all-out imperialists.
The choice of the U.S. isn't all or nothing - be purely "inspirational" or be "all-out imperialists". The U.S.'s soft power - the inspiration - was very potent until Trump, and to a smaller degree GW Bush, said democracy and human rights weren't a priority. It still could be revived to a significant degree. But there are other solutions, including the following:
* Intervene in ways that are efficient and effective. The U.S. can't help every country, and many interventions are ineffective. But lots of research and experience show what works in which scenarios.
* Support international law and norms that pressure regimes in the right direction. The UN in general plays a major role. The Responsibility to Protect, for example, was developed after Rwanda's massacres in the 1990s and, generally speaking, requires each government to protect the welfare of its citizens (rather than massacre them) and says the government is illegitimate otherwise. The International Criminal Court holds political leaders legally responsible for crimes (though I don't know that the U.S. officially supports it).
* Support mechanisms that provide stability, such as the World Bank (which supports infrastructure and other needs) and the International Monetary Fund (which loans governments money to prevent bankruptcies).
They’re doing what they can and should do via policy decisions. I don’t remember reading a piece thus far where going to war with Suadia Arabia and Mohammed bin Salman was even a scenario.
By trying to minimize this act as something that “happens all the time” is partially due to society viewing these acts as normal for them.
One thing that I thought of that legislatures in sovereign countries could do is to pass a law that adds a clause to all military equipment contracts carried out by their constituent corporations that allows such cancellations in the case of human rights violations. It wouldn't help with the current event, but it might for future ones.
Sanction the NSO Group.
Just sanction their oil sales, crank up production everywhere else to compensate. It would hurt but could certainly be done. Then demand they stop waging genocide on Yemen, and demand they convert from a brutal dictatorial monarchy to a democratic republic with actual human rights for women. Or something like that. We could do all that, but we wont.
The reason we wont is that we need Saudi Arabia to wage our (the US', the Wests') wars in the Middle East, and right now they've just lost their play in Syria, and the west is hoping that all those ISIS fighters they've deployed through Saudi Arabia that are leaving Syria will find a home in the desert in SA somewhere, instead of coming to us in the West. So right now, nobody wants to upset them, and so we get a nice show of the hypocrisy of our leaders, who speak of human rights only when convenient, while being friends with a psychopathic serial killer.
From the perspective of NSO developers, they are helping prevent the next attack against civilians somewhere. I can’t fault them for that.
in some societies it’s “immoral” not to rape someone as punishment or to not kill a “unclean” ethnicity and your definition supports that
Most societies make an exception for killing enemies of the state. Soldiers are seen as heroes fighting for their country not as immoral killers.
They are selling spy software to regimes that are known to kill civilians. Ergo they are not preventing attacks against civilians; they are enabling attacks against civilians. No moral relativism necessary.
Even with respect to Israel’s “counter” terrorism efforts, if the NSO development team’s motivation is to prevent attacks on civilians, then enabling Israel to attack and kill civilians is something for which they are morally culpable.
However, even the lebensraum concept has undertones of defense against a threat rather than pure conquest: the term itself refers to space as a necessity for life rather than the object of simple greed. The lebensraum was considered by Nazi ideology "necessary for the survival" of the German race, against the threat of "inferior and decaying races". As far as I can understand it, the whole Nazi ideology is informed by a vision of history as a zero sum game and by a "triumph or perish" attitude- so that every aggression can be justified as a necessary and ultimately defensive move.
You can argue that it’s not a proportional response, but there’s a clear editorial bias to refer to one side of a force exchange as “civilian” and the other as “deadly”.
When's the last time your country restrained itself after being hit by 460 rockets in one day?
> the IDF has barely done anything besides bomb empty buildings.
The immediate retaliation for those rocket strikes killed three people. How is that "barely anything?"
Fixed that for you.
The fact, that majority of its population can enjoy relatively peaceful life is thanks to organizational, and technological superiority of Israeli military. Which depends on work of Israeli engineers whose motivation is therefore exactly the same: do military tech to stop anti-Israeli "Axis".
I would presume because they weren't sold the idea that what they were doing had any other express intent-purpose or plausible outcome for use even used by the people they worked for, which alone I think warrants a different group to compare this situation to.
Say what now?
The Israeli combatant to non-combatant death ratio is among the best in the world, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
If anything developing such software would be a moral imperative, not something to be upset about.
So, what other options does Israel have? Let the combatants do whatever they want?
Are you seriously implying someone should not work for the Israeli military because of civilian accidents?
What's your endgame here? Israel should give up and let millions of people be murdered?
abalone has a severely skewed moral filter to say "this does not absolve NSO's software engineers from moral culpability" - he would rather millions of Israeli citizens get murdered?
I really hope you are not in any way agreeing with him because it is a truly loathsome thing to say, and I was absolutely shocked to see someone just causally speak like that.
The only moral thing to do here is do an even better job at this type of software to make the civilian casualty ratio even better.
That first step is a bit hard, but I assume you have some plan for that, considering it was your idea?
That way its neighbours actually enjoy their presence in the region.
But, as long as Israelis continue to justify the wanton murder of civilians as their 'right as Israelis', then there will be calls for the destruction of their state. Whether this is moral or not, is as yet undecided...
Neither Israel nor Sweden kill vast amount of civilians. The fact that you write that is very concerning.
And the fact that you think it's Israel's fault that Arabs want to exterminate it is just ......... I don't even know what to write to someone like you.
If you can't think of anything to say in response, might I suggest that you either don't know the subject as well as you think, or you know the person you are arguing with is right and you have no retort.
Israel regularly shoots and kills unarmed civilians for standing too close to a fence.
>So, what other options does Israel have? Let the combatants do whatever they want?
They are unarmed civilians, standing near a fence.
>Are you seriously implying someone should not work for the Israeli military because of civilian accidents?
Yes, one should not involve themselves in a violent force that regularly murders civilians for standing too close to a fence.
>What's your endgame here? Israel should give up and let millions of people be murdered?
They can start by not murdering the desperate civilians protesting the blockade and destruction of their homes by standing too close to a fence.
>he would rather millions of Israeli citizens get murdered?
Millions of Israelis are not at risk of being murdered by the unarmed civilians standing near fences.
>The only moral thing to do here is do an even better job at this type of software to make the civilian casualty ratio even better.
The most moral thing to do would be to pressure Israel to stop murdering civilians for standing too near a fence.
Or maybe these https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/959z60/hamas... ?
This "story" that they were a bunch of unarmed civilians near a fence is completely fictional. It was actually a bunch of combatants mixed in with civilians, and Israel worked very hard to be selective. The accidents are terrible, no doubt about it, but no other army in the history of war has done better.
If there were no attacks on civilians, that certainly makes you wonder if they could've avoided conflict by simply not sending their troops there.
And then Hamas agents would breach the fence and enter Israel. And you think that's a good idea, why exactly?
Certain types of software engineering attract these kinds of mindsets, in fact. Totalitarian-authoritarianism is a big problem in the technology world; its subtle effects all too easy to ignore, subjectively, when the mindset starts to take hold ..
and the technologies generally weren't trendy, PRIORITIES
It's a great question. Sadly, people have been making money on such things since the first tools were invented. Think about all the weapons manufacturers, for example. Think of the oppressors, killer, and torturers that rule and that serve the regimes - are they a different species than software engineers?
But the question is, why? What leads people to do it? I don't buy simplistic answers such as, 'they don't care'.
Cash Rules Everything Around Me -- Wu-Tang.
Did they have physical access to the devices? Was it all remote? Is it even feasible on an individual level and what would be the alternative(Signal? Telegram?)?
>The entrepreneur, who spoke to Motherboard on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the meeting, agreed, but said that NSO would have to target his other iPhone, which he brought with him and had a foreign phone number. He gave NSO that phone number and put the phone on the desk.
>After “five or seven minutes,” the contents of his phone’s screen appeared on a large display that was set up in the meeting room, all without him even clicking on a malicious link, he said.
>“I see clicking on all kinds of icons: email icon, SMS icon, and other icons,” he told Motherboard. “And suddenly I saw all my messages in there and I saw all the email in there and they were capable to open any information that was on my [iPhone].”
Encryption wouldn't help you in this case since you can just record the strokes (maybe see the screen) like the regular user would see.
Not sure how they'd do this though, maybe he was using Android?
Here's a wiki article about him on a Las Vegas based hacking forum https://wiki.hackforums.net/index.php?title=Nokia2mon2
He did not make any efforts to conceal his identity.
Also NYTimes: Israeli Software Helped Saudis...
Personally, I'm saying it's roughly as anti-semitic as Sheryl Sandberg hiring someone to say something true about George Soros -- as in, neither is anti-semitic. But I think the bigger issue is the double-standard.
> Because of those sweepingly invasive capabilities, Israel classifies the spyware as a weapon. The company must obtain approval from the Defense Ministry for its sale to foreign governments.
Does the U.S. use such classification for spyware and similar tools? What are the standards which determine whether or not it's a weapon?
They are going to ask questions after the Saudis splashing $55m? As if they needed to ask questions. It's known why Russia, China, SA, UAE, Sudan and the likes want these programs