3 ms·

Hopefully some will ask themselves why the "beacon of democracy" in the region is so ready and open to sell tools used almost solely to prevent the spread of tr

Hopefully some will ask themselves why the "beacon of democracy" in the region is so ready and open to sell tools used almost solely to prevent the spread of true democracy to their neighbours? And then maybe we should all have a long hard think about how this translates to our own disgusting arms industries as a whole.

nobodyCloak 5y ago
A lot can be said about Israel, and this NSO stuff is extremely alarming. However, they also should get some credit as (one of?) the only countries in the Middle East where the laws don’t dictate that people be persecuted and/or killed for being homosexual. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Is there a distinct name for this form or relative of whataboutism where some supposed superiority over some other group on some axis irrelevant to the issue at hand is raised to derail criticism of a regime or other group’s abuses?
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > some axis irrelevant to the issue at hand 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.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      There are straight up dictatorships that protect gay rights and democracies that don't. I don't see why it's a relevant axis.
      - smashah 5y ago
        This tactic of dipping your true intentions in the aesthetics of progress is new and designed to trick people with a north-star cause to sympathize with the oppressor. 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.
        JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > It's relevant because the goal is to delegitimize criticism of apartheid and it's export of oppression to its neighbours 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.
        smashah 5y ago
        It is not equally reductive because one reduction serves to perpetuate oppression, apartheid and empowers regimes that are the architects of roadblocks to progress. And the other reduction aims to remove the obstacles to dismantling all the above. 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.
- justsid 5y ago
  This is the bar we have? If you don’t murder your citizens for being gay you are a good guy and if not then you are bad?
eloff 5y ago
> Hopefully some will ask themselves why the "beacon of democracy" in the region is so ready and open to sell tools used almost solely to prevent the spread of true democracy. 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.
- manquer 5y ago
  Israeli courts have not allowed the case by amnesty international for suing the company saying that ministry of defense supervises the company so yes they are absolutely connected.
  - eloff 5y ago
    That does sound closer to the the relationship between the state and say a defence contractor company. 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.
    - manquer 5y ago
      Refusal to allow to sue on grounds that they are already regulated by the government ministry is basically saying their client list/operations is approved by the government ?
      - eloff 5y ago
        It's basically just that the Israeli ministry of defence has to approve their sales because the software is classified as a weapon. 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.
        manquer 5y ago

nobodyCloak 5y ago

A lot can be said about Israel, and this NSO stuff is extremely alarming. However, they also should get some credit as (one of?) the only countries in the Middle East where the laws don’t dictate that people be persecuted and/or killed for being homosexual. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel

dragonwriter 5y ago
Is there a distinct name for this form or relative of whataboutism where some supposed superiority over some other group on some axis irrelevant to the issue at hand is raised to derail criticism of a regime or other group’s abuses?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > some axis irrelevant to the issue at hand 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.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    There are straight up dictatorships that protect gay rights and democracies that don't. I don't see why it's a relevant axis.
    - smashah 5y ago
      This tactic of dipping your true intentions in the aesthetics of progress is new and designed to trick people with a north-star cause to sympathize with the oppressor. 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.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > It's relevant because the goal is to delegitimize criticism of apartheid and it's export of oppression to its neighbours 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.
        smashah 5y ago
        It is not equally reductive because one reduction serves to perpetuate oppression, apartheid and empowers regimes that are the architects of roadblocks to progress. And the other reduction aims to remove the obstacles to dismantling all the above. 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.
justsid 5y ago
This is the bar we have? If you don’t murder your citizens for being gay you are a good guy and if not then you are bad?

eloff 5y ago

> Hopefully some will ask themselves why the "beacon of democracy" in the region is so ready and open to sell tools used almost solely to prevent the spread of true democracy. 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.

manquer 5y ago
Israeli courts have not allowed the case by amnesty international for suing the company saying that ministry of defense supervises the company so yes they are absolutely connected.
- eloff 5y ago
  That does sound closer to the the relationship between the state and say a defence contractor company. 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.
  - manquer 5y ago
    Refusal to allow to sue on grounds that they are already regulated by the government ministry is basically saying their client list/operations is approved by the government ?
    - eloff 5y ago
      It's basically just that the Israeli ministry of defence has to approve their sales because the software is classified as a weapon. 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.
      - manquer 5y ago