Israel tries to limit fallout from the Pegasus spyware scandal • Hacker News Board

Re: Israel tries to limit fallout from the Pegasus spyware scandal

#291

Post by radycov » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 9:26 PM UTC

ohashi wrote: post #188

joelbluminator wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well from an Israeli point of view how is this wrong then? Maintaining a good relationship with Saudi Arabia is a game changer for Israel.

It could become wrong if they lose the support of the west. Imagine the US and EU giving up on Israel. It's a multi dimensional issue and playing nice with their neighbors may be advantageous if nobody knows (publicly). But if they do and there are bigger more important relationships (namely US) start to be put at risk, it could be the wrong move.

No chance, AIPAC, BICOM and various lobby groups ensure politicians are in the pockets of the Israel lobby. This isn't to say other countries don't have corrupt lobbying practices. But the unilateral multibillion dollar IDF funding raies questions.

Re: Israel tries to limit fallout from the Pegasus spyware scandal

#292

Post by stunt » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

We put hackers in jail for building spyware! even those that don't use it themselves to hack a target. Why is it legal for NSO to sell Pegasus?

Re: Israel tries to limit fallout from the Pegasus spyware scandal

#293

Post by effie » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

stjohnswarts wrote: post #265

classified wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Circular arguments are so convenient. And apparently "terrorists" and "criminals" (by whose definition?) have no rights whatsoever, so whatever you do to them cannot be wrong.

terrorists really don't have any right except those afforded to prisoners. They threw those out when they decided to become terrorists.

People don't decide to become terrorists. They are labeled that way.

Re: Israel tries to limit fallout from the Pegasus spyware scandal

#294

Post by bzbarsky » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 9:54 PM UTC

luffapi wrote: post #290

bzbarsky wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that relocation involves creating a new state Creating a new state is what the right to self-determination is all about, yes. It sounds like we have some fundamental disagreements on definitions here, though I would be interested in your take about how you feel the right to self-determination can be meaningfully exercised by a geographically dispersed group, if at all.

I don’t think a new state can ethically be created without a democratic choice to do so by the existing population of a region. I think a humanitarian route would be to lobby for open immigration in existing democracies. For instance, I think we all would have been a lot better off if instead of creating the state of Israel, we offered US citizenship to anyone who needed it after WWII. I’m also a proponent of a moder…

I don't see how open immigration solves the self-determination problem, unless the premise is that:

1) You allow open immigration.

2) You then allow a democratic vote, including by the new immigrants, to partition the existing state (the essence of self-determination).

which comes back to pretty much my original premise: that the only way for a geographically dispersed population to have self-determination is to be able to move to a single area where they can them democratically vote to have that area become autonomous or sovereign...

Needless to say, the pre-existing population of that area would likely not perceive this process favorably.

The other option I see is to posit that in modern democracies the principle of self-determination is unnecessary. I suspect a number of people in Catalonia and Scotland would disagree...

Re: Israel tries to limit fallout from the Pegasus spyware scandal

#295

Post by jessaustin » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 10:01 PM UTC

pulse7 wrote: post #116

jessaustin wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Terrorist sympathizer" is a milder slander than the one they really like to use for critics of Israel's actions, "antisemitic".

Aren't Arabs also "semitic people" [1]? (Since Ishmael and Abraham are also descendants of Shem...). In this case "antisemitic" would also mean "against Arabs"... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

I don't mean to imply that the word makes any sense in this context. However, if one chooses to complain about Israeli abuses of Palestinians, it is a fact that one will be called "antisemitic".

Re: Israel tries to limit fallout from the Pegasus spyware scandal

#296

Post by PhasmaFelis » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 10:03 PM UTC

joelbluminator wrote: post #281

jakelazaroff wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opposite is a much more common occurrence. By reflexively labeling any criticism of Israel as "antisemitic", people shut down discussion without having to engage in the topics of settler colonialism or apartheid. Frankly, this is one of the more frustrating aspects of my experience as a diaspora Jew: having to constantly point out that Israel != Jews in response to people who want to exploit my religious identity…

> people shut down discussion without having to engage in the topics of settler colonialism or apartheid The apartheid bit can and should be engaged and eventually solved with a Palestinian state beside Israel. The settelr colonialist bit is mostly said to try and ruin the Zionist state by dismantling Zionism. No one calls the U.S a settler colonialist country. No one demands California to be returned to Mexico (it's…

> No one calls the U.S a settler colonialist country

What? The US is the ur-example of settler colonialism. We are the end stage, the model for the ultimate fate of the original inhabitants under colonialism: decimated and pushed back into whatever worthless land none of the settlers wanted.

> or that the Indians get the right to their lands back

People do demand that, yes.

Personally, I would love to see Native American tribes given better land than the shitty deserts they've been stuck in, but two wrongs don't make a right; no one has a right to force people off of land they've been living on for decades or centuries just because their ancestors used to live there.

That means the British had no right to unilaterally carve Israel out of Palestine in the first place, and also that Palestine shouldn't get to force Israelis off of land they've been living on for nearly a century, however wrong their ancestors were to take it; nor does Israel have the right to keep taking more Palestinian land to build new Israeli settlements.

There will always be Arabs who won't be satisfied with anything short of total hegemony. They would have a lot less support, resources, and manpower if Israel would treat Palestinians as equals and stop air-striking innocent men, women, and children because they happen to be within the blast radius of a suspected terrorist. Killing innocents to achieve political goals is no better when Israel does it than when Hamas does.

Re: Israel tries to limit fallout from the Pegasus spyware scandal

#297

Post by luffapi » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 10:13 PM UTC

bzbarsky wrote: post #294

luffapi wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think a new state can ethically be created without a democratic choice to do so by the existing population of a region. I think a humanitarian route would be to lobby for open immigration in existing democracies. For instance, I think we all would have been a lot better off if instead of creating the state of Israel, we offered US citizenship to anyone who needed it after WWII. I’m also a proponent of a moder…

I don't see how open immigration solves the self-determination problem, unless the premise is that: 1) You allow open immigration. 2) You then allow a democratic vote, including by the new immigrants, to partition the existing state (the essence of self-determination). which comes back to pretty much my original premise: that the only way for a geographically dispersed population to have self-determination is to be a…

> The other option I see is to posit that in modern democracies the principle of self-determination is unnecessary.

For geographically dispersed people? Yes, sovereignty is impossible and undesirable as you’d have to take it from the locals wherever you were getting the land from.

For people living under an oppressive regime (or one they view that way), it’s a different story. They are the locals and thus should have a government that fits the local population.

You can’t create sovereignty out of thin air. You have to take it from someone if you’re going to give it to someone else. All the land on this planet has been accounted for for some time now.

Re: Israel tries to limit fallout from the Pegasus spyware scandal

#298

Post by effie » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

raxxorrax wrote: post #224

tremon wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Were you party to that decision of your government?

I live in a democracy so I am partially responsible for anything my government does. Even and especially when it does something I don't like.

Yes if you voted for that government, otherwise no.

Re: Israel tries to limit fallout from the Pegasus spyware scandal

#299

Post by nybble41 » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 10:42 PM UTC

cutemonster wrote: post #118

Guthur wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who gets to define the greater good? We had share morals at one time with religion but that's been tore down relentless so what are those shared ideals now. The fact of the matter is that eradication is impossible so what are we actually trying to achieve here. Reduce impact on health care? Maybe we should ban smoking and alcohol then or maybe MacDonalds, where is the line?

> Who gets to define the greater good? One answer is the voters and the government they choose (if it's an okay functioning democracy)

Well that's certain an answer. Voters and non-voters alike are, of course, free to define "the greater good" for themselves provided they refrain from harming others while putting their definition into practice, but what moral justification do the winners of an election have to enforce their definition on anyone else or harm others to implement it just because they were backed by an arbitrarily small majority of the voters? Which is a subset of the eligible voting population, and (perhaps more importantly) an even smaller subset of those who will be affected?

Re: Israel tries to limit fallout from the Pegasus spyware scandal

#300

Post by joelbluminator » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 10:57 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #288

joelbluminator wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people shut down discussion without having to engage in the topics of settler colonialism or apartheid The apartheid bit can and should be engaged and eventually solved with a Palestinian state beside Israel. The settelr colonialist bit is mostly said to try and ruin the Zionist state by dismantling Zionism. No one calls the U.S a settler colonialist country. No one demands California to be returned to Mexico (it's…

People do talk about all of those things though? Israel and the US are both settler colonial states. Acknowledging that should be the start of a conversation about righting historical wrongs, not shorthand for a proscribed solution. As a side note, it seems like you're using "hard left" as a smear, but most of the people I follow who engage on this topic are diaspora Jews who very much do not want to become "hated re…

I use the term hard left as opposed to center left. We can use progressive. Its nice and easy to acknowledge things when there are no claims. The Mexicans are not claiming California back and even if they were no one would take that seriously. The Palestinians ARE claiming the land back, and are being supported by growing numbers. So this whole discussion about history becomes very consequential to Israel.