Spain cancels Pegasus spyware investigation because Israel is not co-operating(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Spain cancels Pegasus spyware investigation because Israel is not co-operating
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/10/spain-closes-pegasus-investigation-over-lack-of-cooperation-from-israel
190 comments
The simple explanation is that it improves the relation with USA, Israel, and Morocco. Killing 3 birds with one stone, especially since Morocco has been pressuring by facilitating irregular immigration waves just prior.
The move would have been hailed as Expert Global Politics if done by the opposition itself. Instead we got a shallow conspiracy theory of "blackmail" that's not even entertaining because nobody can provide any substance whatsoever.
The move would have been hailed as Expert Global Politics if done by the opposition itself. Instead we got a shallow conspiracy theory of "blackmail" that's not even entertaining because nobody can provide any substance whatsoever.
Precisely this. Other commenters are pointing out that the Spanish government doesn't want to lose the option to investigate secessionist leaders, but given the current good relationships between the socialist party and Puigdemont's, that makes no sense. More likely they're trying to gloss over the obvious blackmailing incident at the first opportunity to blame someone else for the lack of success of any investigation.
Is there any kind of evidence? Or is it a "popular" idea?
It's always Citizen Lab of University of Toronto who blows the whistle
https://left.eu/pegasus-inquiry-delegation-from-the-left-in-...
https://left.eu/pegasus-inquiry-delegation-from-the-left-in-...
While that is Pegasus and involves Spanish government, it's not related. The incident in that article would be the previous government (now opposition) spying on Catalan independence parties.
The other option that was rapidly silenced was that the blackmail was to the Spanish royal Family.
jiofj(1)
Israel has a very long history of refusing to cooperate with international law enforcement agencies: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-jewish-american-pedophiles-...
It's not surprising when you consider that significant portions of the lands they claim are theirs are occupied in violation of UN treaties. This also doesn't factor in the long list of war crimes they committed. To me, harboring pedophiles doesn't seem too out of character for them.
It's hard to cooperate when your existence is founded on this kind of baggage.
It's hard to cooperate when your existence is founded on this kind of baggage.
Why do they need to ask Israel? The problem is inside the Police and Ministerio de Interior. They can walk to the building and ask and they should get all the answers.
Fishing for a client list. To be fair, asking the store owner "Did you
sell a knife to this murderer?" might yield a saner response than
asking the killer. Unfortunately NSO are not that helpful shopkeeper.
In this case the killer is also the investigator.
"So I asked the store owner if he sold me the knife (wink), he didn't hear my question (wink), and so I guess I have no choice but to close this investigation. No more questions."
"So I asked the store owner if he sold me the knife (wink), he didn't hear my question (wink), and so I guess I have no choice but to close this investigation. No more questions."
If the Israeli government refuses to cooperate, doesn't that reinforce the perspective that the company is separate from Israeli intelligence agencies, only because of the desire for plausible deniability?
There are international treaties for international police investigations or "request for mutual assistance."
Here is the actual agreement text between the European Union and Israel you can read yourself:
"Working Arrangement establishing cooperative relations between the law enforcement authorities of Israel and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation"
https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/...
Computer crime is listed as one are of co-operation. Israel is not honouring these agreements.
Here is the actual agreement text between the European Union and Israel you can read yourself:
"Working Arrangement establishing cooperative relations between the law enforcement authorities of Israel and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation"
https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/...
Computer crime is listed as one are of co-operation. Israel is not honouring these agreements.
> Israel is not honouring these agreements.
Israel has a long history of not honoring international treaties. Look it up. It's surprising that people are still surprised by this. Maybe we should make history classes mandatory for diplomats.
Israel has a long history of not honoring international treaties. Look it up. It's surprising that people are still surprised by this. Maybe we should make history classes mandatory for diplomats.
I don't think so. What the article said is that the government has simply not replied to the 4 requests that have been sent over the last year and a half. To me sticking your head under the sand doesn't imply anything good.
The _export_ is controlled by the Israeli government.
From wiki
“Pegasus spyware is classified as a weapon by Israel and any export of the technology must be approved by the government.[9]”
[9] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/spyware-techno...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSO_Group
From wiki
“Pegasus spyware is classified as a weapon by Israel and any export of the technology must be approved by the government.[9]”
[9] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/spyware-techno...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSO_Group
Thats BS, the NSO has very big connections with the mossad, its not a coincidence all their leadership come from the mossad.
> "Pegasus spyware is classified as a weapon by Israel and any export of the technology must be approved by the government."
vs
> "the NSO has very big connections with the mossad, its not a coincidence all their leadership come from the mossad."
You know Mossad is part of the Israeli government, right? NSO is a Mossad operation, e.g. an op of the Israeli government, and all their exports are approved by the Israeli government. There's no contradiction here.
vs
> "the NSO has very big connections with the mossad, its not a coincidence all their leadership come from the mossad."
You know Mossad is part of the Israeli government, right? NSO is a Mossad operation, e.g. an op of the Israeli government, and all their exports are approved by the Israeli government. There's no contradiction here.
I think it reinforces the perspective that Israel is a rogue state.
Spain is asking the receipt?
Jokes aside, Canadian group points half your country is being spied, specially dissidents. You say nothing is todo with Spain, like a Saudi regime.
Then funds are traced from reserved funds of Spanish government to Pegasus's, you agree, say will investigate, ask the receipt to Israel? Just find who/why decided this, put the head down and try to apologize/add measures to avoid spying dissidents
Jokes aside, Canadian group points half your country is being spied, specially dissidents. You say nothing is todo with Spain, like a Saudi regime.
Then funds are traced from reserved funds of Spanish government to Pegasus's, you agree, say will investigate, ask the receipt to Israel? Just find who/why decided this, put the head down and try to apologize/add measures to avoid spying dissidents
Dissident? What are you talking about! Do you mean the people that broke the law?
The Canadian group you mention was receiving funds from one the regional government of Spain that was interested on this.
The Canadian group you mention was receiving funds from one the regional government of Spain that was interested on this.
Pegasus was used aginst Catalan independence leaders by the Spanish government. That was certainly the Madrid government, acting with the compliance of the Spanish judiciary.
This story is about the use of Pegasus by someone against the Spanish premier Pedro Sanchez. It's at least plausible that it was done by a Spanish government agency; after all, Spanish security agencies already have a licence from NSO to use Pegasus against Spanish politicians. And the Madrid establishment is not well-disposed to socialists (such as Sanchez).
It strikes me that this judge simply isn't willing to investigate the Spanish security services for bugging their own Prime Minister.
This story is about the use of Pegasus by someone against the Spanish premier Pedro Sanchez. It's at least plausible that it was done by a Spanish government agency; after all, Spanish security agencies already have a licence from NSO to use Pegasus against Spanish politicians. And the Madrid establishment is not well-disposed to socialists (such as Sanchez).
It strikes me that this judge simply isn't willing to investigate the Spanish security services for bugging their own Prime Minister.
They could freeze all NSO assets in Spain, prohibit payments to the NSO group, designate them as a terrorist organization. But the Spanish government also needs their services to spy on jorunalists and Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont, so I guess they'll let it pass.
The thing to do is:
1. assume your phone is compromised and act accordingly
2. regularly replace your phone
1. assume your phone is compromised and act accordingly
2. regularly replace your phone
"Police suspends murder investigation because suspect is not cooperating".
It's not even the suspect. At best, it's the seller of the weapon.
No, it's more like NSO running a murder for hire scheme. The actual deeds are done by NSO employees using NSO's infrastructure. These "cyberweapons" aren't like guns, they don't hand this stuff over to the custody of anybody who buys their services. The buyer points their finger and NSO does the shooting. All targets are known and therefore approved by the Israeli government.
Israel cancels investigation into Israel because Israel is not co-operating.
There is actually an ongoing investigative committee (i.e. formed by the government) looking into the improper use of NSO's Pegasus!
Is it due to the years of reports of improper use of Pegasus by the Israeli police against Israeli citizens? No, it is due to an alleged use against the Prime Minister in his ongoing trials...
Is it due to the years of reports of improper use of Pegasus by the Israeli police against Israeli citizens? No, it is due to an alleged use against the Prime Minister in his ongoing trials...
Non cooperation did not preclude Iran from being sued for example.
I want to point out how odd it is that no one cares about international weapons exports, except when talking about cyber weapons.
USA is the #1 arms exporter in the world, and its top 3 clients are dictators[0] (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait). In fact nearly half of US weapons go to tyrants.
This is not a "usa bad" kind of take, it's just how business is done and it's not just the USA. Fighter jets, missiles, even nukes are being sold all over the world, but god forbids someone sells an 0day.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/248552/us-arms-exports-b...
USA is the #1 arms exporter in the world, and its top 3 clients are dictators[0] (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait). In fact nearly half of US weapons go to tyrants.
This is not a "usa bad" kind of take, it's just how business is done and it's not just the USA. Fighter jets, missiles, even nukes are being sold all over the world, but god forbids someone sells an 0day.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/248552/us-arms-exports-b...
USA sells weapons to Saudi Arabia. As a result, Saudi Arabia doesn't get its weapons from Russia or Iran and normalizes its relationship with Israel (which is where I live, full disclosure :P).
To me this looks like the best way to bring other countries "into the fold" as well as bring peace to the middle east, until eventually the US selling weapons to Saudi Arabia will be viewed similarly to the US selling weapons to Germany.
Maybe I'm just naive, but I think in most cases applying "friendly pressure" is more useful than force, and I mostly agree with your take that selling cyberweapons should be treated similarly to selling conventional weapons.
To me this looks like the best way to bring other countries "into the fold" as well as bring peace to the middle east, until eventually the US selling weapons to Saudi Arabia will be viewed similarly to the US selling weapons to Germany.
Maybe I'm just naive, but I think in most cases applying "friendly pressure" is more useful than force, and I mostly agree with your take that selling cyberweapons should be treated similarly to selling conventional weapons.
"The end justifies the means" is always a dubious justification. Selling arms to vicious dictatorships like Saudi Arabia is not without humanitarian cost, as the the casualties of the Yemen war demonstrate.
The end justifying the means also needs some justified ends to demonstrate that the means were tolerable. In Saudi's case we've seen little signs of that. It's still one of the world's most repressive police states. It uses Western weapons in wars of aggression. It's happy to murder people in foreign consulates. There doesn't seem any sign of this improving.
Selling arms to Saudi stops a flow of cash to Iran and Russia, but we're just propping up one horrible regime with the supposed excuse of weakening others. This just seems like an excuse to make some cash.
> eventually the US selling weapons to Saudi Arabia will be viewed similarly to the US selling weapons to Germany
And where are the signs that Saudi Arabia is moving towards being a liberal democracy like Germany?
The end justifying the means also needs some justified ends to demonstrate that the means were tolerable. In Saudi's case we've seen little signs of that. It's still one of the world's most repressive police states. It uses Western weapons in wars of aggression. It's happy to murder people in foreign consulates. There doesn't seem any sign of this improving.
Selling arms to Saudi stops a flow of cash to Iran and Russia, but we're just propping up one horrible regime with the supposed excuse of weakening others. This just seems like an excuse to make some cash.
> eventually the US selling weapons to Saudi Arabia will be viewed similarly to the US selling weapons to Germany
And where are the signs that Saudi Arabia is moving towards being a liberal democracy like Germany?
There are two premises (in order).
1. The US wants Saudi Arabia to become a liberal democracy (the end)
2. The US thinks that doing this can achieve that end (the means)
I see no reason to accept (2) and moreover no reason to accept even (1).
1. The US wants Saudi Arabia to become a liberal democracy (the end)
2. The US thinks that doing this can achieve that end (the means)
I see no reason to accept (2) and moreover no reason to accept even (1).
"He's a son of a bitch but He's our son of a bitch" One of long time US politics guides.
Sometimes it goes wrong, Saddam Hussein, Al- Qaeda, etc ...but hey only a few peasant lives is good value for the business
Bring them into what fold? The peace-loving nations of Israel and the US?
I wouldn't say it's naïve, rather it's the blackest cynicism to assert the best way to reform a murderous dictatorship is to provide it with weapons.
This time you're on the living side of the equation. How would you have felt if someone made the same argument for Nazi Germany?
This time you're on the living side of the equation. How would you have felt if someone made the same argument for Nazi Germany?
If it were able to change the course of history, of course it might be worthwhile. If it didn't, then of course it wouldn't. The question is really how effective it is. In the abstract, more levers of influence is probably better.
The new "reformist" leader of Saudi Arabia bone-saws critical journalists, so I'd say the effectiveness is zero or close to it. Has this caused anybody in the relevant positions of government or industry (or you) to update on their beliefs on whether these arms sales are a good idea?
And that's exactly why I said "most cases".
The USA sold lots of weapons to Iran pre-1978. That didn’t stop war from breaking out in the 1980s (Iran-Iraq) or after (all of the smaller battles/state-sponsored terrorism).
I don’t think that “more countries holding more weapons” is the thing that stops/prevents wars.
And I think people have to remember that cyber weapons are very asymmetrical. It is akin to nukes/bio/chem/nerve weapons, not just conventional weapons.
I don’t think that “more countries holding more weapons” is the thing that stops/prevents wars.
And I think people have to remember that cyber weapons are very asymmetrical. It is akin to nukes/bio/chem/nerve weapons, not just conventional weapons.
>The USA sold lots of weapons to Iran pre-1978. That didn’t stop war from breaking out in the 1980s (Iran-Iraq) or after (all of the smaller battles/state-sponsored terrorism
It is almost as though something happened in 1979 that shifted the government.
We really don't know if the war would have happened if the Shah hadn't been overthrown. As far as I can tell, Iraq thought Iran would be weak due to the revolution and took advantage of the situation. If the Shah stayed in power and the US continued to provide weapons, Iraq quite possibly would not have attacked.
It is almost as though something happened in 1979 that shifted the government.
We really don't know if the war would have happened if the Shah hadn't been overthrown. As far as I can tell, Iraq thought Iran would be weak due to the revolution and took advantage of the situation. If the Shah stayed in power and the US continued to provide weapons, Iraq quite possibly would not have attacked.
>"To me this looks like the best way to bring other countries "into the fold""
Victims of those weapon sales had wholeheartedly agreed.
Victims of those weapon sales had wholeheartedly agreed.
> the best way to bring peace to the middle east
In your view, the best way is no way, then, given the state of endless war in the middle east a long time...
In your view, the best way is no way, then, given the state of endless war in the middle east a long time...
Look at ukraine russian weapons are not worth the money and every military has known this for years. The only countries buying russian weapons are the ones that can't buy from the west.
I don't think its a bad thing that the rest of the world has weapons that can't compete with the west, as a westerner I think this is a good thing.
I don't think its a bad thing that the rest of the world has weapons that can't compete with the west, as a westerner I think this is a good thing.
I think the reason for this is who the cyber weapons are pointed at. It's not common soldiers or random citizens in a war zone. It's aimed at politicians and media. I don't how much everyone else cares about this (not that they shouldn't) but if politicians and the media are worried about it then we're going to hear about it a lot and in rather breathless terms.
Did the Polish PiS shoot and blow up the opposition? No, they used Pegasus. I'm sure you can figure out the reason why.
There's an internationally respected right to defend your nation
But it's just so hard to see cyberweapons as a legitimate weapon for border defense & maintaining social order. Cyberweapons are a scary way to break security, to circumvent protections designed for businesses and individuals.
But it's just so hard to see cyberweapons as a legitimate weapon for border defense & maintaining social order. Cyberweapons are a scary way to break security, to circumvent protections designed for businesses and individuals.
I do NOT agree with the next paragraph, I just want to write what people probably are probably thinking about this (and maybe someone can correct me maybe?):
I think people who justify weapons trade they do it because it's "for protection" and in case of selling weapons to countries it's for "defense" and/or "in case of war", whereas with 0days and spyware their use takes place outside of the limits. i.e. when in peace (see Greece Predator story).
With that being said, I think that's idiotic as it almost justifies wars. Plus the sellers just get to pick who is the "good guy" (I mean, they don't want to look bad, right?)
I think people who justify weapons trade they do it because it's "for protection" and in case of selling weapons to countries it's for "defense" and/or "in case of war", whereas with 0days and spyware their use takes place outside of the limits. i.e. when in peace (see Greece Predator story).
With that being said, I think that's idiotic as it almost justifies wars. Plus the sellers just get to pick who is the "good guy" (I mean, they don't want to look bad, right?)
The difference is that there is serious deterrence against the use of conventional weapons (you can't just do a quick over the border raid), but for 0days it's all you can exploit buffet.
I'm not downplaying cyber weapons, but I would argue that conventional weapons have caused significantly more damage to innocent people over the last few years than any exploit. Deaths in the hundreds of thousands, easily, not to mention injuries, damage of property, etc.
Also, the use of cyber weapons is almost meaningless without physical force to back it up. A dictator (or Spain) can spy on their dissidents, sure, but they won't even have any dissidents if they don't have the guns to stay in power.
While 0days are still a weapon, and I agree they can and do in fact cause harm to innocent people, I don't think that this comparison is even close.
Also, the use of cyber weapons is almost meaningless without physical force to back it up. A dictator (or Spain) can spy on their dissidents, sure, but they won't even have any dissidents if they don't have the guns to stay in power.
While 0days are still a weapon, and I agree they can and do in fact cause harm to innocent people, I don't think that this comparison is even close.
It could also be related to the fact that conventional weapons trade and arms have been around for a very long time. Therefore control mechanisms and rules of engagement have been set. Where as, cyber weapons are quite new and from my pov not limited in any way.
Does anyone know if the sale of a cyber weapon produced in the US can be sold outside to a foreign actor without government approval?
If they can be sold, I suppose that’s one other factor at play here.
Does anyone know if the sale of a cyber weapon produced in the US can be sold outside to a foreign actor without government approval?
If they can be sold, I suppose that’s one other factor at play here.
Conventional weapons are dangerous the way guns are dangerous. 0days are dangerous the way a very-well-placed spy is dangerous.
Governments don't need guns to stay in power. It's sufficient for them to have a lawyer and some cops to put you behind bars if they wish.
Resisting will just make you go behing those bars for much longer.
Do the cops not need guns to put you behind bars?
Usually not. They might have them, especially in trigger-happy locales, but they don't use them. You're not usually dragged behind bars at the gunpoint. You're going behind bars voluntarily because the alternative is being dragged behind bars for longer and that's all.
I would be very curious to see how a police force which has no credible threat of violence can operate.
"You're going to jail"
"You're going to jail"
- "No"
- "Make me"
In the UK, the police seem to have little trouble being violent without guns. I think it's the threat of that kind of violence that they use to e.g. jail people.
Some police officers do have guns, but they're a minority (and many of them in London refused to wield guns this week, in protest about a murder charge for a firearms officer who killed an unarmed man). As far as I can tell, non-police violence here also mostly doesn't involve guns. Knife crime seems to be more widespread.
Some police officers do have guns, but they're a minority (and many of them in London refused to wield guns this week, in protest about a murder charge for a firearms officer who killed an unarmed man). As far as I can tell, non-police violence here also mostly doesn't involve guns. Knife crime seems to be more widespread.
Stop! Or I will shout "Stop!" again
[deleted]
They come to your house with a prison sentence and five strong, unarmed men and walk you away politely?
What would you do against the state?
What would you do against the state?
And what will these fine gentlemen do when I take out my gun and kindly refuse their offer?
Better yet, what will the state do when the neighboring country, armed with F35s, decides it’s time to take their land?
Better yet, what will the state do when the neighboring country, armed with F35s, decides it’s time to take their land?
In this case you will indeed get a visit of militarized police or state army, and you have good chances being crippled or dead in the process and you know it.
The point being, 99% of arrests will not involve guns at all. State has guns, absolutely, it just does not need these guns on day-to-day basis. Needing guns is an emergency.
The point being, 99% of arrests will not involve guns at all. State has guns, absolutely, it just does not need these guns on day-to-day basis. Needing guns is an emergency.
In governments, power = force = arms.
It's a weird kind of cold war; there's government agencies performing cyberattacks worldwide constantly, but it never turns into "You overstepped a mark" and resulting conflict / sanctions / consequences - at least not as far as I can tell.
Cyberwarfare ended up quite low on the escalation ladder, but I think that's partly because the most extreme cases (i.e. where you're actually trying to destroy or incapacitate) like U.S./Israel attacks on Iranian nuclear infrastructure or Russian attacks on Eastern Europe only happen between countries that at borderline hostility anyway. Most cyberattacks are just espionage but with computers, which happens even at peacetime between allies.
Pointing any weapons at civilians is always big news. It just doesn't happen as often with conventional weapons. Based on my own experience in the information security space, targeting civilians is both encouraged and intentional by actors including the US.
> I want to point out how odd it is that no one cares about international weapons exports
Why start your comment with an obvious falsehood?
Why start your comment with an obvious falsehood?
Genuine question, why are those countries dictators?
They are effectively absolute monarchies, which can override decisions of any elected officials.
But can != will, I know that exploiting power is hard to resist but I am asking for specific examples as I don't really follow what happens in that area.
They are really not hard to find. This is a famous example, how this kind of system works:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi
They are all absolute monarchies. All powers of government ultimately rest with the king.
There are different degrees of absolutism between each country, but to use the example of Saudi Arabia there are no assemblies (democratic or otherwise) with any meaningful power, there are no allowed political parties or national elections, and legislative, executive, and judicial functions are ultimately the powers of the king. All positions of power within the state are granted by the King generally to other members of the royal family.
This is dictatorship. Dictatorship isn't defined by brutality or abuse - it is any system where the leader or leaders hold absolute governmental power with few or no limitations.
The only limitation on the king of Saudi Arabia is the Sharia (of which the king is conveniently the final arbiter).
There are different degrees of absolutism between each country, but to use the example of Saudi Arabia there are no assemblies (democratic or otherwise) with any meaningful power, there are no allowed political parties or national elections, and legislative, executive, and judicial functions are ultimately the powers of the king. All positions of power within the state are granted by the King generally to other members of the royal family.
This is dictatorship. Dictatorship isn't defined by brutality or abuse - it is any system where the leader or leaders hold absolute governmental power with few or no limitations.
The only limitation on the king of Saudi Arabia is the Sharia (of which the king is conveniently the final arbiter).
> They are all absolute monarchies
Qatar and Kuwait are constitutional, not absolute, monarchies [1][2]. They’re weakly constitutional, the latter a bit more than the former, but categorically different from Saudi Arabia.
Given the man who holds power in Riyadh isn’t King, Saudi Arabia is arguably a tyranny, not just a dictatorship.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Qatar
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Kuwait
Qatar and Kuwait are constitutional, not absolute, monarchies [1][2]. They’re weakly constitutional, the latter a bit more than the former, but categorically different from Saudi Arabia.
Given the man who holds power in Riyadh isn’t King, Saudi Arabia is arguably a tyranny, not just a dictatorship.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Qatar
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Kuwait
No they're not. Only Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. The others are constitutional monarchies.
If they're absolute monarchies, then so is the United Kingdom.
If they're absolute monarchies, then so is the United Kingdom.
Well, maybe not absolute monarchies, but I wouldn't compare them to the UK.
From Wiki:
From Wiki:
Qatar:
- "The emir appoints the prime minister and cabinet".
- "The Consultative Assembly is the legislative body of the State of Qatar, with 45 members. The body can only question the prime minister, who is appointed by the Emir of Qatar, on his policies if two-thirds of the members agree, which is unlikely given that one-third of the members are appointed by the Emir."
- "The consultative assembly has the following functions:
Legislative authority
Approves the general budget of the government
Exercises control over the executive authority
The assembly has the right to forward proposals on public matters to the government. If the government doesn't comply with the proposal it has to give its reasons and the assembly can comment on them"
- "The government does not permit the existence of political parties or other political groupings. All candidates for the municipal council elections run as independents."
Kuwait:
- "Kuwait is an emirate[1] with a political system consisting of an appointed judiciary, appointed government (dominated by the Al Sabah ruling family), and nominally elected parliament."
- Executive: "The prime minister chooses the cabinet of ministers, which form the government. The prime minister is a member of the ruling family and is appointed by the Emir. "
- Judicial: "The judiciary in Kuwait is not independent of the government, the Emir appoints all the judges and many judges are foreign nationals from Egypt."
- Parliament: "On 22 June 2016 parliament passed a law banning any citizen who had insulted the emir from running, resulting in several major opposition figures including Musallam Al-Barrak and Bader Al-Dahoum becoming ineligible candidates."The funny thing is that on paper they are absolutely comparable to the UK. The UK monarch is still theoretically responsible for nominating the Prime Minister and most other high officials and judges, with Parliament typically "advising" or "suggesting". In practice, we all know Parliament is effectively commanding the King to do their bidding, but most of it is very much by convention. Elizabeth II was effectively one of the low points for the British monarchy in terms of direct power, but there are very few legal barriers for a more activist ruler to push the pendulum back.
The crown has seldom exercised power in the past 200 years, it's been low since long before Elizabeth. No monarch has refused assent to a parliamentary bill since 1708, or dismissed a prime minister since 1834 (which ultimately failed, that prime minister returned to power in 1835 after the king's meddling failed to produce a new government).
It's true that on paper the king holds a lot of power. But functionally all of that power is invested in parliament. The institutions of the state answer to parliament, and there are no legal grounds for the crown to claw any of those powers back. A serious attempt by the king to make his own independent pronouncements as if they have the force of law is honestly the only situation I could see the UK abandoning the monarchy.
It's true that on paper the king holds a lot of power. But functionally all of that power is invested in parliament. The institutions of the state answer to parliament, and there are no legal grounds for the crown to claw any of those powers back. A serious attempt by the king to make his own independent pronouncements as if they have the force of law is honestly the only situation I could see the UK abandoning the monarchy.
> No monarch has refused assent to a parliamentary bill since 1708
Because the crown exercises it's power in secret behind closed doors, not using the official assent procedure. They don't need to refuse assent to a parliamentary bill because the crown communicates their displeasure with bills before it even gets that far.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-...
Because the crown exercises it's power in secret behind closed doors, not using the official assent procedure. They don't need to refuse assent to a parliamentary bill because the crown communicates their displeasure with bills before it even gets that far.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-...
A fantastic example of these backdoor discussions is here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1501749/Papers-revea...
In the 60s the Queen chose and elected her own Prime Minister. In the late 90s the Queen refused Parliament the ability to debate a bill around strikes in Iraq.
The Crown dissolved the Australian government in the 70s. In Canada a few years ago they denied parliament the ability to dissolve itself and go to elections.
The power has been exercised in the last century multiple times.
The Crown dissolved the Australian government in the 70s. In Canada a few years ago they denied parliament the ability to dissolve itself and go to elections.
The power has been exercised in the last century multiple times.
The difference being the UK Parliament executed the last uppity monarch who tried to tell them no.
I don't understand the question. Are you asking how they came to be, or are you saying they're not?
Yes I mean what do/did they do to be considered dictators, not trying to argue for the opposite I just don't know.
That is a genuine question very easily answered by wikipedia or your favourite search engine
State-sponsored chopping up a journalist and putting the pieces in trash bags.
You are not being serious right now, are you?
Those countries are monarchies, yes. I wouldn't call them dictatorships. Based on external optics, I'd say there's a few countries that are technically democracies but give off more dictatorship vibes than the 3 you mentioned
> Those countries are monarchies, yes. I wouldn't call them dictatorships
Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship and a monarchy. The monarch exercises absolute political power. (Arguably, it’s a tyranny, since its de facto leader, the Crown Prince, doesn’t exercise power through constitutional channels—he isn’t King.)
Qatar and Kuwait are constitutional monarchies with something resembling a legislative counterpoint to the executive. As long as their leaders operate within their constitutions, i.e. don’t dissolve or dominate their legislatures, they aren’t technically dictators.
Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship and a monarchy. The monarch exercises absolute political power. (Arguably, it’s a tyranny, since its de facto leader, the Crown Prince, doesn’t exercise power through constitutional channels—he isn’t King.)
Qatar and Kuwait are constitutional monarchies with something resembling a legislative counterpoint to the executive. As long as their leaders operate within their constitutions, i.e. don’t dissolve or dominate their legislatures, they aren’t technically dictators.
That doesn't follow. A monarchy can be constitutional and still be absolute. In Qatar for example, the monarch appoints the cabinet and 1/3 of the parliament, which needs 2/3+1 vote to overrule the prime minister...
No need to dissolve or dominate the legislature, it's both a constitutional and absolute monarchy. It's theoretically but not practically possible for the parliament to limit the king. It's a similar story in Morocco and Kuwait.
No need to dissolve or dominate the legislature, it's both a constitutional and absolute monarchy. It's theoretically but not practically possible for the parliament to limit the king. It's a similar story in Morocco and Kuwait.
> A monarchy can be constitutional and still be absolute
Absolute means absolute, including the ability to redraw the constitution. Constitutional monarchy means limited by a constitution.
> the monarch appoints the cabinet and 1/3 of the parliament, which needs 2/3+1 vote to overrule the prime minister
This is not absolute. It's no democracy. But Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. Everyone serves at the pleasure of the King, who is the King of Saudi Arabia, not King of the Saudis. "L'etat, c'est il."
Political power works formally and informally. Kuwait and Qatar's emirs are exceptionally powerful. But they have political organs to contend with, even if solely for appearance's sake. That's a constraint an absolute monarch with dictatorial authority does not have. (Repeatedly over-ruling a constitutional body, or being caught coercing it, historically weakened semi-constitutional monarchs.)
For the intellectual history of this, look at the Roman kings, Spartan ephors, Roman consuls and British and French monarchies. Powerful executives. But variously checked, even if from time to time they held quasi-absolute, even dictatorial, authority.
Absolute means absolute, including the ability to redraw the constitution. Constitutional monarchy means limited by a constitution.
> the monarch appoints the cabinet and 1/3 of the parliament, which needs 2/3+1 vote to overrule the prime minister
This is not absolute. It's no democracy. But Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. Everyone serves at the pleasure of the King, who is the King of Saudi Arabia, not King of the Saudis. "L'etat, c'est il."
Political power works formally and informally. Kuwait and Qatar's emirs are exceptionally powerful. But they have political organs to contend with, even if solely for appearance's sake. That's a constraint an absolute monarch with dictatorial authority does not have. (Repeatedly over-ruling a constitutional body, or being caught coercing it, historically weakened semi-constitutional monarchs.)
For the intellectual history of this, look at the Roman kings, Spartan ephors, Roman consuls and British and French monarchies. Powerful executives. But variously checked, even if from time to time they held quasi-absolute, even dictatorial, authority.
I guess our disagreement is on whether you should judge by practical or theoretical powers. In practice, the emir of Qatar to give an example, is not prevented by the constitution to realize any concrete action, up to and including changing the interpretation of the constitution (or the constitution itself). These actions can be done practically in complete accordance to the law and without coercion by various mechanisms.
This is not a situation similar to ephors, or consuls, or British monarchs (which never were able to establish an absolute monarchy - King Charles was executed essentially due to his attempt to introduce French-style absolute monarchy.
It is similar to the Roman kings, but those were generally considered to be absolute monarchs. That's how I learnt it in college and Wikipedia seems to agree. In many ways the Qatari emirs are even more powerful - the Senate had the right to refuse the nomination of a King indefinitely and they were subject to an election.
It's different from a typical constitutional monarchy where the King would have to break the law to exert his will - in the case of Qatar and Kuwait, the King doesn't even have to break the law or coerce in order to do what he wants, he just needs to do a bit of a dance. This goes beyond even the concept of a semi-constituonal monarchy where the monarch has executive powers, in these cases the king has absolute executive and judicial power as well as most of the legislative power. Many people consider this to actually be an absolute monarchy, because it legally allows the monarch to do literally anything.
This is not a situation similar to ephors, or consuls, or British monarchs (which never were able to establish an absolute monarchy - King Charles was executed essentially due to his attempt to introduce French-style absolute monarchy.
It is similar to the Roman kings, but those were generally considered to be absolute monarchs. That's how I learnt it in college and Wikipedia seems to agree. In many ways the Qatari emirs are even more powerful - the Senate had the right to refuse the nomination of a King indefinitely and they were subject to an election.
It's different from a typical constitutional monarchy where the King would have to break the law to exert his will - in the case of Qatar and Kuwait, the King doesn't even have to break the law or coerce in order to do what he wants, he just needs to do a bit of a dance. This goes beyond even the concept of a semi-constituonal monarchy where the monarch has executive powers, in these cases the king has absolute executive and judicial power as well as most of the legislative power. Many people consider this to actually be an absolute monarchy, because it legally allows the monarch to do literally anything.
Well, there's a core group of people here with an agenda that like to pick on a tiny little country. It's that simple.
And NSO isn't "Israel". It's a private company that's owned by by a UK investment firm "Novalpina Capital" as part of a suite of technology companies called "Q Cyber" that's run out of Luxemburgh. But nobody ever suggests "going after" the UK about this issue.
And NSO isn't "Israel". It's a private company that's owned by by a UK investment firm "Novalpina Capital" as part of a suite of technology companies called "Q Cyber" that's run out of Luxemburgh. But nobody ever suggests "going after" the UK about this issue.
My sweet sunshine, if you believe a chain of shell companies residing in financial havens is enough I have a couple marble fountains from Rome to sell you.
I think you’re being naive if you think NSO isn’t related to Israeli gov (in the same manner Lockheed Martin is related to US gov).
Having said that, I think you’re unjustly being downvoted. I agree that there’s often a strong bias against Israel, it’s being held to standards that other countries are not, and this is only one example.
Having said that, I think you’re unjustly being downvoted. I agree that there’s often a strong bias against Israel, it’s being held to standards that other countries are not, and this is only one example.
These people don't care about Israel -- they hate Jews. That's why people in this thread are are suggesting that Spain, in 2023, expel all its Jews. See:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37657822
(They may say "Oh, we love Jews, we just don't like Israel) but it's a lie as this post proves.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37657822
(They may say "Oh, we love Jews, we just don't like Israel) but it's a lie as this post proves.
I see you're just quietly dropping your claim of NSO not being Israeli; you aren't bothering to defend your claim by addressing the points raised by brap. Instead you're trying to change the subject to complain about a low-karma troll who got voted down for his comment. You linked directly to his comment so it appears to be in the black, but in actuality his comment is on the bottom of the page voted down to the lightest shade of gray. You attribute that troll's comment to "these people", implying that anybody critical of Israel's relationship to NSO shares that troll's beliefs, but that's a dishonest sleight of hand.
You're being dishonest. I said they aren't "Israel" as in the nation. Of course there are Israeli people working for this multinational company, as there are Israelis in Israel working for Apple, Google, Intel, and even General Motors (https://search-careers.gm.com/en/locations/israel/), etc.
You would have us believe NSO is more of a UK company than Israeli, but the company is comprised of Israelis operating out of Israel, with the Israeli government's consent, having the Israeli government shield them from international investigations. What an absolute joke. The UK shell company is a farce and everybody sees that, yet you disrespect everybody else in this conversation by insisting that this shell game farce is meaningful.
And how’s this a surprise? If they can get away with much worse crimes against children, basic human rights, or even bombing a US ship(1), these are like a marginal stuff dealt with by a low rank department.
(1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
(1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
The world seems more gamified that ever? One person or a team of people in their basement could find a security exploit that impacts the world and at the end these exploits are found in the wild and left a trace.
Not all operations leave a trace but it seems we live in a world where we have more information about intelligence operations than ever.
Not all operations leave a trace but it seems we live in a world where we have more information about intelligence operations than ever.
[deleted]
I wonder if cynicism has won. It seems to me that those that rule this world are unjust tyrants. And most of simply don’t give a shit. I would bet well over half of the info-sec should happily work for NSO. I would bet they wouldn’t care one bit even if they knew the exact names of the dead Palestinians/dissidents left in the wake of their work.
[deleted]
>"I wonder if cynicism has won"
Did not have to win. It was always in a driver's seat.
Did not have to win. It was always in a driver's seat.
Those who rule walk in a different region that we sheep do not have knowledge of.
> I wonder if cynicism has won. It seems to me that those that rule this world are unjust tyrants. And most of simply don’t give a shit.
I think your take is not well thought through. Spain is an independent nation, just like Israel. Spain has absolutely no jurisdiction over Israeli citizens or companies, and vice versa. If Spain and Israel haven't signed any agreement to cooperate in this subject, all Spain can do is ask nicely without expecting any response.
Being independent or legally bound to reply to a foreign government's requests is not tyranny.
I think your take is not well thought through. Spain is an independent nation, just like Israel. Spain has absolutely no jurisdiction over Israeli citizens or companies, and vice versa. If Spain and Israel haven't signed any agreement to cooperate in this subject, all Spain can do is ask nicely without expecting any response.
Being independent or legally bound to reply to a foreign government's requests is not tyranny.
Both Spain and Israel are members of INTERPOL so they have indeed signed legally binding cooperation agreements.
Could you cite the part of the agreement that Israel is not complying with?
The agreement is here: https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/...
The document is quite long so I am not going to cite all of it, but the modes of cooperation are there (including meetings, requests and exchange of information). It does mention explicitly computer crimes as area where parties ought to cooperate.
The document is quite long so I am not going to cite all of it, but the modes of cooperation are there (including meetings, requests and exchange of information). It does mention explicitly computer crimes as area where parties ought to cooperate.
jiofj(4)
thrxx(1)
anovikov(7)
A common belief is that he's being blackmailed.
Oh and Morocco is now in very good relations with Israel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Morocco_relatio...