Seems fairly hypocritical in a number of ways. From our own companies actions, like Blackwater, to our allies actions, like Saudi Arabia, to our own government's actions, like "Collateral Murder" or events in Yemen. Why punish Israel?
The whole "assist[ing] in getting journalists arrested/murdered/dismembered" thing still seems like pretty good justification to me. I'm not sure "but everyone else is doing it!" makes that acceptable. Requiring that we deal with every single one of those problems simultaneously else we shouldn't bother with any of them doesn't seem productive.
I'm also not sure I'd describe the refusal to actively fund that behaviour as punishment, but I suppose that's somewhat beside the point.
Then deal with the domestic ones first, the ones we have the most control over. People only care about these issues when the solution is "punish the country," a solution that likely causes more suffering than it stops.
IANAL but I think the case can be made that the export of NSOs software is against US law and a violation of the Wassenaar Arrangement. See: 5D002.C.1
So in theory if Israel is allowing one of its companies to break US law then it would make sense to use that as a basis to stop aid to Israel which may be what OP is alluding to.
If I reverse engineered and sold exploits of American missile systems while in Somalia would that mean everything is A-OK?
Idk. Again, not a lawyer.
Iirc, hacking team dissolved or greatly downsized after their leak. I do not recall any cases against them for their export license to be revoked. I'm sure if the Italian courts rejected the case baselessly then there would be consequences (maybe further legal action/sanctions on specific individuals) as Italy does not operate with the same unique impunity that Israel does.
The difference with Italy is that it does not receive state aid from the Americans. I'm sure if they were then people would be calling for cuts in a similar situation.
This isn't true. On top of the general disaster aid, including $10 million for COVID, we have seven US military bases in the country which accounts for millions a year in aid.
Look to Scandinavia and you'll see actual aid instead of (poorly) hidden state sponsoring of defense contractors. They even give more per capita than the US without those strings attached. US aid is embarrassing.
Besides, US bases are not aid to the host country but aid by the host country to the US.
They eliminate some need for the host country to spend on their military, often provide rent money, and stimulate the local economy. It's done to usurp sovereignty, but the host agrees as it benefits them financially.
I don't disagree with your broader point, but I don't see how it changes anything. Calls to stop aid to a country differ even if the countries do the same thing.
My first assumption is that the act isn't covered by any US law at all. For some analogy, the murder of Jamal Khashoggi does not violate any US law as the many US laws regarding murder (i.e. the separate criminal statutes of each of the US states plus any federal laws that may apply) do not regulate acts done by Saudi citizens to Saudi citizens in Istanbul.
So the question becomes not about legality but about policy - whether the act harms US interests. And arguably selling of arms and tools by US allies (e.g. Israel) to US allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia) is not against US policy and thus there's no grounds to apply any sanctions - now, if NSO would sell the same things to Iran, that would be a different issue.
USA could have standing if NSOs tools have been used to hack journalists in USA - but this is not what this article is about. If NSOs tools have been used to hack journalists in Saudi Arabia or United Arab Emirate or Mexico, that's not a violation of USA laws; and if this has happened according to the legal permissions of the respective government (no matter how lax or arbitrary granting these legal permissions may be) then it's not a violation of any law; if we look from the purely legal perspective and not the moral one, it's perfectly legitimate for sovereign states to make laws that abuse their journalists as much as the state wants as long as it doesn't rise to the level of crimes against humanity. Almost any act or argument against a dictatorship abusing their people is inherently political, not legal.
One incident where NSO may be in hot water is the hacking of Rania Dridi described in the original article if the events happened in London (it's unclear to me from the description) - then this may be cause to assert that NSO are complicit in violating UK law (but not USA law).
I am speaking in more general terms regarding the history of NSO and pegasus.
I am not certain if Jamal's phone itself was hacked but if it was then, in all likelihood, his phone was hacked while he was residing in the US.
His compatriot, who lives in Canada, was definitely hacked using pegasus and that happened in Canada.
I have no hope that the UK government would do anything about this unless the Qataris apply pressure.
You have to start somewhere. But yes, let’s also cut off all the others you mentioned.
Then start with yourself. I'm not condoning Israel's actions but punishing them for what we still do is tyranny.