How to Read the NSO-Spyware-to-Saudi-Arabia Story

Here’s a headline we could publish every day of every week:

Private American Weapon Systems Used Against Activists and Journalists.

American companies sell airplanes, rifles, machine-guns and rockets to many countries. Some of these countries are democracies with a strong record of safeguarding human rights. Some of these countries have a less than perfect record. Some have a miserable record. When American companies sell these countries what they need to defend themselves, they surely know that when a weapons system is out of their hands, it can be used in a variety of ways: sometimes to fight against dangerous terrorism, sometimes to tame public unrest, sometimes to hunt regime opponents. And yet, the systems are sold, and the newspapers do not constantly investigate how they were used against this or that group.

Here’s a headline that was published yesterday morning in dozens of newspapers around the world:

Private Israeli Spyware Used Against Activists and Journalists.

It is an interesting headline, beyond which there’s an interesting story. It is a story worth telling, just spare Israel the moral outrage. Spyware is no more problematic than guns. And America exports about a third of the world’s weapons systems. Private spyware is no better than private tanks, or airplanes, and yet, I do not often see headlines crying about Spanish arms exports to troubling regimes (Spain is among the ten largest exporters of weapons systems, and Saudi Arabia is a customer).

Spyware is no more problematic than guns. And America exports about a third of the world’s weapons systems.

To be honest, reading such headlines is inconvenient for an Israeli. One has to wonder: Does this make us look sinister and dangerous? Does this makes Israel more vulnerable to attacks by human rights groups and other self-appointed critics? Does it damage Israel’s image in the United States? Does it make American Jews, those who care about Israel, uncomfortable?

The answer to all of these question is probably yes. But then, there are also benefits that come with such headlines. Israel is a global power in the world of cyberspace and security, and such headlines advertise this fact and make Israel seem stronger. Israel has the best minds, best companies (if not always the most moral) and best ideas. It is good that countries, businesses, and enemies remain aware of that fact. Surely, it will damage Israel’s image with certain moralists. But it will also boost Israel’s image with defense policy makers.

And besides—this isn’t at all about Israel.  Or is it?

The story of NSO Group, the company under discussion, presents the reader with two interesting questions about the responsibilities of private companies and states. In essence, it is an old question: Is the blacksmith responsible for a misdeed committed with the axe he manufactured? Surely, if the axe was sold to an emotionally unstable person when the blacksmith knows this person intends to use it to kill a neighbor, that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, the axe was sold to a woodcutter who then decided to use it to also kill a neighbor, that’s another thing.

Translated into modern language, one must ask: Is selling spyware to the Saudis like selling to the former or like selling to the latter. Should the blacksmith worry only about a clear and present reality of misuse, or should it also worry when the product is sold for legitimate purposes but can also be used (and is likely to be used) for other things?

And the same question about responsibility is applicable to the state. Should Israel make sure that no company sells potentially problematic products to the Saudis, less they use them for improper purposes? You can’t sell them axes, because they cut the hands of thieves, you can’t sell them ropes, because they hang people for certain violations of the law, you can’t sell them electric cables, lest they use them to electrify political dissenters.

Or is it just about spyware? And, if so, why spyware specifically? True, the Biden administration halted certain arms deals with the Saudis, but it does allow arms sales to the Egyptians (important allies of the U.S. and Israel, but not an exemplary democracy). In places such as the Philippines, guns made in the U.S. were utilized to repress dissenting movements. And look at the list of top U.S. handgun importers in 2020. Are they all peaceful, liberal, peace-seeking regimes? Thailand (more than two hundred thousand handguns); Mexico (more than fifty thousand); Tunisia; Brazil; Saudi Arabia (more than ten thousand); Philippines; Oman; Afghanistan; Guatemala; Canada. While the Canadians likely use the guns only to deter deer, can anyone assume that no gun will be used against human rights activists in all other countries on the list?

My point: the spyware case is getting the attention of the world not because it’s the most dramatic case of a questionable sale to a questionable regime. It is getting the attention of the world because it’s “spyware” (more interesting, though less lethal, than guns); because it is tied to a high profile case of brutal murder (Khashoggi); and because it is an Israeli company. Does this mean that no investigation should be conducted to get to the bottom of what NSO is up to? Of course not. It is important to investigate and get the facts straight (the company denies wrongdoing). Does this mean a somewhat suspicious approach to the dramatic headlines is due? I’d say yes. Read with care, and remember that all such stories have context.

Shmuel Rosner is an Israeli columnist, editor, and researcher. He is the editor of the research and data-journalism website themadad.com, and is the political editor of the Jewish Journal.