The New York Times published an investigative report into how Mexico has been using the powerful spyware tool Pegasus against its political opponents.
Pegasus is a tool. Like a hammer, a gun or a woodchipper, it can be used legally or illegally.
But its Israeli origins have made people make it sound like Israel is more responsible for its illegal use than the people who are actually using it illegally.
As the NYT notes, Pegasus helped bring down El Chapo, and the Mexican authorities have been using it to take down other major Mexican drug cartels. This is the intended use of the spyware, and in all probability it is still being used for that purpose in Mexico.
But the Mexican government has also been using it in illegal ways using it to spy on political opponentsand other human rights abuses.
NSO Group is a business. While Israel's Defense Ministry must approve any exports of spyware, refusing to sell it to a country that uses it for both valid and invalid purpose is not a clear cut decision - refusal could create an international incident. It would be the exact equivalent of the US not allowing Mexico to buy any firearms from American manufacturers.
In fact, weapons from the US have not only been linked to Mexican security forces human rights abuses, but also to the murderous drug cartels themselves.
What is the moral difference between Mexico buying spyware from an Israeli company and Mexican human rights abusers and criminals buying weapons from US manufacturers?
By any yardstick, selling weapons is worse. Spyware cannot kill anyone.
So why has the world been obsessed with Israel's responsibility to block spyware sales to countries like Mexico but there are only sporadic articles about actual weapons sales to both Mexico and countries that are far worse?
While the New York Times article castigates Mexican authorities for their illegal use of spyware, it also prominently features Israel's very indirect role in those abuses nearly as much. In fact, the featured photo at the top of the article doesn't show the Mexican abusers or victims of the spyware - but the Israeli headquarters of NSO Group.
Can you imagine a news story about a person murdered with a Glock pistol featuring a photo of the factory in Austria that manufactured it? That is what the New York Times is doing here.
In yet more evidence that former Human Rights Watch head Ken Roth prioritizes attacking Israel over combating actual human rights abuses, his tweet about this article only blames Israel for Mexican crimes:
I'm not saying that Israel is blameless. One can argue that selling to Mexico is immoral - but one can easily argue the opposite, since NSO gets signed pledges from its buyers that they would not do what Mexico is indeed doing and Mexico is also using the spyware to save countless lives from drugs. Demanding that a nation that exports tools that can be used for both good and evil should proactively distrust and police countries it has diplomatic relationships with is quite an ask, and lightyears beyond what is expected in any other context.
This story's focus, and Ken Roth's takeaway from it, proves that no nation on Earth is expected to be as responsible for their actions - even the unintended, indirect results of their actions - as Israel is.
Which is as blatant a double standard as can be.
