BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Damages diplomatic relations with allies

Every country needs friends and historically the United States has managed to maintain a large number of close relationships with states around the world; it has alliances with various Asian states such as South Korea and Japan, with many Middle Eastern states, and with almost the whole of Europe. The NSA’s spying has damaged these relationships. French President Hollande said “We cannot accept this kind of behavior from partners and allies,”[1] while the president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz complained “the United States of America treats its closest partners, including Germany for example, but also the European Union as a whole like hostile powers”. There have even been suggestions that this would jeopardise trade talks as warned by the Commissioner Viviane Reding that “if there is any doubt that our partners are bugging the offices of European negotiators, then the future trade talks could be in difficulty”.[2] [1] Chu, Henry, ‘European leaders angered by U.S. spying reports’, Los Angeles Times, 1 July 2013, http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/01/world/la-fg-wn-france-germany-us-spying-reports-20130701 [2] Hewitt, Gavin, ‘EU anger at US spy scandal softened by trade talks’, BBC News, 2 July 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23142522
Undermines US position on internet freedom

The United States, along with Europe, has been the key voice arguing for freedom on the internet and in particular that the internet should not be controlled nationally. Russia and China in particular have been advocating for much more control over the internet by states with Russia’s proposal advocating that “Member States shall have equal rights to manage the Internet” and “Member States shall have the sovereign right to establish and implement public policy… on matters of Internet governance, and to regulate the national Internet segment”.[1] Essentially every state should have the right to censor and surveil their chunk of the internet. With the United States already doing this countries that have previously been wavering may be much more inclined to support these proposals over US objections.[2] The US would stand to lose out as it is currently the country with most control over internet governance. [1] Russian Federation ‘Proposals for the work of the conference’, International Telecommunications Union, 17 November 2012, http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-C-0027!R1!MSW-E.pdf [2] Dourado, Eli, ‘So much for America’s internet freedom agenda’, theguardian.com, 7 August 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/07/nsa-surveillance-alienating-us-from-world
Damages US commercial interests

The United States is the preponderant power in internet commerce; most of the big internet companies, the big software companies, even many of the hardware companies are companies that are based in the United States. This both enables US use of these systems for spying as occurred with PRISM because it happens that most web traffic passes through the United States, and makes the United States vulnerable when the world’s consumers think these companies have been betraying their trust. If consumers don’t think US companies can guarantee their data and privacy it should be no surprise that they will consider transferring their business.[1] Cloud computing is particularly affected, among the revelations has been that Microsoft helps the NSA with access to its cloud storage service skydrive.[2] According to a survey by the Cloud Security Alliance 10% of non US responders had cancelled a project with US based providers since the leaks about NSA projects and 56% say they would be less likely to use a US based service. The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation estimates this could cost the US cloud computing industry between $21.5 and $35bln in revenues over the next three years.[3] And this is just one part of the computing and software industries, other areas are likely to be less affected but may well still lose business. [1] Naughton, John, ‘Edward Snowden’s not the story. The fate of the Internet is’, The Observer, 28 July 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/28/edward-snowden-death-of-internet [2] Greenwald, Glenn et al., ‘How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages’, The Guardian, 12 July 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data [3] Taylor, Paul, ‘Cloud computing industry could lose up to $35bn on NSA disclosures’, FT.com, 5 August 2013, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f02b396-fdf0-11e2-a5b1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2bSXVdqSE
Surveillance is necessary to protect national security

The primary concern of the state is the protection of its people from foreign powers. This usually means physical protection but this physical protection relies upon knowing what others are doing; where the threats are coming from. That means surveillance. There needs to be monitoring of groups that potentially pose a threat to the state or to its citizens. In a world where terrorism is as much a threat as other states there is a clear need to be watching as many people as possible around the world. Threats such as that to western interests in Yemen at the start of August 2013 demonstrate the need to be watching out for threats as intelligence picked up high level threats to western interests so allowing the United States and others to take pre-emptive action by closing embassies and evacuating personnel.[1] [1] Hicks, Josh, ‘Chambliss: Threats ‘very reminiscent of what we saw pre-9/11’, The Washington Post, 4 August 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/08/04/chambliss-threats-very-reminiscent-of-what-we-saw-pre-911/
Broad web surveillance prevents terrorist attacks

Over the last ten years, and right up to the present day, the most important national security interest of the United States has been preventing terrorism. A fight against terrorism requires a large amount of resources invested in tracking terrorist networks and in finding those who may turn to terrorism. Intelligence gathering cannot just focus on those we already know to be terrorists as people can easily become radicalised while not meeting any individuals already considered to be terrorists. This means that there needs to be a broad brush intelligence gathering operation that finds those who are on the path to terrorism. This is why operations like PRISM and xkeyscore are so important; they allow the United States to find people who are being radicalised by material online or those who are just working out how to launch an attack themselves. The NSA Director Keith Alexander has stated that the surveillance has helped prevent “potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11.”, with PRISM contributing to 90% of the information on these plots. As only 10 were domestic the surveillance is a benefit to other countries as well as the United States.[1] [1] Nakashima, Ellen, ‘Officials: Surveillance programs foiled more than 50 terrorist plots’, The Washington Post, 18 June 2013, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-18/world/40043402_1_plots-alexander-national-security-agency
Allows monitoring of foreign governments

Governments expect to be monitored by other governments and do so themselves as well. Monitoring other governments provides major advantages even when those governments are ostensibly friendly as no government is going to tell even its allies everything there need to be other ways to learn such information. Surveillance can provide advantages in negotiations; it can let you know how far the other side is willing to go. GCHQ for example engaged in intercepting communications by monitoring phones and even setting up fake internet cafes during the G20 meetings in London in 2008.[1] [1] MacAskill, Ewen et al., ‘GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians’ communications at G20 summits’, The Guardian, 17 June 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits
Indiscriminate spying damages trust

It is not so much the spying that damages trust as the revelations that do so. As former CIA director Michael Hayden commented “Who on this planet [now] believes the Americans can keep a secret? This really erodes the kind of corporation that our intelligence service has with other intelligence agencies.”[1] Trust comes from working together and this is just as true in the intelligence sphere as elsewhere. Governments already knew the NSA spies on them, that so much information about the how and when has been revealed will be what is the shock. [1] Coleman, Michael, ‘Besides Bruised Egos, Will NSA Spy Leaks Cause Lasting Pain?’, The Washington Diplomat, 30 July 2012, http://www.washdiplomat.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9408:besides-bruised-egos-will-nsa-spy-leaks-cause-lasting-pain&catid=1505&Itemid=428
Damages diplomatic relations with allies

Every country engages in spying against other countries and so are not surprised by the revelations. These countries leaders are obliged to sound like they are outraged but in practice they will already have known such actions occur – they might be interested to learn the details but little else. Hollande’s own Direction Générale de la Securité Extérieure (DGSC) has been described by Bernard Barbier, its former technical director, as "probably the biggest information centre in Europe after the English". It uses similar methods to the NSA with systematic collection of emails, sms messages, phone records, social media posts which is then all stored for years.[1] President Obama is right to point out “I guarantee you that in European capitals, there are people who are interested in, if not what I had for breakfast, at least what my talking points might be should I end up meeting with their leaders. That's how intelligence services operate.”[2] [1] Follorou, Jaques, and Johannès, Franck, ‘Exclusive: French intelligence has its own version of PRISM’, Le Monde, 4 July 2013, http://www.worldcrunch.com/world-affairs/exclusive-french-intelligence-has-its-own-version-of-prism/dgse-prism-secret-service-france-big-brother-/c1s12643/ [2] Chu, Henry, ‘European leaders angered by U.S. spying reports’, Los Angeles Times, 1 July 2013, http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/01/world/la-fg-wn-france-germany-us-spying-reports-20130701
Damages US commercial interests

There is no reason for foreign companies to be worried about NSA surveillance. The companies involved such as Google have denied involvement “we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday.”[1] There should be no concern about companies’ data as the NSA is about protecting national security and is not interested in the commercial work of millions of businesses around the world. [1] Page, Larry, and Drummond, David, ‘What the …?’, Google Official Blog, 7 June 2013, http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/what.html
Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides

A two-state solution can offer sufficient territory for both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel this would mean keeping the vast majority of areas inhabited by Israeli citizens within the state of Israel. The two-state solution would also, however, offer sufficient land to the Palestinians. While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance. The area of the West Bank and Gaza is nine times as large as Singapore's, yet the combined population of Palestinians in both regions is smaller than that of Singapore. Singapore enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. The Palestinians are capable of achieving similar success, through instituting a modern economy based on science, technology and the benefits of peace.(1) Moreover, throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement.(6) Even the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.(7) Therefore, the best way to satisfy both sides and achieve peace is to adopt a two-state solution, which is therefore the most just solution.
Only a one-state solution can end the conflict

It was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a bi-national state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'(10) This position has been adopted by some Palestinian leaders: In October 2005, Nusseibeh, then president of al-Quds University in Jerusalem, and several other liberal Palestinian political activists and intellectuals held a press conference in Jerusalem, stating: “We are pressing now for equal political and legal rights within a single, democratic Israel, and we are confident that our Israeli brothers and sisters will welcome us and that together we will build a free and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs will live together in peace.”(5) A two-state solution, however, would most likely foster continued conflict, for two reasons. Firstly, a Palestinian state would be base for terrorism. As seen when Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians there did not embrace the two-state solution, but the Muslim hardliners who controlled Gaza continued to want nothing less than Israel's destruction, and Gaza's newly-elected Hamas government spent much of its money not on the welfare of Palestinians but on attacking Israel.(11) Similarly, a two-state solution makes Israel too narrow and vulnerable. A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory.(1) This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel may become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect). For all these reasons, a two-state solution cannot offer true peace, but a one-state solution built on co-operation and equal rights can, and so a one-state solution is more just.
Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution

A million Palestinians live throughout Israel even without the West Bank and Gaza strip, and when the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered also, it becomes clear that dividing these two populations is simply unfeasible. By comparison, the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote.(12) The ever-expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank particularly represent a barrier to the separation of the two peoples into two states. In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land.(10) Forcibly removing settlers would be too difficult, could foment civil strife among Jewish Israeli citizens, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Only a one-state solution can guarantee equal rights for all

A one-state solution is the most just because a two-state solution would inherently result in a worse situation for the Palestinians than the Israelis, whereas a one-state solution would guarantee equal rights for all. The July 2007 Madrid meeting in favour of a one-state solution put firth that: “A two-state solution is predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora.” Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.”(14) A two-state solution, particularly one that enables a Jewish state, would also most likely alienate the Palestinian population remaining within Israel. At best, they would be second class citizens. At worst, they would be pushed out, directly or indirectly.(13) A two-state solution, and the establishment of a Jewish state, would also kill the idea of the return of Palestinian refugees that were expelled from Israel during various wars and conflicts. The Palestinian state created would also- if past experience is any judge- be highly divided (between factions such as Hamas and Fatah) and dysfunctional. This situation would have a material impact on the quality of life of citizens of the new Palestinian.(15)(16) Therefore, a one-state solution is more just than a two-state solution.
A two-state solution is best for peace

Simply because past conflict has existed is no reason to believe that peace and understanding cannot be established through co-operation, shared institutions and interaction. This is exactly what a one-state solution would foster in the long term, but which a two-state solution prevents by separating the two communities. Even if they each have a state of their own, unless the Israelis and Palestinians learn to live in proximity to each other in co-operation, there will be no peace.
A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish

The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish the West Bank, known to the Israelis as “Judea and Samaria”. Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel would similarly have to undermine its identity to give up these two regions, and so any two-state solution acceptable to Israel would have to mean the retention of Judea and Samaria. Because of the large Palestinian population in the West Bank, even a two-state solution would mean Israel could not be both Jewish and democratic.(3)
Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides

Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008, and is waning even among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements.(8) It is also naïve to think that a two-state solution would gain the favour or even support of Iran. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and it wants nuclear weapons so that it can threaten not only Israel but other states in the region.(9) To this end, Iran has an incentive to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict big and bloody so as to distract the West from its own regional agenda. Furthermore, an independent Palestinian state would probably be perceived as a security threat to some of its neighbours, particularly Jordan, and thus might actually prompt further tensions.(9)
Only a one-state solution can end the conflict

These arguments about 'sympathetic cooperation' ignore the realities on the ground of two people who are and seem certain to remain violently opposed to each other as long as they struggle over control over a single state rather than each having a state of their own. Furthermore, offering the Palestinians a sovereign state of their own, free from Israeli control, would likely go a long way to satisfying the vast majority of Palestinians, and thus actually make a war against Israel far less likely. As Peres argues: “Indeed, six miles will be too narrow to guarantee full security, which only reinforces our belief that Israel's safety is not embedded only in territorial defence but in peace. Peace provides breadth of wings, even when the waist is narrow.”(1)
Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution

A two-state solution could succeed in partitioning the land and the two peoples by including the largest Israeli settlements within Israel, possibly by allowing for non-contiguous “islands” of Israeli territory around the larger settlements surrounded by the new Palestinian state.(13) In any case, a two-state solution can find practical solutions to these problems, while having the advantage of solving the inherent and insolvable problems of having two opposed nations and identities in perpetual conflict within a single state.
Only a one-state solution can guarantee equal rights for all

The most just outcome is that which best secures peace. Both sides will be compelled to make certain concessions, and some inequalities and discrepancies between the two new states are unavoidable. However, on balance the benefits of peace and security for both peoples will outweigh the harms of any concessions or inequalities, so long as both peoples receive a state of their own in which they can control their own destinies, which is the only way to ensure peace.