I have to say that HR describing the sit-in as violating their policy on retaliation is kind of darkly hilarious. Not sure I’d want to have those people in charge of actual retaliation cases if they’re this confused…
It’s similar to Amazon applying the “Disagree but commit” leadership principle to their RTO policy. It suggests that leadership, from the seclusion of their private offices, does not trust employees and prefers to dictate the optimal working conditions without considering individual feedback.
HR was being kind calling it a sit in. From the article: "They took over office spaces, defaced our property, and physically impeded the work of other Googlers".
Writing on a whiteboard is not defacing property unless they didn't use the correct markers and stained the board. It seems like there is something more to it than that.
Your mistake is assuming what that means rather than inferring it from what's actually described as the actions. It's not your fault, but it's wrong to assume that the article writer is unbiased in this situation given that it likely got a corporate spokesperson to comment on it. I don't know that the article writer is incentivized to change much as part of that.
The quote I quoted is literally from Google. The author just repeated the quote. It has nothing to do with the author's potential bias.
If HR/PR lied about defacing property it would open them up to a defamation lawsuit. The entire purpose of HR is to protect the company from lawsuits which is why they don't usually make up fake reasons for firing people. They just won't give specifics instead of defaming a person publicly.
> If HR/PR lied about defacing property it would open them up to a defamation lawsuit. The entire purpose of HR is to protect the company from lawsuits which is why they don't usually make up fake reasons for firing people. They just won't give specifics instead of defaming a person publicly.
"Defacing property" doesn't have as strict a definition as you think it does, as an example: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/morrisonco/latest/morr... <- Writing on a whiteboard wall would qualify under that definition even if it's not what you think it is.
The fact that it comes from Google directly should make you more suspicious not less.
"do not be swayed by karens and their crocodile imperial feminism against rape. it plays right into long tradition of yt women weaponizing femininity/motherhood to discipline/punish men of color
Emmett Till, Vincent Chen, Rassenschande -- all in the name of white sexuality"
"t&s child safety"
This seems crazy to me, but I guess I work in a boring company where we don't need people like this.
She's saying that the alleged Oct. 7th rapes (or at least their characterization as widespread) are a hoax, echoing previous hoaxes. Without wading in too deeply, I do think that the fog of war makes conclusions difficult, and an investigation after all this is over is warranted. I do also think it's very disingenuous to point to rape as a crime exclusive to Hamas when sexual assault of Palestinian prisoners happens regularly in Israeli jails.
Suffice it to say, the statement above doesn't disqualify the speaker, any more than someone saying, "The deaths in Gaza are a tragedy, but all I care about is that the hostages come home."
This seems to be a perfect example of the 'flag' button being abused by people as a sort of "mega downvote" instead of using it correctly to mark offtopic, clickbait, flamebait, spam, or other inappropriate stories.
“They took over office spaces, defaced our property, and physically impeded the work of other Googlers,”
Sit-ins specifically shouldn’t be defacing anything. Not only should they not have brought their political opinions up at work, but it also sounds like they lost control of their protest.
I’d want to get corroboration that they actually defaced something before I made a judgment. Someone in a separate comment speculated that “defaced our property” might be referring to their writing a list of demands on Thomas Kurian’s whiteboard - and I could believe it! It could be something hilariously minor, or it could be something legitimately concerning, they’re vague enough that it’s impossible to tell. At the very least I’d want more details before I accept that it isn’t just corporate spin.
Disclaimer: I think Google is the Big Bad and I strongly dislike them.
>Not only should they not have brought their political opinions up at work
Hard disagree. Not saying for a fact that I personally would have the balls to defacto give up my high paying job over it, but I won't pretend that that isn't a pathetic point of view when it is a genocide in progress that is being fought over here. At least have the wherewithal to recognize their courage and value as human beings when remarking over it pseudoanonymously on the internet, no?
Calling this war a genocide, removes all meaning from the word. If this war in which 14,000 enemy combatants have been killed out of 32,000 total casualties (and 2.1million population) then you could literally call any battle or war a genocide. Heck, by this measure, the cartels are genociding the US (>100k deaths annually from drug ODs). Cars are genociding everyone (>40k deaths in the US alone). Words have meaning and taking a word with an existing meaning and attempting to use that meaning for your own emotional argument doesn’t do you any good. It just makes people ignore you.
This is an off topic tangent that gets brought up way to often in these discussion.
We have a pretty clear definition under international law what constitutes a genocide. It has nothing to do with numbers or proportion but rather intent and conduct, for example the Bosnian genocide was ruled as such because of the killing of 8372 victims, while the Cambodian genocide failed to meet the criteria despite 2-3 million dead.
Many international organizations and governments—including the world highest court—has stated that it is plausible that Israel is committing a genocide.
This is not an emotional argument, but rather a legal argument made at the highest court as well as by experts in the field. If we want to be accurate with our words, we should indeed use the word genocide in this context.
And it’s plausible that a dark lightbulb is due to it being burnt out, but it’s not necessarily so. Perhaps the switch is off, or the breaker is thrown, or a mouse has chewed through the wires.
If we want to be accurate with our words, let’s not use claims that haven’t been proven outside of TikTok.
It will take years to prove the genocide under international law. In the meantime plausible genocide (or genocide for short) are the most accurate terms. It is the term international organizations and many government do indeed use, as do many media organizations. So should we.
The Cambodian genocide was never proven to be a genocide under international law. It was proven under a special national tribunal in Cambodia to be one. But it failed to meet the strict criteria under international law. We still call it a genocide, and we should do so. The crimes of the Khmer Rouge were that of genocide and should be described as such. The same goes for the crimes of Israel.
This is a beyond simplistic view of how any of this works. The reason Khmer Rouge wasn't ruled to have committed a genocide is purely political. It had nothing to do with their actual actions and everything to do with who supported them and those interests being defended.
Israel being accused of genocide is similarly a political ploy by those who hate Jews and the ruling of genocide is a foregone conclusion because it serves those who hate Jews (aka most of Europe, the ME, and Africa). You wishing for genocide doesn't make it so, instead of making baseless hate filled claims why not back them up with actual facts? Where's the intent? Where's the conduct? Promising to kill all of Hamas isn't genocide just like promising to kill all of the nazis wasn't genocide, just like promising to kill all of ISIS isn't genocide. If you take all the actual actions that Israel has taken as well as all the words spoken by the people actually in power, you don't have genocide, instead you have a war started by a genocidal death cult, and peace-loving people attempting to defend themselves while preserving as much life as possible, even as those very people make every attempt to kill more Jews.
The conduct Israel is employing in Gaza is indeed that of genocide. They are not purely targeting and killing active Hamas combatants, but their homes and families as well as infrastructure, schools, hospitals, residential neighborhoods etc. The Palestinian peoples living their lives in Gaza are the victims of this genocide and Hamas members are the collateral. The lives of Palestinians in Gaza has been made unbearable (criteria 2c of genocide convention).
You claim this isn’t backed by facts. But you are wrong. There has been a case filed at the world court with 85 pages of evidence. The world court has ruled this evidence as relevant and incriminating. Since the case was filed more evidence has been piling up, which we can see in various media outlets, so much so that the world court issued an addendum to their ruling when it became apparent that Israel was using starvation of the Palestinian people as a weapon of war, and plausibly as a means towards genocide.
Your claim that this is a political ploy be people who hate Jews is baseless and without merit. This is a desperate attempt of people actively trying prevent Palestinian people from being victims of genocide.
There is no such thing as a world court, please stop making things up. You continue to appeal to authority as if that proves everything. Nothing you've said in this entire discussion is based in reality. Not a word of it. Please consider simply actually looking at reality and not allowing false propaganda to sway your understanding.
Calling something genocide doesn't make it so. Calling Hamas collateral damage is further proof of your totally warped world view.
I really shouldn’t be engaging with this. Attacking me personally and calling me names is not the HN way.
However I’d like to clarify one thing. The World Court is used interchangeably with the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Googling “World Court” yields ICJ as the first result. Typing “World Court” into Wikipedia gives you the page for ICJ. In many languages (including my native tongue) this court is called the World Court.
I beg you to please show some curiosity, if you encounter a term you don’t know, it is easier to search the term (or ask) rather then to accuse the poster of idiocy.
Where did I call you a name? I attacked your view and argument. You clearly like to toss out baseless accusations, but that doesn't make them true.
Regardless of their name, they hold no authority and are an entirely political organization as I've said in other comments.
I'm not sure what I need to show curiosity about, I've been very open to any discussion here, but if all you continue to bring are baseless accusations of hate, without adding anything there isn't really any more curiosity to be had.
You accused me of making things up and being delusional (which is quite ableist name calling IMO) by saying things like: “Nothing you've said in this entire discussion is based in reality”, and “Please consider getting your facts from this reality and not the false one you invent in your imagination” Without elaborating what you mean by that, the only way I can take it is if you believe me to have delusions.
When you say stuff like: “You have no idea what genocide means” you accuse me of ignorance, despite the fact that earlier I made it clear what I meant by it, and even cited the genocide convention. The only way I can take this is that you believe me to be dumb (which may be true TBH).
You didn’t attack my arguments, rather you assumed my worldview to be delusional or ignorant and ordered me to stop doing that.
You also accused me of anti-semitism elsewhere, but I choice not to engage with that.
You're the one who is reading into what I'm saying... why not just take it at face value, I'm asking you to only take facts from the real world not some imaginary propaganda one. I would say that at this point it's becoming increasingly clear you're gaslighting and/or trolling and not arguing in good faith, well played.
From the continued insistence on a false accusation of genocide against all Jews to the willful ignorance about the history of Israel. I guess I should have expected no less from someone with pronouns on their profile.
> I'm asking you to only take facts from the real world not some imaginary propaganda one
> You continue to appeal to authority as if that proves everything. Nothing you've said in this entire discussion is based in reality.
> anything can be true… doesn’t mean it actually is tho, it could be true we’re living on the sun… especially if we totally redefine the meaning of “living”, “true”, and “sun”.
> Calling AJ or WP established news organizations is like calling water dry. They're both propaganda arms of the same type of people
> These are people incapable of understanding the actual facts on the ground either because they've been totally brainwashed or like in your case, their jobs prevent them from accepting rational arguments.
I honestly don’t know what you want me to do. If I make a claim which is widely believed, recited by international organizations as well as governments and media outlets. If I cite a news source, then you simply claim their claim is not base in reality either and/or they are just propaganda.
A pedantic side note (to bring some curiosity back into this discussion): Water can indeed be dry. When water is frozen it is indeed dry, when you touch it, it melts the surface and it is the melted liquid water you touch which is wet.
A second pedantic side note: AJ and WP (and every other media outlet) is off course propaganda. I never pretend otherwise. However they usually propagandize with editorializing, while still reporting truthfully, these are all true statements:
“34 000 have been murdered by the Israeli military in an ongoing genocide in Gaza”
“Israeli assaults have now killed at least 34 000 in Gaza”
“Hamas controlled Gaza health ministry has now confirmed 34 000 lost their lives in Gaza”
Even though they are propaganda, there is still a widely excepted true statement in there that we can use as source. If you want to dispute that, then you are going to have to provide some evidence, and honestly this is such a widely believed number I will probably not believe the evidence you would give against it.
all three quotes are false and do not reflect reality. A true statement would be:
"Hamas, a genocidal organization that has often been found to make inaccurate or totally false statements is claiming without sufficient evidence or proof that 34,000 people have been killed in the ongoing war they started; the IDF confirms it has killed at least 15,000 Hamas or PIJ operatives".
If you'd like a succinct headline that includes some information:
"Hamas unverifiably claims more dead today, of ongoing war they initiated"
"Over 16,000 civilians killed in Hamas-started war" (group those killed by Hamas, and those killed by IDF, only using data that has been independently verified, even Hamas only claims it can actually verify ~15k of the deaths[1])
You are of course guilty of innumerable logical fallacies throughout our discussion, your favorite is of course an appeal to authority, but here you attempt the bandwagon fallacy. Just because a bunch of people have been duped into believing something to be true, that doesn't make it so. You cannot wish truth into existence.
To use that number at all without any context around the fact that it has been soundly debunked by multiple organizations who examined the claims [0] is irresponsible or more likely dishonestly malicious.
Again the only conclusion I can come to is that you are intentionally trolling.
Israel are defending themselves, showing considerable restraint in difficult circumstances. The actions of Hamas are genocide as they were and are indiscriminately targeting and attacking Jewish people.
well in that case, the israelis would be doing a terrible job as gaza in terms of pop growth is exploding (no pun intended).
Their population pyramids IS a pyramid.
There are definetely war crimes - you cannot avoid it, especially when both sides are mortal enemies for generations and palestines tactics dont shy away from using civilians, fighting in civilian clothes etc.
This is not how any genocide in history has unfolded. States usually don’t just all of a sudden use any means necessary kill every person belonging to a group (the Rwandan genocide may be the exception here). Even the holocaust didn’t start with Nazis killing every Jew on sight, but rather escalated starting with apartheid and slowly escalating over a decade to industrialized killing. There usually isn’t a coherent plan to conduct a genocide with the most efficient means available, but rather incitement, dehumanization, escalation and reaction. Israel is conducting a genocide but they are being careful while doing so. They could, in theory, drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza, but doing so would certainly loose them any sympathy. Their current conduct of slowly escalating, systemic killing and preventing aid has not cost them the support of the American government. Most likely they aim to keep it that way.
That said, a “perfect environment for hate crimes” does not excuse a genocide, nor other crimes for that matter. If it did we could excuse Hamas’ conduct on Oct 7 as well. Hate crimes ought to be prevented or prosecuted regardless of the environment they were committed in. This is why it is important to call Israel’s crimes what they are, a genocide.
The nazis literally did kill many jews on sight, what are you talking about?
You've been bleating about a genocide for 75 years and yet over those 75 the population you claim is being destroy has had absolutely explosive growth. You have no idea what genocide means, and continuing to claim that is slanderous and disrespectful!
The Gaza Genocide did not begin in 1948. The Gaza genocide started on Oct 7 2023. The Nakba refers to ethnic cleansing, not genocide. So the Genocide has been ongoing for 6 months, while ethnic cleansing campaign following occupation and apartheid has been ongoing for 76 years. This why people say something like: “It’s been 194 days and 76 years”, the former timespan is referring to the genocide while the latter the ethnic cleansing campaign.
Also to clarify, I was stating that the Nazis didn’t start their genocide by killing every Jewish person on sight, the atrocities gradually got worse over time. By the time of the 1936 Berlin Olympics the atrocities were well known and it was known what the Nazis wanted to do with Jewish people. Even still the international community failed to boycott the Olympics giving the Nazis reassurance that they could get away with the atrocities up until then, an possibly more.
So far the genocide in Gaza has the potential to be worse, and the international community consistently fails to stop it. Presumably, this is the goal of the Zionist government in Israel.
Nothing you've said is true as usual. Please stop spreading falsehoods. You're not tricking anyone, How did the Gaza Genocide start on Oct 7 2023 when Hamas started the war then with the express intent of genociding all Jews? At this point I have to assume you're just gaslighting.
Even more so, genocide makes no sense in this context, again, Israel is capable of killing many more people than it has, not only is it capable of doing so, it could likely justify those attacks to the US and it’s allies in the short term, instead it uses very different means to attempt to kill only those who pose a direct current threat. In that context it’s pretty clear there is neither intent nor conduct.
All the Jew hating European judges in the world doesn’t change that.
Pretending the UN is some higher unbiased authority is intensely naive. The UN has shown time and again that it holds Jews and Israel to an impossible standard and the many nations that make up the UN show little regard for fairness or justice, instead they are most focused on being able to commit as many atrocities at home while pointing the fingers at those dirty Jews. In fact this ridiculous case was
only brought by the SA government as a cynical ploy to redirect attention from their own failing economy and dire political outlook. As with all things involving Jews the conspiracy is always on the other side.
Additionally, the UN gets many things totally wrong for many political reasons, e.g. it’s been totally toothless wrt the Russian/Ukraine war, it’s failed to even acknowledge china’s many well documented atrocities, so appealing to its authority as “the highest court in the world” makes it clear you’re either entirely ignorant or intentionally malicious.
Maximizing the killing of peoples belonging to the victim group is not a criteria of the Genocide under international law. You don’t need to kill as many people as you are capable before the threshold for genocide is met, far from it.
Israel targets and kills a lot of people, and so far it has failed to demonstrate how the majority of them pose a threat. A good example is when al-Jazeera journalist Hamza al-Dahdouh was targeted and killed by an Israeli missile. Israel said he and his coworker were terrorists posing a direct threat to nearby soldiers. Evidence however showed that they had been covering a news story nearby and were on their way back, completely contradicting Israel’s claim. In light of the overwhelming evidence against Israel’s initial claim they simply backtracked and said it was an accident. However evidence shows that their car was indeed targeted[1]. Hamza al-Dahdouh is only one of thousands of such cases. The only reasonable explanation is that Israel targets and kills non-combatants on mass scale in an ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
There is no evidence Hamza al-Dahdouh and Mustafa Thuraya were “spotters”. Not even Israel claims they were “spotters”.
We have records of their work, and their plan the day they were targeted, we have their employers corroborating that plan, we have visual evidence of their locations and witnesses of what they were doing that day. The evidence they were journalists doing journalism is overwhelming, to a point where Israel doesn’t even deny it anymore.
Well if we're going to do this I'll start by pointing out that people that excuse Hamas's atrocities and crimes not only against Israeli Arabs and Jews but also against the people of Gaza are complicit. This constant encouraging of such things by outsiders such as yourself is why the disaster has been going on for the last 75 years. You keep telling the Palestinian's to keep up the struggle we support you. And it's just misery year after year.
So you are right, we have records of all their work... so why would you post falsehoods... Based on their own work they were spying on an IDF encampment in the area, its so sad that you can't even do the barest of research and present obviously misleading information and then have the audacity to accuse someone of being slanderous and disrespectful, you've been slandering Jews all day on multiple threads but get insulted when someone calls a spade a spade.
Additionally, every single time so far that Israel was accused of killing a journalist its later come out the "journalist" was working with Hamas, Obviously the Hamas propaganda mouthpiece (AJ) isn't gonna publicize that when they have people like you who will happily swallow every single falsehood they peddle. Please consider getting your facts from this reality and not the false one you invent in your imagination, barring that simply sit down and stop spreading more hate.
> Based on their own work they were spying on an IDF encampment in the area
Where is that work? Where did you read that? I haven’t seen it. I gave you a link to a story by an established media organization which outlines the story includes quotes from interviews, answers to questions, quotes other media organizations (including the NBC). Other media outlets seem to agree with al-Jazeera here. Here is a link from Washington post on the same story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/19/gaza-journal...
Could you extend me the courtesy and provide me with the source of where you got the information that Hamza Dahdouh and Mustafa Thuraya were spying on the IDF? I don’t even know where to begin looking for where you could read that. The IDF doesn’t even claim they were, instead stating they were shot by mistake (which is it self a questionable claim).
Calling AJ or WP established news organizations is like calling water dry. They're both propaganda arms of the same type of people who have never had a good thing to say about Jews.
AJ in particular is literally owned by the very people harboring and funding Hamas. while WP is owned by and run by the same people who chant "from the river..." and talk about the Nakba and the innocent palestinians without any irony. These are people incapable of understanding the actual facts on the ground either because they've been totally brainwashed or like in your case, their jobs prevent them from accepting rational arguments.
I think we can safely conclude that you have no source for your original claim of spying and are just resorting to throwing mud when people request evidence for your false claims. If you're trying to convince anyone, I would highly recommend more evidence and less name-calling and accusations of brainwashing. Have the day you deserve.
After a lot of gish galloping and moving the goal post, you finally found a claim in one of my side notes which you could dispute with sources. This claim was merely a demonstration of media bias, an example of how true statements can be editorialized to adhere to propaganda. I was using this to agree with you that Al Jazeera was indeed spouting propaganda while still telling the truth.
This was the number of victims to date.
The BBC is just like Al Jazeera. A biased media outlet owned and funded by a partial state, which runs an independent news program. Qatar and, by extension, Al Jazeera is partial towards the Palestinian cause while the UK and, by extension, the BBC are partial towards Israel. Here are two articles by the news outlet partial towards Israel which dispute your disputing of the casualty numbers.
Of course this was never engaging with my claims, rather it was finding a single claim (no matter how irrelevant) which you could dispute, win an argument over, and claim victory on the whole debate. If you wanted to engage with my true claims, you would provide me with a source on where you read that Hamza al-Dahdouh and Mustafa Thuraya were Hamas “spotters” spying on IDF encampment in the area. You would tell me which definition of Genocide you are using and explain how Israel’s conduct doesn’t fall under it. You would dispute the 85 page document filed by South Africa claiming genocide, not by ad-hominem stating that South Africa is an evil country, nor by claiming me citing it is an appeal to authority, but by reading the content, providing counter points and counter evidence of the report.
Just to get back on topic: You claim that the only people in the world who can define genocide are the very people who have perpetrated genocide after genocide against basically every other minority, now those very same people, who actively participated in the murder of millions, get to decide if some minority that they don't like is evil; that's essentially the claim you are making.
Consider that maybe such people don't have any idea what they're talking about and are simply totally wrong. Consider that you wanting the Jews to be doing something evil so you can be justified in your hatred doesn't mean the Jews are doing anything wrong, it just means that you have hatred in your heart. Is it possible?
You keep asking me to be curious, why don't you try being curious about why you, after only ever consuming content that paints Jews in the worst possible light, might not be capable of giving them the benefit of the doubt? Why it might be literally impossible for you to view any topic about Jews through a fair lens?
Never in this thread, nor anywhere else on HN, nor anywhere else do I speak generally about the Jews. In fact, when I see people doing that here on HN, I flag it. “The Jews” are not committing a genocide, they are not committing war crimes, they are not oppressing Palestinians. I don’t claim that, the UN doesn’t claim that, the only people claiming that are actual anti-Semites, and neither me, nor all pro-Palestinan people I know, want anything to do with these anti-Semites (except maybe punch them in the face).
The state of Israel is committing genocide, and “The Jews” have absolutely nothing to with the state of Israel. Which ethnicity the leaders of the state of Israel has, has nothing to with the rest of the people who share that ethnicity. To be absolutely clear: The Jews have done absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, I don’t want the Jews to do anything, except continue to exist and share their amazing culture with the rest of the world.
Now, with that out of the way. Genocide is clearly defined by the UN. It is a pretty universal and undisputed definition. Most nation (152 to be exact; see list[1]) have signed and put into law this same definition, including both Israel (in 1950) and Palestine (in 2014). This includes nations in both hemispheres, on all 6 habitable continents, of all major religion, indigenous nations, former colonies, current colonizers, countries with minority representation, majority minority nations, homogeneous nations etc. Even countries that have in the past been perpetrators and victims of genocide have signed on this definition of Genocide.
I’m not making any claims here which isn’t pretty much universally accepted. And according to this definition—which is universally accepted—it has been ruled by many experts and a legal authority on the matter, that it is plausible that Israel (not the Jews) are committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza as a group.
You see, I also want Palestinians in Gaza to continue to exist and share their amazing culture with the rest of the world. And as of now it is plausible that the state of Israel is working to deny them this existence, by committing a genocide against them. For that I do indeed hate the state of Israel, just as I hate Nazis trying to deny Jewish people the right to exist. In fact my heart is full of hatred towards the ideology of Zionism. But at the same time my heart is full of love towards Jewish people.
I’m curious, what does Israel need to do before you’ll consider it criminal, how should those crimes be reported before you’ll believe them, instead of rejecting them as anti-semitic lies?
As we speak people are investigating a the mass grave at Nasser hospital in Khan Younis. I’ll give you 4 pro-Zionist or pro Israel sources reporting on it[1][2][3][4] (including one which 3/4 of the news is a direct quote from the IDF[4]). The final count of bodies found in that mass-grave is 392, and all sources agree at least 200 people were burred there.
The IDF claims there is no mass-grave and that the bodies were unearthed months ago. CNN (a pro-zionist newspaper) is not convinced and claims to have evidence that which counters the IDF claims[5], including evidence that some of the victims burred in their hospital gowns.
There are even reports that many of the bodies show signs of torture, executions, and being buried alive[6]. There are calls for an independent investigation from all sides except the IDF (who want no investigation) and the US State Department (that wants Israel to investigate their own crimes). I’m sure there will be an investigation and it will conclude the existence of the mass grave with at least 200 victims of IDF violence (the 392 figure probably includes older bodies). I’m also sure this future independent investigation will conclude there are some evidence of torture and at least 10 victims were executed.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that I’m right, and in 2 months this report comes out. Will you then simply claim that the independent investigation was conducted by Jew-haters and is not based in reality?
Let’s level set, everyone agrees that CNN, BBC, and NBC are much more sympathetic to Hamas than they are to any Jews or Israel. The NYT is historically much more sympathetic to Arabs than they are to Jews, the one exception being the rape report which has caused a giant outcry internally because it casts Hamas and Arabs in such a negative light. So your claim is bogus on its face, you claim to be bringing “pro-Zionist” sources but are instead bringing mostly pro-terrorist sources.
But let’s get back on topic: you’ve totally ignored everything I’ve said and brought in another red herring to deflect to. I can easily reject this “mass-graves” nonsense as you can easily see from the IDF claims they were just digging up graves to confirm that no hostages were buried there. Hamas themselves reported months ago that they dug and filled a mass grave… you continue to lie and make totally false claims.
For me to believe any claims of war crimes they MUST come from credible sources. Who is credible? Well considering every single Gazan we’ve seen so far has shown themselves ready to lie about everything, I’d say we’d need irrefutable video and audio footage, from multiple angles, fully contextualized from start to finish like Hamas provided for their own crimes (Which you still deny happened at all).
So far all you’ve done is bring lies and innuendo as well as your own skewed sick biases.
I find it very telling that you refuse to acknowledge that Israel and the Jewish people are irrefutably linked, that you continue to toss around “Zionist” like some sort of insult and that thus far you’ve refused to even consider your own biases.
If the report comes out and shows with actual irrefutable evidence that genocide was committed then I would concede to your conclusion, but considering no war crimes have yet been committed by Israel or the IDF, despite this being the most watched conflict in the world, I know what we’re gonna see is a report full of lies and misinformation that does its hardest to redefine what war crimes are, what genocide is and then paint the target around that. Handily lampooning Israel and Jews alone while ignoring the fact that these new definitions will obviously implicate everyone who engages in any conflict in anyway.
What would you need to see to be convinced that no war crimes by Jews took place, that instead you were fed lies? Would it be enough to see Hamas admit to telling lies constantly? Would be enough to be shown that Hamas has never once told the truth? Would it be enough to see that Hamas film themselves committing war crimes and then blaming the Jews? What would it take?
Finally the fact that you claiming that all western media is pro-zionist tells me that you are 100% trolling. Likely for some disinformation producing country like Russia or Iran. This will be my last engagement with you.
I don't know what universe you're living in where you believe the "Hamas isn't a terrorist org" BBC is pro Israel, but again it just goes to show me that you're not even remotely pretending to argue from a place of honesty and are just spouting trollism nonsense to bait me.
As usual, you've gone overboard in spreading lies and misinformation. Not once have I ever moved the goal posts, you're the one who keeps introducing more lies and then backtracking or ignoring me every time I call you out.
Please just be honest and admit: you hate jews... it's ok you're in good company. But pretending to be concerned about a people who have no regard for their own life is so sad and pointless.
Lol, anything can be true… doesn’t mean it actually is tho, it could be true we’re living on the sun… especially if we totally redefine the meaning of “living”, “true”, and “sun”.
Your comment didn’t add anything at all. I pointed out, the people making these claims have a bunch of ulterior motives that are totally at odds with them coming to a honest conclusion and you agreed and then baselessly made another claim that genocide could be happening without any further evidence.
People in power having ulterior motives does not invalidate the claim that the Israeli government's policies can be classified a genocide. Or do you believe only pure angels can make judgement calls?
Again, if the Jews' action can be classified as genocide then so can your actions, everyone is guilty of genocide simply for existing. Genocide has actual meaning and isn't simply empty rhetoric used by sophomoric college students. Making the claim doesn't make it true, it simply shows that the people making the claims are guilty of extreme hate.
How does starving children solve anything? Israel had a lot of support until they decided to rampage a civilian population. What they are doing now is neither defensive nor effective.
That is simply not true. There is no evidence of Hamas systematically stealing aid from the rest of the population. On the contrary there is plenty of evidence showing Israeli citizens preventing aid from entering Gaza and the Israeli military doing nothing about it.
We have evidence of aid reaching Gaza being distributed orderly by the Gaza police (a Hamas organization) and then the police officers orchestrating the distribution being targeted and killed by an Israeli missile. The optics here is that Israel is trying to prevent aid from reaching Gaza, and what little aid gets in, they try to create chaos such that this aid is not distributed to those in need.
You don't understand it because most, if not all, aren't arguing that Israel should "just take any attacks coming their way."
A response needs to be proportionate, and also one needs to account for the causes of the attack in the first place. People will point to things like Israeli expansion, mass surveillance, and other issues relating to Gaza as factors which need to be considered when discerning what is an appropriate response.
Now, what I just said is a very simplistic and slanted presentation, but it should suffice in demonstrating that it's not as simple as one side (the "good guys") who thinks Israel should defend itself and the other side (the "bad guys") who think Israel should allow itself to be wiped off the map by terrorists.
> A response needs to be proportionate, and also one needs to account for the causes of the attack in the first place.
You mention a list of reasons, but you forget to mention the most important: that the Palestinians were displaced from their homeland in hordes, often quite violently, in the 1940s to make room for current day Israel.
Just want an accurate depiction of the real reasons, so people are also able to kind of understand (tho not necessarily condone) the Palestinian response.
I have a lot of Israeli coworkers who I like working with, and would never wish them harm. Instead of taking sides, I really wish people understood how we got here, and what we can do to go forward from here. I think a fair path forward would be for both the west and Israel to pay massive reparations of some kind to Palestine, and just slightly re-visit the current drawing of the Israel/Palestine borders. Chances of this happening are slim tho, with western media portraying Palestinians as mindless Hamas terrorists.
> You mention a list of reasons, but you forget to mention the most important: that the Palestinians were displaced from their homeland in hordes, often quite violently, in the 1940s to make room for current day Israel
Right, so because 700k Palestinians were displaced 75 years ago (due to a war they started together with the surrounding Arab nations, while throwing out the Jews living in those Arab nations) the just thing to do is to violently displace 7 million Jews now (?). Sounds simplistic maybe but what I described is the 'solution' Hamas says it wants and there's a huge support for this among Palestinians and Muslims in general.
I wonder if all other nations who had a history of displacement are going to follow suit and voluntarily dismantle themselves to try to create justice for events whose participators are mostly not alive anymore.
> due to a war they started together with the surrounding Arab nations, while throwing out the Jews living in those Arab nations
I’m not super well versed in the specifics of this history, so correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t these things happen during and after the Nakba?
Reading the timeline of Wikipedia it seems as though expulsion had already started and was well on it way before the Arab League’s armies entered Palestine in May 1948.
Likewise reading about the history of Jewish people in Iraq[1] it seems that the persecution was very much a reaction to Zionist conduct in Palestine. As in most of the anti-jewish laws were passed between July and December 1948, which is several months to over a year into the Nakba.
These actions were certainly unjust and should be condemned, but to me it seems wildly ahistorical to blame the Nakba on them. Plan Dalet started in April 1948 before the Arab league invasion, and certainly before anti-jewish laws in Iraq. And Plan Dalet was not the first instance of ethnic cleansing by Zionsits in Palestine, but rather followed several months of escalations which included depopulating villages as early as November 1947.
EDIT: I also feel like it needs stated how weird of a justification that is. The Palestinians who were displaced during the Nakba had nothing to do with the Arab invasion and certainly not the discriminatory anti-jewish legislation in neighboring country. These refugees and their descendants are still to this day refugees now three to four generations later. It seems odd to continue to punish them with Apartheid and genocide to this day because of actions they had nothing to do with. Most other groups who have suffered similar and much smaller injustice have gotten apologies and even reparations for (a noticeable example are Japanese Americans after E.O. 9066). Palestinians however still get blamed for crimes they had nothing to do with, except having been victims.
Tbh starting the history doesn't at 1948 doesn't really help much. Around 1948 is when the Jewish and Palestinian narratives are already in full swing and have some of the strongest evidence for each side. On the Jewish side you'd have their invasion by the broader Arab world and their subsequent mentality that they have to defend themselves at all costs. On the Palestinian side you have the Nakba and the resulting trauma that forms their identity.
If you go back earlier you start to see the roots of the conflict more clearly. From Russian Jews being expelled out of Russia and looking towards the Ottoman empire and historic Judea as a place from their home, Ottoman policies around 1900s when they are hyper paranoid about quashing nationalism in their multi-ethnic empire and how that plays into their treatment of Jews they allow to immigrate into their lands, then the British control over Ottoman lands and how they tried to administer to it and designated Judea as a vague "Jewish National Home" which gave neither Jews nor Arabs clarity on the political reality of the region. Then there was the early immigration of Jews to Israel in the 1910s and 1920s which meets some Arab resistance and sparks violence, but the migration stops in the mid 1920s, so tensions cool a bit. Then in the 1930s the Nazis rise to power and immigration of Jews to Palestine _really_ starts. At this point the US has imposed strict quotas on Jews immigrating to the US (in around 1924), so for many Jews Palestine isn't their first choice, but it is a choice for them and the British seem serious about this "Jewish National Home" thing, so they go for it. Then comes the great Arab revolt in 1936 where Arabs in Palestine respond to the large influx of Jewish migrants, demand independence from Britain, and seek to end the Jewish National Home project. Somewhere around the early 1940s WW2 is in swing and the Nazis invade Egypt and establish a SS unit there whose purpose is the genocide the Jews in Palestine. This was a pretty close call, if it wasn't for a British victory in Egypt that held the Nazi's back, odds are the Middle East would look very different today.
And that brings us to 1948 when the British withdraw and the stage is set for the resulting chaos. So there you have it. On one side a population struggling to determine their national identity after the fall of a 600 year old empire and dealing with a large influx of immigrants that they don't want to their lands (and also still struggling to figure out what "their" means). On the other hand you have a group of people trying to flee their home country and having no option but this weird "Jewish National Home" that totally isn't a state according to the British despite it being maybe possible a state for Jews? Then in the middle of a clearly bad situation, Britain withdraws and the Jews and Palestinians have been dealing with the situation sense.
None of this is to say that one side is right or wrong. Rather, if you look around 1948 you're already missing a lot of the buildup to the conflict and the reason there is no trust between the two groups in 1948.
Agreed, the history by it self is not enough, except for the context it is put in. In the case of Israel Palestine this context matters. I like to put it in the context of colonialism and colonial warefare/resistance. Knowing the history is important, and 1948 is certainly a pivotal moment in history, but if you list events as if one thing leads to another (like my parent did) you, at best, end up with a simplistic view, a weird nonsensical justification and, at worst, wrong timeline and a confusing conclusion. Lying with history is after all a pretty known device to provide justification which otherwise wouldn’t be possible.
I like the context of colonization here because in 1948 Europe is in the middle of recolonizing regions lost during WW2 and the whole period after WW2 has been dominated by a) the cold war and b) decolonization. The cold war here seems irrelevant but decolonization seems important. Many post WW2 decolonization efforts were done via colonial warfare and resistance. Many of the colonial nations spent most of their military activity fighting resistance movements in their newly re-established colonies. Examples include the British army fighting the Mau Mau in Kenya, and the IRA in Northern Ireland, the French fighting FLN in Algeria, and the Americans fighting the Viet Cong in Vietnam. Even before WW2 the British were fighting Irish Republicans in Ireland.
In Palestine we have the British handing the colony of Palestine over to the UN in the hopes of a peaceful decolonization, which became moot when Israel declared independence in 1948. After 1967 it becomes obvious that Israel is the colonizer and Palestinians are the colonized. In 1967 Europe is desperately trying to keep colonialism alive so it makes sense they support another western colonizer in the Middle East. After 1967 we also have established resistance movements in Palestine such as the PLA (which later became superseded by Hamas and PIJ). By the 1990s, after the Cold war has ended, it becomes obvious that European colonialism is all but dead. However Israel remains as a beacon of hope, the last remaining colony of European settlers. But everyone knows it can’t stay like that. Decolonization is inevitable. And I think the hope is that the two-state solution is a way for the settlers to keep theirs while Palestine remains subjugated while not a proper colony (not learning the lesson from the partition of Ireland). This however failed, largely because Israel wished to keep colonizing Palestinians.
Of course this is simplistic. However this is the context in which I like to put this history.
I think you are reading too much into my response. The list of events isn't an attempt to justify anything. It is mainly to establish that what happens in 1948 isn't coming out of nowhere, but rather has been brewing and building up for a while in the region. If someone is only familiar with 1948, they're going to really struggle to understand the motivations of either side and will likely end up with a simplistic view of one side or the other as evil depending on what information they get.
As for the colonialist interpretation... that confuses more than it clarifies. There is enough substance to the conflict itself that we don't need to resort to grand sweeping historical narratives.
I didn't say the displacement of Palestinians was because Jews were displaced from the Arab world. What I am saying is if we're going to try to bring "justice" to things long past the plight of Jews in the Arab world should definitely be mentioned.
I do think the Arab conduct before the invasion and the war mongering statements made by the Arab League threatening invasion and genocide planted the idea that this is a fight to the death (which I think it was) in the hearts of the Jews.
The Farhud massacre happened in 1941. I don't know if you can blame the whole thing on Zionism, I don't think most Iraqi Jews were Zionist at all - so looks more like Anti Semitism to me. You can say Zionism created the general hatred of Jews among Muslims, even Jews who weren't much into Zionism at all like Iraqi Jews back then. But even if that is the case, that's not really excusing anything. I also suspect for the population to turn against Jews so quickly there must have been seeds of hatred already planted long before, maybe due to culture and religion.
Anyway It's quite complex and not something you can summarize in 3 sentences.
We should also mention why the chances are slim. There are several components to this, with regard to the West's role in the matter: the role of the military-industrial complex, the ramifications for further reparations to other groups, and the ramifications for elections in the US. Point-by-point, very briefly:
1) Israel is an important intelligence ally, military foothold in the region, and both source and buyer of military research and applications. Anything that disrupts this arrangement risks hundreds of billions of dollars and the perceived national security interests of multiple countries.
2) Reparations to Palestinians would not only be extremely expensive, it would also raise questions of potential reparations to other victims of Western imperialism and apartheid, including to Native Americans, Native Austronesians, and much of the African continent and diaspora.
3) Securing the existence of Israel as an ethnostate drives political support from Western Zionists and Evangelical Christians. Even a change to a more stable, secular, multi-ethnic Israel would see not only the revocation of support but also active retaliation that, at best, would get your a chapter in a Profiles in Courage reboot.
Palestine fired thousands of missiles at Israel after the Oct 7. Just because Israel is able to block most of them doesn't make it okay. Those missiles still count.
At worst, this is debatable but the protesters at google think that they are absolutely correct with no debate needed. I think they all should be fired, and their names should definitely be disclosed.
Your opinion is incorrect and concerning in its confidence. Oct. 7th has been characterized as Israel's 9/11 (with, frankly, fewer deaths). Meanwhile, Israel has perpetrated a 9/11 roughly every 2.5 weeks for the past 6 months in Gaza. The difference in Hamas versus the IDF's allowance of accessibility to basic needs is also stark. In essence, a terrorist attack is not proportional to a siege.
I think categorizing it as a "terror attack" does some injustice to the scale of things - we are talking about thousands participating in the Oct 7th attack, basically the Palestinian "army".
Not that I think Israel's reaction was wise, but that's a different story.
I actually tend to agree. Characterizing it as a terrorist attack was a mea culpa; it is absolutely better categorized as a counterattck/insurgency against an occupying force.
No, we cannot agree to disagree. 3 of your 4 statements are verifiably false. Notably, 33000 dead over 6 months is roughly a 9/11 every 2.5 weeks (if you're going to say, "I said 2 weeks," I said 2.5 weeks). You are wrong. You should ask yourself why you cling so hard to that. It is your duty as a human being to recognize and denounce the genocide that is taking place.
Palestine has been offered ceasefire, two state solution, and etc. They have refused to take it. They fired thousands of missiles at Israel. Their army hide under hospital and schools.
You declare "verifiably" and "we must recognize genocide" when it is not. It's a war. Then, after you declare a genocide, you follow with "it's your duty!"
You are looking to harass anyone who disagrees with you. People can't even be neutral on the topic and recognize it's debatable. There's no discourse to be had.
This is why people like this should be fired from a workplace.
Hamas has been in support of all ceasefire resolution to date, Hamas has attended every truce talk to date. Israel, however has been in opposition to every ceasefire resolution to date, and has boycotted or walked away from most truce talks. It is true that Palestine has rejected a two-state solution in the past, however those deals contained what many considered a poison pill for Palestinians, it is disputed among international experts whether those deals were indeed acceptable for Palestinians. Meanwhile Israel has worked hard in making any future two-state solutions impossible. They fired thousands of missiles at Israel, however Israel has killed thousands of Palestinians. If you take issue with Palestinians you must have an order of magnitude greater issue with Israel.
Your parent is far from the only person to declare genocide. Many countries and international organizations have done so. The world highest court has ruled it is plausible that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Genocide is the highest crime there is. You should do everything in your power to stop it.
In 1993 Steven Spielberg released a very popular movie based on a true story about a factory owner in Germany who took issue with the fact that his government was using his products to commit genocide. Instead of simply following orders, he tried to save as many people as possible by hiring potential victims and making sure his products were faulty and unusable for the state doing the genocide. The protagonist in this movie was a hero. Most people in Germany however simply went to work and did what they were told. Millions of people died in that genocide. Let’s not repeat history.
> Hamas has been in support of all ceasefire resolution to date
This is already false. Hamas violated ceasefires multiple times within the last 6 months alone.
> Meanwhile Israel has worked hard in making any future two-state solutions impossible
This is also false. Hamas's charter is to annihilate Israel. It is written in their charter. Yet you solely blame Israel.
On the flip side, does Israel have a charter to annihilate Palestine? Nope.
> Your parent is far from the only person to declare genocide.
There are also many people not seeing it as genocide.
This is exactly my original point of people like you who bring politics into a workplace. They don't even recognize other people's opinions here. Again, this is at maximum debatable. It's not a set-in-stone topic like you are making it to be.
People also denied the holocaust back in 1944. I’m sure there were people telling Schindler that he shouldn’t be messing with politics and just do his job well. Those were differing opinions for sure, but the genocide deniers were both morally wrong and factually wrong.
BTW. Hamas does not have the annihilation of Israel in their charter anymore, only the annihilation of the Apartheid system which discriminates Palestinians, and denies displaced Palestinians the right of return. One can demand the destruction of a state without any harm to the people, that was the case for the ANC who worked successfully to destroy the state of Apartheid South Africa.
> The rule of proportionality requires that the anticipated incidental loss of human life and damage to civilian objects should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected from the destruction of a military objective.. (From the Geneva Convention)
The Israeli military goal is to destroy Hamas, which started the war, and is hiding in and under densely populated cities.
So the question becomes how you can destroy Hamas without unnecessary civilian casualties. My impression is that Israel is doing pretty OK with that, though things can always be better, and tragic mistakes are inevitable in war.
A common misconception is that the response needs to be proportionate to the attack. So if Hamas killed 1200 people on Oct 7, Israel should not kill more than that. That is not at all how the laws of war work!
The idea is to stand up for the weaker party and that's it. It doesn't matter that Palestine is led by a terrorist group with a genocidal agenda with overwhelming popular support. They are weaker and therefore they can't be wrong, by virtue of being weaker they are automatically classified as oppressed and deserving of pity, whilst Israel being the stronger party makes it automatically the bad oppressive party in cartoon style. See also how no one doubts the obviously cooked numbers on Palestinian deaths. You can see this rationale mirrored exactly in the disproportionate criticism of Western states and specifically white settlers.
But don't conflate protests against Israel as being in support of Hamas. Many people support neither, but are horrified how kids are bearing the brunt. Hamas commited attrocities, so has Israel; all lose in war.
Personally I've never seen a "pro-Hamas" sign, I have no doubt someone somewhere has one. Ive seen plenty of "Free Palastine" signs be called anti-semitic though, despite showing support for the people versus a government.
That "River to Sea" phrase has a very sinister and evil meaning when you look up the original Arabic. Translations are always polished for mass appeal!
I see Jews being harassed, synagogues vandalized, 4chan-tier anti-semitic conspiracy theories going around leftist circles, and more broadly I see social media armchair activists who may or may not be relevant but do affect public opinion parroting Hamas propaganda wholesale, and the protesters featured in this post's article exemplify exactly that mentality which is what I was initially describing. Most people are reasonable, but I'm not concerned with people who know the difference between a hot war and a genocide.
When I see aid trucks being attacked by the army but also by protestors while the UN declares millions of people at risk of starvation, I know we are past a “hot war”.
As far as I know, friendly fire and collateral damage are a reality in all hot wars, especially in situations such as this one where one side attempts to blend in with civilians, so I don't see how this is different. The good and bad of the Internet is that in the sea of information you can pick and choose your truth. Was Israel's killing of aid workers intentional or was it collateral damage? All I know is that Hamas was shown cooking up numbers and lying systematically and that's the side everyone believes for some reason. When their lies are exposed they are simply replaced with more or with some disproportionate criticism of errors committed by the IDF.
I read /pol/ occasionally like I read far-left commentary and I can assure you that they portray Hamas/Iran/anyone aligned against Israel or openly anti-semitic as a gigachad. If Jews were wiped off the face of the Earth then sure they'd pick a secondary target, probably Muslims.
Then you're blind. I've not seen a single person at these protests where I live supporting Hamas. The protests are all about stopping the murdering of innocent civilians. If you take that as a statement for Hamas, you're the one conflating these two things and the problem is entirely in your head.
I highly recommend you read the book The Lemon Tree.
I used to think the same as you. Obviously, Palestinians are wrong, right? They rape and murder Israelis? Well, look < 100 years back, and "Israelis" did the same to Palestinians when they forced out Palestinians from their homes to make present-day Israel. Obviously, there was a lot going on in Europe at the time, so it's a bit hard to blame the "Israelis" from 1940s completely too.
Understanding how we got here tho is very important. It helps humanize Palestinians, understand why they're mad, and what we can do to peacefully move forward. I believe there is a peaceful solution to the almost 100 year long Israel/Palestine conflict, however unlikely it is to come to fruition.
Eh, why should Palestinians though? There are many that are being attacked daily by Israel. Should they just take it?
Also you're kinda assuming this contract is about defense, or that the defense is just. No idea why anyone should just take that assumption as granted.
Israel is an apartheid state. And this comes from prominent Israeli human rights organizations (https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid), journalists (i.e., listen to what Gideon Levy says about Israeli society), and ex-soldiers (google "breaking the silence). It's occupier. It is recognized by the international community as an occupying power. There are decades and decades of documented violence against Palestinians. And we will see in the future trials upon trials for current Genocide.
Google has come a long way from "Don't be evil" to "Let's sell targeting systems to a government that's currently killing tens of thousands of civilians, and then fire any employee who protests."
Please answer truthfully.
If this sit in were by a group of employees protesting climate change effects of Google’s data-centers and rampant frivolous training of neural networks by anyone, will HR do this?
Or that matter any of approved cause de jour (LGBTQ+, Trump, Police brutality against black men, etc).
Disrupted/hijacked multiple trainings and seminars to push his agenda, and persisted long past the point where it was made clear to him his input was no longer welcome on those matters. He was also arguing a lot on mailing lists with a lot of people about the same kinds of ideas that were in the memo. Basically turned a lot of people off who didn't want to be working with him after that. It was more than just writing that one memo; it was a whole pattern.
Did that merit firing? Eh, I'm not particularly interested in reopening that debate. But it was certainly more complicated than that he wrote that one memo.
I'm fairly sure if Google Google you can't hide — we charge you with genocide is part of your chant you would be promptly terminated regardless of the causes you listed above. Rightfully so.
I support Google firing them. My point is that climate change, LGBTQ+, Antifa, BLM, etc will be treated very differently. Google won’t dare to fire them in those cases.
For example, extinction rebellion crazies get essentially free pass to do whatever they want.
Unless theres a similar situation where there is a similar protest for those causes, and Google does not fire them, then you are just making an empty hypothetical.
I think it's funny that you think that tech workers would protest police brutality against black men, let alone in such a way that would put their jobs on the line.
I would question if that has changed in a significant way since. I also don't know that a single anecdote suffices. I've seen enough just on this site to be confident in my wager. You're going to find more tech workers who are hopping mad about DEI than ones who would risk their employment or perception of their own safety for the safety of black people.
Things won't be calm till businesses actually understand that working with genocidal governments and then labelling it "it's just business" and gaslighting their employees opinions on it when they have values like "responsibility" and making employees attend these HR training for these values and then turning their back on when employees actually stand for this. Sad world on how we are all becoming complicit to this genocide based on their presumption that some people from Europe can just claim lands as theirs as their book said so.
Good! Check your political beliefs at the gate when you walk in. If you don't like what your employer is doing, you are free to quit. It's a 2-way street.
Every 2 weeks your employer settles their debt to you. This is a transactional relationship. If you choose to accept a paycheck, you have to accept the rules and regulations that come with working at that place.
If the company is doing something illegal, you are welcome to file a whistleblower complaint and take it up with the authorities.
Most people are not fully free to quit, having rent to pay, a work visa to maintain, or other circumstances.
Most software jobs are not paying their workers a salary for them to become soulless robots. They are paying you to produce code, and to have expertise on the matters at hand.
In a sense, you're getting paid so that you can tell your employer "No, this feature isn't quite right, it's easier to code this way".
This black-and-white "if you accept a salary to code, you also must turn off your brain and become a mindless automaton for your owners, or else quit" is ridiculous, and reality will always have more complexity.
You're of course welcome to willingly turn yourself into a robot slave in exchange for money, but I will remain a free opinionated human, regardless of whether I am taking a paycheck or not, and if the company does not want a human, they can fire me and try to replace me with someone like you, or with an AI.
disagree, strongly. you present a false dichotomy. you can be a human with a soul and disagree (strongly) with your employer and still take their salary to do your job. it's not your job to decide how the software you build is used - there's several democratic governments, shareholders, company officers, etc. that get to decide that. when you are an employee that is the deal you made when you decided to work for them.
> Most software jobs are not paying their workers a salary for them to become soulless robots. They are paying you to produce code, and to have expertise on the matters at hand.
agree. totally true. notice how they are specifically not paying you to protest global political issues in their executive offices.
> I will remain a free opinionated human, regardless of whether I am taking a paycheck or not, and if the company does not want a human, they can fire me and try to replace me with someone like you, or with an AI.
again, totally understandable and fine.
however, these people are not just "opinionated". they decided to stage a "protest". that is NOT what they were being paid to do. and they decided to protest their own employer. on that employer's property. you are free to have your own opinion about your employer, his politics, his customers, etc. you are not free to stage a takeover and make a public protest about it on his property. you are not free to disagree publicly and embarrass or harass him and then expect he will not hire someone else next week instead of you. if you don't like it: buy a majority position or run for office. if you really can't stomach it, then the only ethical thing to do is quit - you can demonstrate your conviction by sacrificing yourself. but you have no right to injure/annoy/bother anyone else about your political ideas at work.
from a pragmatic standpoint, that was stupid. from a practical standpoint, it will do nothing to help their cause, quite likely damage it instead. it doesn't demonstrate good ethics, "having a soul" or anything like that. it demonstrates incredible immaturity, entitlement, and naivete.
Why is any of this true? All you're doing is setting the meta-rules, but who gave you this special freedom to define the rules for others?
I mean, that's the conceit of your argument. It's the rhetoric of political belief which is why "check your beliefs at the door" is a completely disingenous argument. The very argument you and others offer is foundationally a political belief - a belief about what are freedoms - masquerading as something everyone should uncritically accept as given. That's the lie that you are telling to yourself and others.
it is a belief. it's a belief in actual freedom - one where we are free to decide whether to do business or not with who we choose. if we choose to contract with a FANG for lots and lots of money, but we have "sell our soul" and promise not to harangue the CEO in the mens' room, that's OK. if we choose not to promise that, for much less $$, that's also OK.
and checking your beliefs are the door is a strawman. you're allowed to have beliefs. you're even allowed to voice them, discuss them in a professional way. they do not have to be hidden. but you cannot harass/annoy/intimidate/etc. but if you still do not like those rules, that's fine too! don't sign up for them - leave.
if you were really principled in your beliefs, you would NOT "check them at the door" - you would not work there nor participate. but you can't have it both ways AND then claim moral high ground too.
Sit-in protests have been long established as a legitimate expression of political speech for decades. "harassment/annoyance/intimidation" have also always been considered legitimate (up to the point of violence, usually) and no political action has ever had any effect in which the protestors kept their place and politely made certain never to upset the status quo.
Read MLK's letter from the Birmingham Jail[0], and his opinions on white moderates telling black protestors where and when and how they should conduct themselves. You're backing the wrong side, here. It may be correct in a purely legal sense that American companies can fire anyone for any reason, but it isn't necessarily just when they do so to punish nonviolent political protest.
sorry, but a peaceful sit-in in a public place or semi-public-place (shop, college etc.) is one thing.
in this case they were:
- not-peaceful. damaging property. antagonizing people.
- in a private space. in a private office in a private space.
- in the employ of the very people they were protesting. OK, even if they had the right to be there (which they did not), the company still has the right (moral and legal), actually imperative, to fire them.
i don't agree that you need to "check your opinions at the door" at work. you can put up a poster or a flag. you can wear a t-shirt. within reason. you CANNOT harass your employer or other employees.
would you say the same: "it isn't necessarily just" [to be fired] if it were 24 KKK members protesting hiring H1Bs in otherwise exactly the same manner? if you can't, it isn't a protest, it's thuggery.
Comparing this to Civil Rights protests is disingenuous.
Google is a company. They are lawfully transacting with a US ally. The employees violated the terms of their employment and Google has no legal obligation to keep those employees.
If the employees want to change the law to add Israel to a sanctioned blacklist they can go protest the US government and they won't be arrested or fired. Their rights to political protest are protected.
It's really not that complicated. Employees are allowed to have their political beliefs. Believe whatever you want to believe, while doing the job you are paid to do. Their employer can choose to fire them if they behave unprofessionally. That's what happened.
If you have rent to pay or a visa then the reality of the world is that you should think twice before you cause a disruption and deface the property of your own employer. This does not make you a robot, but rather a pragmatic person. We have freedom of speech here but it does not mean free from consequences - something the right has been struggling with as of late and it seems now the left also.
It's fairly easy to google. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
So is free from government consequences not people that can form a mob, not other entity that has power over an individual. To me it just sounds like you privatize social credit score from authoritarian government. "You are free to speak and the government can't knock on your door but by god the rest of the people will dox you and make sure that you can't find a job ever and be a homeless for the rest of your life(short one I hope).". There is no freedom of speech in america or any were. Freedom of speech is dead.
Are you that daft that you truly believe you can say anything you want with no social or other consequences? You can't walk down the street insulting people and not expect society to disapprove of that - and the consequences that come with it. Being ostracized, losing your job, etc.
Yes, that would be freedom. Losing your job is a little to harsh for insulting people on the street. If you didn't do it on the job or job related then you should not lose your job. If you insult me now and I find out who you are and call your company they should not fire you for insulting me.
Yeah I get that, but just plain old belief of right and wrong regardless of your feelings or political opinions, that's what justice stands for, not the murky thing we have made it now to serve the elites
Hamas is wrong, that's my idea of justice. I suppose your idea is the opposite, how do you think this should be settled in a workplace? Maybe it shouldn't be settled in the workplace.
My idea isn't even remotely related to right or wrong about Hamas or the other party, you need to break it down to the root problem as to why does an organization like Hamas exist? When you get to that point you have your answer and you can get to justice from there.
Your idea of why Hamas exists in the first place, or rather what Hamas really wants to achieve will be different than mine, so we will reach different conclusions.
If I went to my boss's office, refused to leave ... for ten minutes let alone ten hours ... and harangued him with my opinions of how he is completely unethical in choosing to do business with some very lucrative customers, it couldn't be confused with anything other than quitting. I wonder if there was a different expectation among the Googlers sitting in.
They managed to successfully do this thing - change company policies - in the past, they didn't perceive the change in tone and morals of the company in the last 10 years.
I'm skeptical that the consensus among employees is that Google should abandon this project and make less money.
I am part of a union where a few people showed up to a meeting to endorse a resolution on IP. The resolution passed at the meeting, and they then set an email message to the rest of the union (thousands of people) saying they wanted to hear from more people than just those that could show up on the weeknight meeting. Presumably the resolution failed because I never heard about it again.
The union made no message of any kind on the issue, which is good by me since I do not work for a company that has any business making international political endorsements.
I have no idea what the polling would be if you asked all Google employees, but it doesn't mean much to me that 28 people out of 25,000 in SF have this opinion.
Civil disobedience is a legitimate tactic. If you oppose something, you can protest against it. Openly, under your own name. And accept the consequences. Getting fired in this case.
To the same end, when you hire human beings anticipate them standing up for what they believe in and occasionally inconveniencing your immoral business practices. Humans on both sides, opinions and your right to voice them on both sides.
From my experience, the best performing companies foster a culture of ownership. Owning the features/products you work on, the team you work with, and, to some extent, the company as a whole. The other limit is a completely detached and mercenary workforce. This is also a part of the reasoning behind ESOPs.
The fact that those people didn’t feel like they had any other way of voicing their disagreements with the company’s direction (and having them heard), does not bode well for the long term future of Google. Loosing passionate people that care deeply enough about your company to criticize it is seldom a good thing.
> Check your political beliefs at the gate when you walk in.
Did you know, that's actually a political belief. I'm happiest when my coworkers who agree with you practice what you're preaching. That is, I'm glad if you're able to keep that drek to yourself on the job.
In truth you need to check political beliefs that aren't in line with the company's. My previous job, many were very vocal supporters of Israel and that tolerated, support for suffering Palestinians was not. It needs to wholesale. Accept all political discourse or none.
Some corporates in sillicon valley have (had? wanted to have?) an aura of being more than just money making corporations. Mission, values, we're diffferent, we're the familly, don't be evil, all that crap. I guess some employees took the company bullshit seriously?
You can easily blame the company for bullshitting the employees, too. :)
> Check your political beliefs at the gate when you walk in
Why? How? It’s unreasonable to suddenly flip a switch and turn off your beliefs when you walk through a gate.
> Every 2 weeks your employer settles their debt to you. This is a transactional relationship.
Agreed but this doesn’t mean…
> If you choose to accept a paycheck, you have to accept the rules and regulations that come with working at that place.
…that you don’t have a say in your company. A company is the sum of the individuals that contribute to it. Some have more sway, especially in leadership, but that doesn’t mean folks can’t band together and influence their work place.
> If the company is doing something illegal, you are welcome to file a whistleblower complaint and take it up with the authorities.
Individual contributors have moral obligation that they are conscious of their contributions. Some groups drill this in: Doctors enforce this through the Hippocratic oath, Canadian engineers have the Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer.
However, I believe the obligation applies to everyone. Otherwise, imagine all the atrocities individuals can contribute to by just following orders[0].
That’s not adulthood. What you’re describing is impossible. You can’t suddenly change your beliefs as you enter or exit a gate. You can choose to suppress your opinions, and you may be okay with that. But that’s the same thing.
Realistically, how badly does it harm your career when this shows up under your name and you are looking for another tech job? What's the play? Pivot to working in a more activist/NGO style job?
I don't think that many companies really do the kind of due diligence for IC positions that would discover someones involvement in a stunt like this, beyond maybe a couple of employee provided reference checks.
Besides, there are plenty of ideologically sympathetic hiring managers in the industry.
You want to have a position on Israel vs. Palestine? That's fine; I think most of us do. You want to advocate for your position? Go for it.
You want to advocate for your position at work, in a way that disrupts work for others? No. Hard pass. I'm running a business, not a platform for your soapbox. And if you did it at your previous place, you're likely to do it at mine.
I don't think I would hire them either, for the same reasons you listed. But I like to play devil's advocate, so here's a different take.
These employees succeeded in identifying the best way to raise awareness, achieving large media coverage and reaching a wider audience than if they had protested outside the workplace. They stuck to their values, even though it meant sacrificing their (I'm assuming) generous compensation.
I think there's some merit to that which would translate to success in other parts of your business, if you were to hire them.
I'd like to push back on "raising awareness." At this point is anyone in the country not "aware" that there's a war going on? Did anyone wake up today, read the news, and say, "Gosh, I had no idea this was an important issue! Incredible!" More importantly, did this action have even the slightest effect of changing any country's policy or affect the war in any way? It doesn't seem like anything positive, or even material was accomplished here--besides those employees getting fired.
EDIT: Huh--I guess I'm wrong then. I thought this was more well-known than it was.
Israel or the IDF can buy this anywhere, or even just build it in-house (and there's a huge cost to spending a long time on procurement if someone can get Google to cancel this, but unfortunately it doesn't matter for anyone in Gaza right now)
and while there are a lot of objections to this (why not spend it on something a lot more useful, feeding Google is bad, etc), awareness of this, or even cancelling this does nothing to move the needle on the actual very high-prio issue :/
so all this has a huge cost to them (they lost their jobs, emotional distress) and in the end ends up as performative as Twitter/Mastodon threads :(
Of course, but what I wasn't aware of (until today's news) was that Google had signed a 1.2 Billion contract to provide cloud-computing and artificial intelligence services for the Israeli government and military.
Not saying I agree or disagree. Just saying that the protest succeeded in raising awareness.
This issue is directly related to their work. They aren't "soapboxing" about some random societal issue. Their company is providing services to the Israeli military that are likely being used to target and kill people in huge numbers.
I put my opinions on the conflict right on LinkedIn. I'd much rather filter out employers like Google and Meta. There's a million ways to make money, I'd pick the one that doesn't put any blood on my hands. Some people require more courage to move than others; we all have different environments. I'm just glad I'm not in the US and not neck deep in such a mess. We've been wondering if we should just use Chinese tech, but their hands are clean either. I guess we'll make our own one day.
Depends on the employer, question is do you want to work for someone as a mindless robot as they give you a paycheck or for someone that actually takes personal responsibility when things go wrong. At the end of the day most businesses would choose money
Most companies aren't looking to hire adults who think they are still in college and think doing a sit-in in the deans office is important use of their time and an effective tactic. Let alone people getting arrested for trespassing.
Some hiring managers might like their tweets and show support in their personal time but when it comes down to actually hiring them they'll wonder if this person will be disruptive and constantly bring their personal activist life into the workplace, making other employees lives difficult, lack self control and say the wrong thing to customers, etc.
It's no secret that companies prefer mindless robots. It's just easier to organize them when they don't have their own opinions.
> they'll wonder if this person will be disruptive and constantly bring their personal activist life into the workplace
Corporations very often take stance on political issues, also when interacting with their own employees. For example all the pride events, which Google is known for. So it's not like these employees started bringing politics to the office, but rather they dared to have their own opinion that the system didn't like.
People who just want to live their their best lives aren't "mindless robots". One could also characterize a "mindless robot" as someone who is willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause that they see in black and white.
If the protesters camped in an execs office for pride and refused to leave, they'd likely also get arrested. It's just that there wouldn't be such a protest in the first place.
Surprisingly we are well aware about Whatsapp groups which surfaced few months ago where executives and other high position holders of tech companies targeted tech works who were just posting on their personal regarding this. Why didn't something like that make national headlines and pushed from more accountability? Easy to point finger at employees when employers have the upper hand
Also if you listen to the fired Googler's demands [1], second of them was stopping the existing harrasment and intimidation of arab and Palestinian workers.
I don't think demanding to stop toxic behavior can be called toxic.
Otherwise what you're doing here is toxic, too. ;)
Sorry, but no. Responsibility for action is always with the side that is acting.
Israel is fully responsible for the murder of 40000+ of Palestinians and for starvation (simply due to being in full control of what can be given to Palestinians - if they don't want this responsibility, they can stop playing the occupation game) and massive property destruction of millions others. That's their state policy and result of their direct action. It's a democracy after all, as everyone is repeating ad nauseam.
Hamas and PIJ, and whoever else was in on the Oct 7 attack is responsible for killing most of those ~1200 people and not much more, I guess.
It's ridiculous to put blame on one side for what other side is doing to them in a carefully considered premeditated and well organized manner. This is not some personal heat of the moment self-defense, where the victim just reacts and tries to survive. You can't compare state action to that. Everything is premeditated and carefully planned.
If you go the route of blaming state action on the other side, we can go as far back as you like, to find some reason why something is other sides fault, lol.
An authority on the matter, the international court, concluded it is credible that genocide taking place by accepting the case. We don't have to argue on this anymore. It is not a lie, it is a credible allegation.
This is too much of a burden to ask. All reputable media announced that they accepted the case and this is a widely known and accepted fact. That they accepted the case is my only claim. It you found something interesting from the court documentation it is on you to bring it forward, not mearly to claim something is a large body of work may be favorable to your argument. You are just muddying the water. This is the tactic of those on the loosing side of an argument.
The 28 employees do not own the company. They have no right to make life difficult for everyone else who is happy to work there.
Removing bad actors is good for the other employees on net. I wouldn't want to work at an office where I had no idea if my office or desk would be a safe space.
Calling police is better than private security since each party knows the mediating force is independent and bound by law.
It might seem that way but, in the US at least, it's a time honed practice with at least 150 years of past practice.
Wait until the company forms a private army to keep staff in line and|or calls in the US army to assist .. even then that'd still be within the pale of the history of US labor relations.
It's not a good move for many reasons but it's not "beyond the pale".
