Google Employees Oppose Company's Cooperation with Israel
gamepressure.com
gamepressure.com
“Several of them renounce the anonymity of the petition and at the same time reveal their Semitic nationality.”
Asserting “Semitic nationality” is part of an old trope that Jews are themselves a nation that transcends boundaries and do not abide allegiances to where they live.
It shouldn’t even matter at all whether they’re Jewish and protesting cooperation with Israel. It doesn’t make this stance any more credible.
I feel that is the real HN worthy content of the article - a hack for contracts to deal with modern activism.
It feels unwise to make promises about what your company will do in spite of your employees' willingness to do it.
So what is the problem with cooperating with Israel?
The way I see it, authoritarian means they can pass any laws they want without an effective resistance against them.
I'm not speaking specifically about India here since I don't know much about the country.
Lol... if anything, Indian government is too liberal. Comparing it with Qatar/Indonesia is ignorance, or intentional misinformation.
I believe that the problem is cooperation with Israeli military, not with the Israel itself. There was a backlash against Maven, a similar contract with the US government.
Israel's maleficent behavior towards Arabs produces much stronger emotional response in Western people than misconduct of any other government.
I suspect this has racist undertones - Jews are white, therefore they are judged by higher moral standards than non-white governments. This can also explain why WW2 Germany produces stronger emotional response than WW2 Japan.
Other explanation can be mere exposure effect - Israel heavily interacts diplomatically and economically with European Union and United States.
Though, Google employees protested cooperation with Chinese government - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/technology/google-employe...
"Several of them renounce the anonymity of the petition and at the same time reveal their Semitic nationality."
I have never heard Israeli citizenship being described that way, and later in the article they explain it doesn't even mean that but "Jewish background" which somehow makes that phrasing sound even worse?
EDIT: my problem is with both Semitic and nationality.
Although there is a lot of both zionist and anti-semitic (different people) arguments that like to confuse them (Jews=Israeli) for political reasons.
The current trend will change, 100%. Hands down, there's feast and famine, regardless of the job. On top of that, there are raises, promotions, and opportunities.
I guarantee you, those getting the best raises, opportunities, those kept on in times of famine, won't be those making Corp X look bad. And they won't be those making life difficult.
And when things are public, a quick bit of research into a potential employee will show they're "troublesome". It doesn't even matter if the politics are align, because, one day that employee might disagree with the corp, and then they are likely to be a problem.
So slate up future career options as reduced, too.
Note, I'm not saying that one shouldn't take ideological stances, just that people are living in a fantasy land, if they think it won't effect them.
I do not think anyone claimed it is a protected status.
> Note, I'm not saying that one shouldn't take ideological stances, just that people are living in a fantasy land, if they think it won't effect them.
I do not think the employees even in this case think it will not effect them. Hence all but 3 remaining anonymous.
That said, anonymous signatures mean basically nothing. Literally, those three could have just decided to slap 10 or 1000 anonymous signatures on a doc.
"I agree to protest in a way where no one can even tell if a real person protested, and I have zero personal stake in it" doesn't seem like a strongly held position / belief.
Of course, those anonymously signing may realise what I said in my prior post...
Ah well.
“We were only obeying orders?”
People move from job to job now, if they have qualms it adds impetus to move on to a new job.
Some move on voting with their feet, others may be more active wanting to sway a company’s direction.
Top down vs bottom up, you can’t lead if there’s no one following.
Even if they cave in now, I think companies will soon get tired of that kind of thing, and move towards a "never negotiate with terrorists" type of approach.
Israeli government IT providers will be able to use Google and Amazon cloud services but with the data physically located in Israel.
There is probably more to it than what is being said. Secure storage is a rather generic service. If these workers are agaisnt it, there should be something more.
But by the looks of it, Microsoft doesn't have a problem were google to drop the contract.
Though I don't know how they are okay working for a company that basically shows advertisements to people.
Of course, the compensation may be lower elsewhere.
Currently, this place feels totalitarian on a cultural level. Can't express diverging views. Can't think from the fundamentals and seek truth. Can't criticize the person next to you. The game everyone seems to be playing is who is more woke than the person next to them. This whole thing escalates with no checks and balances. A total relentless wokefest. I am fine with talking about social issues but it is impossible with these people. Activism, it's not as President Obama said just this year.
This is on the front page of NYT right now. That's how bad it has gotten: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curric...
I will be voting for anything but the current situation.
What you call “woke” is just a lowered tolerance to fringe theories in ethics, same way many people don’t tolerate fringe theories about cosmology or medicine.
I reject both wokeness and trumpism, Qanon, etc. There is a giant turf in the middle that you fail to acknowledge.
You are free to leave if you do not like the direction of where the company is going. Google won't change and they don't care either because not only they are on the side of profit, they know that the employees will continue to stay because of the six-figure salaries and stock options package.
It's already been admitted.
I think it takes a special amount of privilege to be paid a lot of money and not wanting to sacrifice your principles in today's world.
I know I’ll get a lot of downvotes for saying that, but what I’d like is an objective measure on which another country in the area beats Israel
Edit: Google employees are largely based in US and I am talking about the zeigeist of what Israel means to most of these employees. They know zilch about Israel but have made up their partisan minds.
And just because they have some representation in government, doesn't mean they don't get treated as second-class citizens.
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/human_rights_rule_...
And I'm sorry - who is threatening Israel again?
- Iran so much as tests a proper implosion-type, they get nuked.
- Syria is a mess, and was never capable of touching Israel (see Bekaa Valley). Same with Iraq.
- Egypt has been Camp Davided
- The Gulf Monarchies are Israel allies and customers, Jordan included.
Yeah. Tough neighbourhood. No wonder they have to be extra sadistic to the Palestinians.
Then there is criticism against the settlements which in my opinion steals land that doesn't belong to those that want to settle there. The criticism is valid. There is a cultural component here though as many settlers were formerly expelled from Arab lands. That influences in what they see as just.
In reality this criticism gets horribly mixed and objective debate is difficult. Many in Israel are sick of the conflict and wary about criticism because they always have to check the motivation behind it.
Those that propose to defend the side of Palestinians often aren't the best in my opinion, even if they have been fully socialized in western nations they still demand the destruction of Israel. That is stupid beyond measure and certainly not conductive to solve the conflict. Some probably have a worse effect than terrorist groups.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28967575
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28976487
Did Google employees anyhow react on it? Did they organise protests, write petitions?
The difference between Google and Uni is that Google pays you, though. As such, the employees will find that their superiors are much harder nuts to crack.
Group reinforcement is a hell of a drug
The name Facebook are now using to distance themselves from insurrections, mental torment and the occasional genocide.
I think they love the money too much. Love blinds.
But there's also some truth that it's shades of grey. Tech has improved lives after all.
Israel drops leaflets before bombing so civilians can clear out.
When Hamas stores weapons in schools and Hospitals, Israel exercises extreme caution to minimize casualties.
Israel is the only country in the world with the self restraint to not destroy a neighbor that constantly fires rockets at them.
Next time you criticize Israel, think about how it would feel to have rockets raining down on your children, your loved ones, co workers, friends for no reason other than the fact that you exist.
What would you do if you were Israel?
Regarding Finkelstein (who has been endorsed by David Duke and others): Bronzik, Benz, Seligmann and many more have shown many flaws in his book.
It's easy to throw some articles around and put appeals to authority ("Finkelstein is also a solid introduction") in a comment. No conflict it as clear as people on any side make it sound.
I know you didn't know that, but with that in mind, I do not think the wikipedia article will change my mind much.
In case people don't notice, that's extreme sarcasm.
Every nation on Earth has taken over others, just look at the native peoples of every country in North and South America, of Nordic Countries, Australia.
Look at how Europe's borders were re-written 1000 times. Africa. The Middle East.
If the beef is (and it seems to be for some) that they "took land", get over it. Because where you live "took land" too.
A more interesting discussion, I think, is why does Hamas consistently reject the Israeli peace offering and two state solution?
This is simply not correct. Israel's borders have continued to expand in the 21st century.
Humans genocided other people for tens thousands of years. That's not a good reason to morally justify genocide today.
However, most of the criticism, at least the one that isn't "kill the Jews" type, comes from Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the apartheid-like conditions that are there. There you can't talk about Hamas and the rockets killing children because there are none as Israel is in full control of the area.
Which other ethno-nationalist states do you laud this way?
It is unrealistic and unacceptable to expect the State of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory. - https://web.archive.org/web/20210519103412/https://www.adl.o...
Eritrean migrants resettled from Israel to Sweden [..] The resettlement - which Israeli NGOs said included 54 Eritrean women – was part of the “ongoing process of willful deportation to Sweden,” - https://www.jpost.com/National-News/Eritrean-migrants-resett...
Your article about theEritreans moving to Sweden states "the Israeli government was not part of the initiative".
Israel is literally occupied Palestine.
Denmark and Australia?
Denmark is sending Syrian and Afghan migrants to Rwanda in Africa.
Australia is sending their South Asian and Middle Eastern migrants to remote pacific islands.
Do you know how many Palestinians were killed and how many others become refugees until this day (since 1948) living in refugee camps in the West bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria?
Rockets? Do you know that the Palestinians have been fighting since 1948 and for decades their only weapon was rocks? yes rocks.
Did you ask yourself, why are the Palestinians fighting in the first place? have you ever visited the west bank?
Palestinians are not all Hamas, and even Hamas have a just cause.
Human rights? have you ever seen how Israel treat Palestinian human rights?
*Update*: oh wait, you're being sarcastic right? because that's the only way your comment will make sense
If you need it spelt out for you, it’s very simple: Israel is a settler-colonial project in a world where settler-colonialism is seen as immoral and illegal. You’re not supposed to subjugate and dispossess other peoples, even if you bring them the benefits of an advanced civilization.
The 'colonial' argument rings hollow.
Attempts at ethnic revanchism based on where humans once lived thousands of years ago is weird, creepy shit. It’s creepy when Hitler did it, and it’s creepy when you do it.
That led to a war, in which the arabs lost. They went all in and lost. One can only imagine what would have happened to the jews in Israel if they would have won.
Of course in the end that plan didn't happen, but i'm not sure i see why either side really had the superior claim to the land.
The territory was under the British control and before that was under Ottoman rule for several hundreds of years.
Turkey was conquered by the Turks, from Greeks, Armenians, and various smaller groups. Big parts of it not that long ago (~1 century). Somalia was conquered from Ethiopia. Pakistan from India. Bangladesh from Pakistan. Hell, Northern Iraq was conquered from the Kurds ... by Arab Nazi's. Seriously. History can be funny at times.
Most of these conquests are younger than Israel is. Why don't we see people follow Indian demands for re-annexation (and religious suppression) of Pakistan? Pakistan demands the same of Bangladesh (and yes religious suppression. "There are no sects in Islam" is part of Islamic doctrine. There are no splits in Sunni Islam, but somehow Pakistan and Bangladesh don't belong to the same Sunni Islam ... and are hundreds of millions of believers each).
Ethiopia wants to re-annex Somalia (and restore religions to where they were 100 years ago), and so on. Hell, there exist Indian extremists that would like to see Indonesia annexed too. Oh, and unlike the Israel-Palestine conflict, India and Pakistan are threatening to nuke each other. And China is now threatening them too, also with nukes, so there's plenty of new trouble brewing in that neighbourhood. And we haven't even mentioned China ...
Is anyone seriously suggesting undoing the conquests? For one thing that would be extremely impractical and a massive operation, even if they would cooperate (and I guarantee there'll be war in every case).
Why is this conflict so important? Compared to the India-Pakistan issue, it doesn't affect very many people (Israel and Palestine, even together, are at best the population of a medium US city, India-Pakistan-Bangladesh is 4-5 times the size of the entire US)
But I think I do see some factors. Israel-Palestine is so very, very small that it is actually conceivable that the west actually does something about it. India-Pakistan? We have zero chance to play a meaningful role there. Also the Israeli consider themselves part of the West, so they actually want the approval of the rest of the West.
But the second paragraph juxtaposing the Israelis is more interesting still in its tending toward Godwin's Law.
I've never before now heard of the whole Zionist movement cast in terms of colonialism.
I am grateful for the insight, as that will require some pondering.
At this point in history, it seems likely every human being is descendant of people who at some time conquered other people.
Most of us live on graves and ruins of other civilizations or at least tribes. Much of that displacement was coerced or outright violent. Ironically, if the previous entity was obliterated completely (e.g. Carthage), there is no one left to nurture resentment.
The US, Canada, Australia, NZ can be considered settler's colonies much more than Israel since the europeans who settled there had anything whatsover with those places.
The region was named after the tribe, not the other way around
I would suspect most of the Israelites that moved there are actually western/european descent, whereas I would not be surprised if a lot of the Arabs there had actual ancient Jewish genes.
All that aside, are we really discussing who can claim ownership to a land based on ancient history, rather than human impact of change of ownership?
Ethnically there is no real difference, to the point that a disguised Jew or Muslim, provided they know the other language well, can blend in without any problem, even for longer periods. Which is a big problem for catching terrorists.
And it's even the case that when it comes to habits, even religious habits, there's a lot shared between Jews and Muslims that does not actually date back to ancient Judaism or come from Islam, but are for example not-that-old Iraki or Yemeni customs.
It is also true that Xinjiang was once peopled by the Han thousands of years ago, before the Uighers arrived, but that does not at all affect my understanding of the relationship between the Han and Uighers today. Why should it? It doesn’t change the fact that one side is extending its dominance over the other.
I don't think i have ever heard of an armed international conflict where one side was like "so the other side is super chill, too bad we are at war with them".
Israel would find it much harder to keep control of Palestinian territory if their opponents quit the idea of violent jihad and turned to non-violence. Unlike China, Israel is a democratic and fairly small country, and obvious oppression of non-violent opponents would not fly there. Both the internal and the international pressures against the hawks would have become unbearable.
I know a fair share of Israelis. They aren't bloodthirsty conquerors and slavers. They are mostly afraid of pizzerias, schools and buses being bombed again, and it is not an irrational fear.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Israel_a...
You propose that a country as small as Israel is colonizing the middle east. I am against the illegal settlements, but the compassion to colonies just doesn't fit at all.
Israel doesn’t care about civilian deaths. They care about optics.
That hamas is worse isn’t really relevant for the Palestinian civilians.
The Jewish people are a convenient folk devil and frankly have been for a millennia. Historically they have always been a small relatively closed population with influences that tended to exceed their population size. That makes a good target to deflect hate to when folk in power need to distract their populace away from themselves.
Personally I think Israel’s restraint is remarkable.
Political issues divide people, it's unavoidable. And the wokies can't help but look for the next thing after the current one passes. It's all outrage, all the time.
I'm all for political passion on your own time, it's what makes the world change and move forward. But in the workplace it's just toxic.
It's that or it becomes so frictionless to move from one company to another it won't be worth voting.
But I don't see people just leaving activism at home ...
He could just hire someone on his own. But what if he let the other devleads have a say? What if 51% of them protested at his choice.
Democracy can start small