As a hiring manager, I personally wouldn't hire any of them.
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.
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.
</End devil's advocate>
EDIT: Huh--I guess I'm wrong then. I thought this was more well-known than it was.
Not saying I agree or disagree. Just saying that the protest succeeded in raising awareness.
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 :(
California for example has special laws about employment discrimination based on political activity.