Hacker News Reader

Comment by pedalpete | Hacker News Reader

This article ignores the vandalism and and that co-workers felt threatened. There is such thing as a sit-in which is disruptive, and makes the point, but why should somebody who comes to work feel threatened by a co-worker? That's not acceptable, no matter what the belief is.

And of course, if you vandalise your employers property, of course you should expect to be fired.

https://californiaglobe.com/fr/google-fires-28-for-anti-isra...

View on HN

Could you expand on the points of vandalism and threats? The article you linked to only had some vague corporate speak about vandalism, which could easily refer to the banner they hung. The only reference to anyone feeling threatened was a reference to another employee who "felt scared," but it doesn't say the protestor were doing anything threatening.

but - isn’t that kind of the point?

Why should the people that actively work to support the Israeli government’s ethnic cleaning campaign be afforded luxuries like a vandalism free work place? You think that higher ups at google felt threatened? I can’t imagine how you’d characterize the feelings of families living and dying in Gaza right now.

the targets of the protests are nice and comfortable on the other side of the world as they materially contribute to the chaos and terror in the Middle East - if the protestors deserve to face the consequences of their actions, why shouldn’t the collaborators being protested? Where are their consequences, eh?

While I don't want to downplay anyone's feeling of safety, in the current climate, some Jewish Zionists (A phrase i'm choosing deliberately, as a person who is Jewish, but anti-Zionist) have weaponized accusations of anti-semitism to suggest that any discussion of Palestinian statehood, support for peace in Gaza, or even the very presence of a keffiyeh are inherently anti-semitic and make them feel threatened.

This is not happening in a vacuum. It is ALSO unfortunately true that whenever the issue of Palestinian statehood becomes magnified some activists use this as an excuse to promote all sorts of classic anti-Jewish conspiracy theorists and start raging about Jewish people indiscriminately, not just the Apartheid system. (Much in the same way that some BLM protestors take things too far and start accusing all white people indiscriminately of racism).

But it is happening. Since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_keffiyeh is inherently associated with Yasser Arafat, many uneducated people innocently incorrectly assume that it is inherently a piece of terrorist paraphernalia, and as a result feel unsafe just from it's mere presence at peaceful demonstrations. Likewise, "from the river to the sea" and chants like it also imply a jewish genocide for them, and make them feel unsafe. I personally believe that particular chant is more harmful than helpful, and I likewise cringe at people wearing keffiyeh's as a means of solidarity. I don't care about what people THINK it means, it is perceived by those whose opinions they must change the most (unengaged moderates) as a symbol of terrorism for justifiable reasons. (Much like the Nazi Swastika's original hindu origins don't matter anymore in any context outside of India, sorry)

So. It's complex. It's nuanced. I don't know what happened. But I wouldn't assume that just because someone "felt threatened" by this protest that the protestors actually did anything indefensible.

Others have already touched upon the point that "vandalism" can be defined however any party wishes it to be. My 4 year old drawing in chalk on a sidewalk could be considered vandalism, if someone wanted to. In Google's case, using scotch tape to attach a sign to a door and lightly scuffing some of the paint as a result, could be considered "vandalism" for the purpose of an HR-justifiable firing. This is no different than "assault" legally being any physical contact. Tapping someone on the shoulder could be "assault" if it's deemed aggressive and unwanted. Vandalism is no different.

Genuinely curious - what does Zionist and conversely anti-Zionist mean to you?

To me, Zionism is more than just the belief that Jewish people are entitled to a state of their own in the Levant. Because if at this point you say that you DON'T believe that you are also saying that you don't care about what happens to the millions of them that live there now, or believe that that the displaced Palestinians themselves are entitled to some form of restitution against their oppressors.

Unfortunately we have to deal with the reality on the ground and the reality of Jewish people in the UN partition plan. Reparations must be made and expansion must be rolled back (all settlers out of west bank) but at the end of the day any future must involve either A) a state for Jewish people and a state for Palestinian people or B) A completely united state with full equality for all people.

To me Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people have an inherent RIGHT to an ethnic-orientated state in the Levant based on historical (biblical) tradition. There are many ethnic groups in the world without a homeland, and the crimes against humanity against Jews in WW2 did not necessitate such a state there, if it involved displacing others, which it did.

So I'm Anti-Zionist in the sense that I am against religion-based geopolicy, I am against any inherent "greater" reason for a Jewish state. I am a humanist who believes in the right for safety and prosperity for Jewish and Palestenian people. I am not interested in any solutions where either does not grant the other's humanity or right to safety and prosperity. Beyond that they need to AGGRESSIVELY self-police one another. Palestinians need to self-police (and prosecute) the terrorists and Hamas and keep them to justice. The Israelis need to self-police (and prosecute) the west bank settlers, and reform from the bottom up the IDF.

Thank you for sharing, DeanCommie.

In my experience reading the interwebs, a non-negligible amount of people see anti-Zionism as a belief that the state of Israel should not exist without seeming any nuance.

Same goes for definition of Zionizm which often lacks nuance in the modern age.

Because of this lack of nuance, both words are often weaponized in todays short form communication styles

Your views are complexed and nuanced on other hand as they often are.

To me, modern-day Zionism means two things:

1. The belief that Israel is the homeland of the Jews, and by extension, my homeland.

2. The belief that Israel should remain, legally, a Jewish supremacist state, where only Jewish sovereignty is recognized.

I disagree strongly with both of these notions.

Yeah, I call it the TikTok army

Reply on news.ycombinator.com