Nowadays I take a look at the person's Twitter after reading their resume, just to see if they'd be more trouble than they're worth. I've passed on several candidates over the past few years because of the utterly imbecilic stuff they posted online. Why Google is not doing the same is a mystery to me. They already run background checks, and political affiliation, for better or worse, is not a protected class. Go be an activist somewhere else.
Maybe it's just work for you but other people take pride in the impact and consequences that their work brings about. Such people are obviously going to be upset about a contract with the Israel government.
Though I don't know how they are okay working for a company that basically shows advertisements to people.
I would guess that there are also people who take pride in the impact and consequences that their work brings about and support the Israel government, those are two separate things.
In that case, Mountain View is full of other software corporations that will gladly take an ex-Googler. There isn't even an informal monopoly on employment there.
Of course, the compensation may be lower elsewhere.
this is actively harmful for a democratic society. Raising your voice is the way to influence societies action. The economy is part of society and governed by its rules and thoughts. There would be no environmental laws without environmental activist, civil rights laws without civil rights activist etc. Ignoring this means ignoring the political side of you economic actions, but companies don't operate in a politically neutral space. The moment you work with a government you support it, which is a political act.
When recruiting you would notice if someone had a SS tatto on their face, if they did I suspect it would bias your impression of them. Its no different to somones public comments on social media.
You're free to raise your voice, just outside the work hours. Believe it or not, some people actually come to work to do _work_, not to advance their politics. And that's the way it has to be if any work is to be done at all.
I miss the 90's Silicon Valley. Laser focused on innovation and mostly liberatarian. I would kill to go back and rewind time.
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.
Can’t express diverging views about the shape of Earth or how vaccines cause authism.
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.
One of the problems of woke ideology is the ostensible moral superiority they display over others to push their agenda. Arrogant, intolerable and incorrigible. In their mind, they are righteous and everyone that is not onboard is evil. Sounds familiar?
I think the antivaxxers are largely a group of people that have not looked at the data but instead following Twitter and FB, they're skeptical because everyone around them at the dinner table and office table is. But, there is a whole group of provaxxers that just don't want to give into the Government overreach which many nations have clinched on during this pandemic. This group gets into the crossfire - they have a point.
These employees shouldn't have a privileged voice in international politics. It isn't at all fair, whether or whether not people agree with their stance.
Why not? Everything is up for negotiation. If the employees are that in demand, then they will have a “privileged” voice. If not, they will get terminated and not matter.
I don't believe refusing to work due to a company's politics, is viable protected status. Nor is protesting the company you work for. Or, even in most cases showing the company in a bad light.
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 don't believe refusing to work due to a company's politics, is viable protected status. Nor is protesting the company you work for. Or, even in most cases showing the company in a bad light.
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.
Some seem to think they have some protected status, though, from the way they talk.
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...
Everybody can of course say what they want and thus have a voice. The question is who listens to them. Media loves such stories, and management will think about how to react. The activists won't automatically get what they want.
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.
At this point Israel is part of shitty American partisan politics. No one thinks on their own. Original thinking is also prohibited by both parties, but mostly by the one that I voted for. I regret voting for them but the other option is worse.
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.
Completely separate? Israel is an American project. It receives billions in aid from the US every year and has massive influence in congress through AIPAC.
Israel has palestinians and arabs as part of its government, and they can get citizenship and full rights. Is the reverse true anywhere else in the middle east? Can Jews get citizenship and participate in government in any middle eastern country?
Jewish people, or anyone in fact, can't just pitch up, enclose some land and build a settlement, and then claim citizenship over it in other countries in the region, no.
I was looking for an objective measure. Obviously Israel is not perfect, but is there any metric on which a country in the middle east beats Israel? Like surely there's some microstate that at least has a functioning democracy, gay rights, religious freedom, etc? Perhaps Iraq post-invasion?
Saying that your country has the best human rights record in the Middle East is like saying your country is the richest in Africa. Just because it is true doesn't mean it is good.
Israel ranks higher than many EU countries including Greece. Out of 173 countries Israel ranks 33rd. Think about that, only 32 countries in the world are more free than Israel. It ranks higher than the US.
Where do you live? I just wonder real hard how the Danes/Canadians/Americans would have fared if they were in Israel's shoes. Considering history I'd say no that great.
It's much easier to virtue signal from your comfy neighborhood in Western country X though, where your biggest enemies are Republicans.
Iran circled Israel with around 100K + missiles and rockets, some are precision guided. They are in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Shiite armies in Syria, Yemen, Iraq etc and Gaza.
It's true that things are good with Egypt and Jordan, it doesn't mean things are good in general.
I'd say Israel is more threatened than Jamaica but lets not get too personal.. anyway the nature of the threats are different than conventional armies invading like it used to be. Its now about guerillas firing massive amounts of precise missiles and drones to destroy Israeli infrastructure and civilians. I am not sure its better now; it used to be Israeli soldiers who died at wars. For the foreseeable future its gonna be mostly Israeli civilians who are hurt.
You need to differentiate. There is a lot of criticism against Israel as a state which is anti-semitism in my opinion because people plainly suggest different rules just for jews.
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.
I wonder what level of cognitive dissonance one must live with to work for a surveillance capitalist company while constantly taking activist stances against which customers that company works with.
This is already acquired at a university, where "soak the rich" and "corporate greed" is unironically used - at an institution that hikes tuition prices all the time and whose constant appetite for squeezing more money from students and parents alike significantly contributed to the stagnation of middle class life standards in America.
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.
I've always wondered how META employees justify their work, funnily enough they never seem to answer when asked, they just downvote to hide the question and move on.
Don't like it? Leave and don't work there. Simple.
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.
This makes it sound as if "leave" or "like it" are the only available options. I don't see why "try to change the company from within" couldn't be a third option. Now naturally, you might have reasons to think this is naive, but other takes on that are possible.
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.
Who the fck thinks india has authoritarian govt ? India has multiple news portals being harshly critical of govt 24x7 and enjoying viewership, ads and even govt ads. Is that a feature of one ? Which echo chamber news source you are referring ?
What is the scope of the contracts that you mention?
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.
FYI: Indonesia, with a population of over 270 million, has had free elections for over 20 years, with non-military winners, even a woman, Megawati.
President Widodo, the current leader, is a businessman who is well-regarded by both citizens and foreigners.
The military destroyed Al Qaeda in Indonesia, which resulted in two decades of stability. (A radical cleric returned from exile recently, so the country is dealing with that once again.)
Indonesia is strongly anti-Communist, which is a good thing, so you will read stories about periodic containment sweeps. (Both Japan and Indonesia had to root out Communism after WW2.)
Indonesia is a very close ally of the US since Roosevelt and Truman were instrumental in promoting their independence after WW2, and do Air Force and military training in the US. Their NTSB uses the FAA NTSB training material kit.
Pre-COVID-19, the country was doing very well economically. We'll see what happens post-pandemic, but the long lockdown has damaged both the poor and middle-class in Jakarta, the capital.
> So what is the problem with cooperating with Israel?
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.
I conjecture that companies will start to open up the executive suites to "democratic" means - employees voting for projects, and eventually voting for executives with political packages. Somehow this will be aligned with shareholder voting.
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 ...
Regardless of your stance on the subject, anyone else thinks this phrasing feels really...off?
"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.
I'm Jewish myself. A more precise phrasing is "both an ethnicity and a religion". Judaism isn't a nationality (there isn't a "Jewish Nation" all Jews belong to - there is Israel but not all Jews are Israelis).
Although there is a lot of both zionist and anti-semitic (different people) arguments that like to confuse them (Jews=Israeli) for political reasons.
I understand what you're saying, but I beg to differ.
Yes Jew doesn't equal Israeli, and from my understanding most non-religous Jews outside of Israel do not aspire to build a Jewish "Home" like Israel (A political entity which will also include a physical territory for the Jewish people), but as a former Jew of faith I know each orthodox religous jew across the world prays 3 times a day and in each and every holiday about the hope to build a Jewish homeland again in Jerusalem with the Temple in it.
With that being said, I think all the religous jews are definitely a nation, becuase they're ethnic group that hope to achive politcal establishment for themselves (or they're not hoping but already happy with what they have).
I notice how whenever there is anything remotely negative about israel on HN or reddit, the shills come out. The script is always the same (only democracy in the middle east, our greatest ally, the US gets more from them than the other way around, etc.)
At this point I have to wonder if JIDF are real and not just a 4chan meme or these are some advanced GPT-3 sockpuppet accounts.
This phrasing in the article’s summary is problematic:
“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.
Israel is a wonderful country. Scientifically advanced, progressively minded, a bastion of secularism, LGBT rights, and western ideals. The world is, sadly, obsessed with them. I'd love a real explanation why they get so much undue attention given how they behave towards their enemies.
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.
If you genuinely want to understand criticism of Israel, the Wikipedia article for Israel is a good starting place. I am not being flip or sarcastic – you are repeating a lot of nationalist propaganda and may benefit from a different perspective.
Please be more specific. A disparity in casualties is to be expected in this kind of conflict. It also says nothing about who started what, who wants to erase whom etc.
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.
Ah, another tedious, bad faith request for more detailed information, complete with ad hominem "Finkelstein was endorsed by a white supremacist"! How many of these HN accounts are you posting from this evening?
This is not a good-faith argument. If you cannot address disagreement without asserting that your interlocutors are glove-puppet, how are we to progress?
If you're going to argue from authority, then you have to be prepared to have the authority questioned. This isn't the USSR. We're allowed to say that your holy texts are nonsense.
It absolutely is good-faith, as I genuinely believe there are puppet accounts used on this page. Another user mentioned it. What is not good-faith are persistent "requests for more information" from apartheid apologists (the number of actual people these users represent is in question) that have no interest in the "specifics" or "elaboration" they are asking for.
I lived there for a bit. During that time, I volunteered at a refugee camp for Palestinians. My sentiment was shared by a good number of them. The unified thread there is a hate for Hamas.
I know you didn't know that, but with that in mind, I do not think the wikipedia article will change my mind much.
> I do not think the wikipedia article will change my mind much.
We agree on this point, but perhaps it will encourage good-faith research for someone reading this thread that has not bought into apartheid propaganda.
Thanks for accusing me of that. In what way is at an apartheid? There is no systematic discrimination based on race in Israel. I cannot say the same for other countries, esp when it comes to Jews.
Hey, neither of us is going to change the other's view here, so it is not useful to go back and forth like this. If you wanted an answer to that question you could look it up, like I have looked up the arguments and counter arguments to the apartheid question.
What is interesting is that the tide is turning and your view is becoming less common, especially among the youth in developed nations, particularly Ireland. This is good news, for the well-being of Israelis and Palestinians alike.
I am sad you are not open to being swayed, what is the value of coming to a discussion with no intent to change your own mind? How can you visit to offer opinions, with the intent to change others minds, but not be open to having your own changed? Perhaps this topic is near and dear to you, so it is difficult. I do recommend re-evaluating how you think about common discussion spaces like these, and the nature of disagreements in general.
Perhaps, as a start, let's find some common ground: I firmly believe that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve peace, prosperity, and full rights.
To be totally honest, I do not believe from your comments in other threads on this article that you are arguing from a place of good faith. I am more than happy to discuss Israeli apartheid with someone whom I disagree but you seem to just want to waste our time with tedium and nationalist rhetoric.
There is historic tie between USSR, IRA, and Palestine not sure what is the surprise. I highly doubt Ireland wields enough influence on the world stage to influence events one way or the other.
Perhaps not on its own, but as a sign of things to come. Ireland was proudly at the forefront of boycotting the South African apartheid, and is proudly at the forefront of boycotting the Israeli apartheid.
I live in Ireland and although (((I))) might be more sensitive to it than you, I think it comes up quite a lot. A week or two ago The Irish Times (IT) was agog at Sally Rooney's decision not to allow her newest book to be published in Hebrew. The opinion pieces, letters pages, and of course Reddit were alive with praise for her "bold and courageous stance".
This kind of thing comes up every few weeks, at least it does if you read the IT who's editorial policies have a pretty clear slant on this - as is completely their right - even if I don't much like it.
This week the attention was on the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his dislike of Israel's recent classification of several NGOs as terrorist organizations.
> A week or two ago The Irish Times (IT) was agog at Sally Rooney's decision not to allow her newest book to be published in Hebrew.
Sorry to be pedantic, but this was not Sally Rooney's decision. As part of the BDS movement, she did not want to patronize an Israeli company that would be handling the translation. Rooney has stated that she has no objection to the novel being translated into Hebrew.
Ireland is always at the forefront of confronting bigotry in other places. Not so much at home. (((I))) am Irish. I live in Ireland. I like Ireland. But our social justice pretensions are no shinier than anyone else's.
Ask the travelers. Ask those on Direct Provision. Ask the people who got dumped in Ballymun with promises of parks and shops, only to be abandoned for decades.
FWIW, it seem clear to me that the Palestinians have got the nasty end of the stick and deserve better, as much as you or I do. If the only answer you have is one that means that all the Jews in Israel die (ala BSM though they don't yet have the guts to say so) then the Jews of Israel aren't gonna help you.
Maybe not lied just exaggerated to impress you. There may be hidden bias but no army service is not mandatory in 50% of the economy. In fact 50% of Israelis dont finish the whole military service or even begin it.
But unlike every other nation on Earth, they took over land belonging to others!
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.
I'd like to point out that the current generation of both the palestinians and the jews did not take or give land. The people who did are pretty much gone. At this point, there's not much to be done - both sides were both there.
A more interesting discussion, I think, is why does Hamas consistently reject the Israeli peace offering and two state solution?
A problem is Israel is still expanding. Even the US discourages their building of new settlements in the west bank. I fear that if left alone they will kill all Palestinians who opose.
And yet, if another country invaded your country and tried to take your land, you’d think it an injustice, no? Or would you be telling yourself that it’s no big deal, after all, our ancestors took this land from some forgotten people as well?
Do you see it as a grave injustice when Syrian or other Muslim refugees settle Europe? I mean they do sway the demography quite a bit in certain places.
For me that's argument against glorifying past of your nation (because every state was built on violence and conquest) rather than pro-annexing territories.
Humans genocided other people for tens thousands of years. That's not a good reason to morally justify genocide today.
That is all true, of all the countries in the ME Israel is probably one of the few that I would live in.
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.
I oppose the settlements completely but the military hold on the West Bank isn't evil or irrational. We need to be honest - the chances of the PLO to survive without being overrun by Hamas are very slim without Israeli presence and assistance. Having another Hamas state in the West Bank is a very very bad development that Israel wants to avoid.
And yes, the settlers are taking advantage of this dynamic to keep trying to realize their crazy dream - a dream most Israelis have zero empathy for.
> progressively minded, a bastion of secularism, LGBT rights, and western ideals.
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...
Afaik lots on non Jewish people live in Israel, including Palestinians. No Jews live in Palestine. So in what sense is Israel the "ethno-nationalist" state?
Your article about theEritreans moving to Sweden states "the Israeli government was not part of the initiative".
Have you ever asked yourself how Israel started to exist in the first place?
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
Not that many Palestinian were killed in the forming of Israel, at least compared to many other civil wars we can compare to.
The Yeshuv lost 1% of it's population during the war btw so it wasn't one sided at all.
Many Palestinians simply fled so the potential for violence wasn't that high.
Notice how your defenses of Israel are identical to the colonial regimes of old. We’re progressive and secular and advanced and humane, not like those terrorist savages who attack us for no reason. The rhetoric is indistinguishable from that of the French justifying their hold on Algeria, or the Japanese over Korea, or the white settler regimes of Africa, or China over the Uighers.
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.
That is like saying that the Greeks would be justified in invading Turkey and annexing Istanbul and all of Eastern Anatolia because they had an ancient presence there and that their domination over the subjugated Turks wouldn’t constitute colonialism.
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.
Jews didn't invade Israel, that's the only difference.
Israel accepted the 1947 partition of the land, while the arabs rejected 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.
(Honest question) under what basis was it "their" territory? Its not like they had soverign control over those lands at that point in history, and from what i understand, in the original partition plans the religious breakdown of the jewish part of the division had more jews in it than palestinians.
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.
Yes but Ottoman rule should be understood to span many ethnic and religious groups. There was no "Ottoman people", the way you have, say, Germans. The Jews were there under Ottoman rule, for example (in fact the Ottoman sultan gave them independence in trade for a lot of money). So while there are long-time-there Palestinian bedouins, there are also Jewish bedouins, and even smaller groups like Druze or even Catholics. There were many semi-states under the Ottoman empire that have since warred and lost or gained territory. The British attempted to keep Ottoman governmental structures largely in place, and they failed badly.
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.
They should have accepted it to spare 70 years of suffering on both sides, that's why mainly. Unless they had a really good feeling they were going to win it was sheer stupidity.
Very few contemporary nations (perhaps the Icelanders and some other remote island nations) took a pristine, empty land that belonged to no one.
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.
How is it a settler colonial project when even the name 'Jew' is derived from Judea - which is a kingdom that existed where Israel exists today.
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.
Are you saying Israelites that relocated to Israel today are ethnogenetically closer to the region than the Arabs that lived there?
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?
And most Palestinians are recent (2-3 generations at most) immigrants into Palestine. They also mostly come from Arab countries.
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’s not colonialism, it’s racial revanchism!” probably does not sound as sympathetic as you think. And why can’t it be both?
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.
If Israel constitutes settler colonialism then any immigration or self determination by an eventually successful group must be considered so. Legally settling somewhere and then asserting self determination by necessity seems to be quite different morally from unprovoked military contest by an existing nation. Under this moral framework if there's no nation you like you're forever doomed to being a second class citizen. If attacked , the only moral choice is to let aggressors kill you.
Isn't that just the rhetoric of any asymetrical conflict (except the secular part which varries)? Whether its Rome complaining about the "barbarians" or America talking about 9/11?
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".
Hamas and Islamic Jihad are terrorist savages, though. Much like ETA, IRA etc. No need to sugarcoat terrorism in the name of self-determination. (For the record, Irgun or the Lehi Gang were terrorists too.)
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.
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.
What a bizarre objection. Colonial entities can be as small as a city-state, e.g. Singapore. The point is that a newly imported population is imposing their domination on the people that were previously there.
Israel isn't a colony even if that is a fantasy of many people. Some of those "newly imported" people were driven out of muslim countries, which are numerous as you can see on the map. Most importantly, many in those countries also don't want to deal with the problem of people living in the west bank or the Gaza strip. I believe people have a problem with Jews, a fairly know phenomenon and a problem in the culture that has to change.
The way you praise them is so condescending. "western ideals", yes they're so superior they have "western ideals", ideals that trump all other ideals, the best ideals in the world.
> I'd love a real explanation why they get so much undue attention given how they behave towards their enemies.
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.
I love that the contract has a clause preventing them from withdrawing in case of boycotts. Not that it was necessary to have it, that's really awful, but that they found a way to deal with those modern overbearing employees. If it works out, of course.
I feel that is the real HN worthy content of the article - a hack for contracts to deal with modern activism.
I am so glad I'm not working in the hyper-woke Google environment.
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.
191 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 259 ms ] threadThough 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.
It feels unwise to make promises about what your company will do in spite of your employees' willingness to do it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
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.
President Widodo, the current leader, is a businessman who is well-regarded by both citizens and foreigners.
The military destroyed Al Qaeda in Indonesia, which resulted in two decades of stability. (A radical cleric returned from exile recently, so the country is dealing with that once again.)
Indonesia is strongly anti-Communist, which is a good thing, so you will read stories about periodic containment sweeps. (Both Japan and Indonesia had to root out Communism after WW2.)
Indonesia is a very close ally of the US since Roosevelt and Truman were instrumental in promoting their independence after WW2, and do Air Force and military training in the US. Their NTSB uses the FAA NTSB training material kit.
Pre-COVID-19, the country was doing very well economically. We'll see what happens post-pandemic, but the long lockdown has damaged both the poor and middle-class in Jakarta, the capital.
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...
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
"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.
At this point I have to wonder if JIDF are real and not just a 4chan meme or these are some advanced GPT-3 sockpuppet accounts.
“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.
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.
If you're going to argue from authority, then you have to be prepared to have the authority questioned. This isn't the USSR. We're allowed to say that your holy texts are nonsense.
I‘m sorry to question your deities. You brought them to the table.
mysecretaccount, this is my only account. Also, it‘s midday in Europe.
I know you didn't know that, but with that in mind, I do not think the wikipedia article will change my mind much.
We agree on this point, but perhaps it will encourage good-faith research for someone reading this thread that has not bought into apartheid propaganda.
What is interesting is that the tide is turning and your view is becoming less common, especially among the youth in developed nations, particularly Ireland. This is good news, for the well-being of Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Perhaps, as a start, let's find some common ground: I firmly believe that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve peace, prosperity, and full rights.
This kind of thing comes up every few weeks, at least it does if you read the IT who's editorial policies have a pretty clear slant on this - as is completely their right - even if I don't much like it.
This week the attention was on the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his dislike of Israel's recent classification of several NGOs as terrorist organizations.
Sorry to be pedantic, but this was not Sally Rooney's decision. As part of the BDS movement, she did not want to patronize an Israeli company that would be handling the translation. Rooney has stated that she has no objection to the novel being translated into Hebrew.
Ask the travelers. Ask those on Direct Provision. Ask the people who got dumped in Ballymun with promises of parks and shops, only to be abandoned for decades.
FWIW, it seem clear to me that the Palestinians have got the nasty end of the stick and deserve better, as much as you or I do. If the only answer you have is one that means that all the Jews in Israel die (ala BSM though they don't yet have the guts to say so) then the Jews of Israel aren't gonna help you.
If they don't fight, what outcome do you see?
Its known as the covert way to discriminate against arabs..
Edit: for precision they said it was like that for many small business who look for seasonal guys like waiters ..
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.
I feel that is the real HN worthy content of the article - a hack for contracts to deal with modern activism.
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.
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?