> On Tuesday, a group of 250 concerned "Jewish and allied Googlers" released a signed letter penned to CEO Sundar Pichai, demanding the tech behemoth provide relief to Palestinians suffering from the ongoing humanitarian crises that have erupted during the violent conflict between Israel and Hamas
> The letter penned by an unofficial Google group calling themselves the Jewish Diaspora in Tech accuses the official Jewish ERG ... of silencing voices critical of Israel's current military strategy and historical combative relationship with Palestinians. "We object to the conflation of Israel with the Jewish people," the Jewish Diaspora in Tech leaders wrote in their letter.
250 people risking their cushy jobs in a matter of people half-way across the globe - i think it is worthy of attention. And anyway, the extremes like visible activism is usually just a tip of the iceberg.
I don't envy Google leadership here, though they may have to partially blame themselves:
"This new internal political divide at Google sheds a spotlight on a long-standing diversity effort: designated employee resource groups (ERG) intended to celebrate employees with marginalized identities. But in today's climate, these groups may be sparking more political controversy than Google ever expected. "
I mean you start organize people around their ethnic/etc. identities, and as a result you may deepen the divides and raise the tensions. Reminds the situation of Indian caste system which was really formalized and strengthened by the British.
British one was different. They recognized some castes as martial races etc.. but didn't do identity politics on them.
Whatever caste system is today there in India, it was before arrival of Europeans as well, but little more flexible compared to the strict categorisation they did.
I dunno, how many Jews do they probably employ? Say 100k Google employees, say 2.5% of the US population is Jewish - maybe 2.5k employed at Google?
So 250 signatures out of ~2.5k Jews is order-of-magnitude 10% of the Jews people employed at Google.
So if they were literally all Jewish, which they probably aren't, this still doesn't really tell us what Jews at Google think. Even if we do care what Jewish Googlers think. There is nothing here.
oy vey, there is probably no worst enemy of Israel than leftist ultra-liberal Jews, some of whom live in Israel and even control Israeli media like Ha-Aretz and whatnot.
People sarcastically call them Yafei Nefesh (יפי נפש), "beautiful souls".
I don't know if it's proverbial Jewish self-hatred or plain stupidity.
I met some of these pacifist Jews and they are not stupid. They told me many horror stories of how Palestinian soldiers use children to protect rocket positions and so on. Nevertheless, they say the current policy of the state of Israel is against the best interest of Israel in the long run and obviously doesn't work, causing bloodshed on both sides. With some good will on the part of Israel, at least there is a chance things could be improved.
Is this self-hatred? I'd say it simply being human.
You can also point out that there are 2 law systems ... one of them makes it a crime, punishable by death, to give someone of the other group shelter (whether letting them stay, or even selling them a house).
Might have something to do with the slow disappearance of Palestine with settlements after evictions.
Besides. It's not like Israel recognises Palestine as a state and consequently it's justice system.(even tho making people stateless goes against human rights.)
Uh making people stateless against human rights is about stripping people of their last citizenship. Israel is not doing that at all (in contrast to most EU countries these days I might add, who are doing this, which shows once again just how empty human rights really are).
It is very much not about allowing a new state to spring up in the middle of an existing country. Especially not when rockets are involved.
>Uh making people stateless against human rights is about stripping people of their last citizenship.
Most of the world recognises Palestine as a state. Israel does not and is making it disappear thus making these people stateless.
It could annex these people's land with or without without recognising Palestine and hand em citizenship in the process but that's generally not the case.
>in contrast to most EU countries these days I might add, who are doing this, which shows once again just how empty human rights really are
I find this a bit unrelated but am curious non the less. I haven't heard of this so can you provide examples? (Ones not being fought in court atm) The cases i've heard had all had a non-eu citizenship.
>It is very much not about allowing a new state to spring up in the middle of an existing country.
I suspect you are being wilfully obtuse when you ignore nothing is springing up out of nowhere and the borders of said existing country have been constantly shifting to grow. It sounds like you're talking about the creation of Israel if anything which is probably too far back to be worth discussing much.
Generally this is done with (of course alleged) terrorism as an excuse, although this does not seem to be the case in practice. In Belgium, there were two cases where citizenship was stripped, one involving an orphan and one involving lying to the state unemployment agency about owning foreign "property" (a shack, not rented out ...) In both cases, I find it very hard to believe either person had anything remotely to do with terrorism, yet that's what happened anyway.
The second "big" cause of revoking citizenship is people who acquired more than one citizenship (and aren't rich, then there is no problem ...) and don't "do their utmost to cancel their previous citizenship".
> I suspect you are being wilfully obtuse when you ignore nothing is springing up out of no
Sorry. I realise now that "springing up" is indeed not the correct term for the Israel-Palestine situation. That wording can be much improved. I'm saying that the legislation is about states depriving their own citizens of citizenship, and doesn't apply to the semi-almost-but-not-entirely 2 state situation in Israel.
Likewise there is nothing in this legislation that prevents property from being confiscated.
Relative pain. The same amount of money has far more substantial effects on an individual than Google. You could live in complete squalor for amounts that Google might not even notice missing.
Ability to contribute. Even the bulk of the salary of 250 Google employees pales in comparison to Google's budget for this kind of thing. Getting Google to act could easily end with a large total contribution.
Time. Presumably these 250 people have not been living on 50k a year with the intention to find some cause to throw literally all of their savings at. It may well take a year for them to contribute as much as you're suggesting.
Public perception. Google doing a thing is not at all the same as a group of Google employees doing a thing. One would be far more influential than the other.
Other corporations. Once Google does a thing, it is far easier for other corporations to follow suit. Not only is it simply easier to sell - I mean Google did it, it can't be that bad of an idea right? - it's more than possible that Google taking a stand would apply pressure to other corporations to do the same. They wouldn't want to be morally inferior to Google now would they?
So, off the top of my head... yeah there's more than a few good reasons for trying to move Google like this. And who says none of these people haven't donated what money they could currently afford to? I don't know how we'd even know that.
I mean one can apply this rhetoric ad nauseam to all attempts of influencing change. Good job. If only Rosa parks listened to you.
(I am not comparing the Israel/Palestine conflict to the American civil rights movement. I am only making a general comment on the rhetoric. )
Is this 200k donation going to force IDF to stop bombing children ? If yes then they will gladly do it but if not then the problem lies elsewhere.
Stop this nonsense about somehow Israel for all their misdeeds and war crimes should be given a free pass because they were subject to same or even more war crimes half a century ago ?
So they are doing to others what was done to them, and yet if anyone speaks "hh", that person us called a Holocaust denier. Ignoring the Holocaust they are engaged in TODAY.
Yesterday or a day before, some actress was shamed by official Israel account when she spoke for Palestine cause. What? What kind of bs is this?
How are they going to disappear when they're embedded in the population which isn't exactly spread out. Which isn't gonna push them out themselves when they're being ethnically cleansed from their home in many places.
Israel helped nurture the Hamas of today to deal with the PLO/Fatah but regardless of whether they expected it to become what it did they won't bomb it out of existence.
Maybe israel should stop with its apartheid policies in the first place and stop murdering children and stop expanding settlements and take responsibility of the crimes against humanity they have carried out over last 50 odd years and let Palestinians back into their homes. Maybe then there wont be a need for Hamas
So the existence of "Israel as a state" depends on Palestinians not living like humans on their own lands. Wow. That is some top level bs.
I need to ask you, how about a bully takes over your home, throws you out on the street and cries self defense if you fight back. What do you do? I am asking you in particular.
That would be unreasonable, why would Israel compromise if they don't have any pressure whatsoever, international or internal. Especially with the current right wing dominance of politics in Israel and the foolish attempts at slow annexation of the West Bank.
The Palestinian's interests is into keeping and nurturing a strong resistance until there is a real support from the USA for a reasonable peace process.
So Hamas was "invented" in 1987. What about before that? Who was the enemy of IDF that demanded their creation, their need to pursue apartheid against Palestinians ?
So assume Hamas winds down operations today, will IDF stop their bombings, stop settlements? Stop murdering children? Stop violating UN resolutions on war crimes and crimes against humanity and their expansion plan into occupied territories?
Will Israel give back Palestinians the land they forcefully took from them since 1947?
Where does Hamas even come into the picture you baffoon
> because they were subject to same or even more war crimes half a century ago
The lesson of the 20th century was "you won't demonize, oppress, chase away or murder a population" but it seems about half of the people got their brains overfitted and what they've learned is just "you won't demonize, oppress, chase away or murder the Jews, but with everybody else is just fine".
Yes. Because Israel is the aggressor, they have a right to defend themselves against any protest against their aggression and that protest is an act of terror, because the aggressor is Israel.
These statement assumes that said employees don't already plan to donate their money.
I'd note too that on the individual level, the risk calculus shifts. There is a good case for earmarking charity money (allowing use of it for personal emergencies) and leaving them in your own investments and dedicating them upon death, rather than committing them immediately to your favorite cause of the day.
For unfathomable reason those people decided to advocate for the palestinians, a group of people led by Hamas whose leaders call jews "descendants of apes and pigs".
I'm not saying palestinians aren't in need of humanitarian aid, they are.
And I'm not saying Israel is the good guy here - they are most certainly not.
But viewing the conflict in such a dichotomous way (good vs. bad) is driving both sides away from an agreed upon resolution to the conflict.
I wonder if it's a fun mindset. Making demands of other people at scale you won't ever do yourself.
There's no end to it, just like there's no end to the pretend tolerance and pretend generosity by using other peoples' money for ideas they have no desire to contribute to, but are forced to at gunpoint and prison threat (taxation).
> The letter penned by an unofficial Google group calling themselves the Jewish Diaspora in Tech accuses the official Jewish ERG ... of silencing voices critical of Israel's current military strategy and historical combative relationship with Palestinians. "We object to the conflation of Israel with the Jewish people," the Jewish Diaspora in Tech leaders wrote in their letter.