It is hard to see the point of employees occupying their own company’s headquarters to protest contracts with Israel. Microsoft is not a government and it does not set foreign policy. It is a technology firm with clients that include many countries, including allies of the United States. Israel is one of those allies. Refusing to sell software or cloud services to Israel would not bring peace, it would simply undermine Microsoft’s ability to serve a lawful customer in line with international trade rules.
The workers demanding this kind of boycott ignore that Israel is a democratic state facing real security threats. They also ignore that their salaries and benefits come from contracts just like the ones they want cancelled. If every group of employees claimed veto power over which governments or companies their employer can serve, no global business could function.
There is also a basic issue of consistency. No one is occupying Microsoft offices over contracts with China, Saudi Arabia, or other states with serious human rights problems. Singling out Israel reveals that this is not a principled stand on universal rights, but a political campaign against one country. Employees are free to hold those views privately, but staging a disruptive occupation of their workplace crosses a line. It undermines trust, damages productivity, and forces colleagues into political disputes they did not sign up for.
If workers want to change foreign policy, the proper place is the ballot box, not the office lobby.
- The ballot box does not govern corporate deployments and the workplace is where employees can influence company policy when internal channels fail.
- “You’re singling out Israel” is a whataboutism. Many tech workers have protested deals with ICE in the U.S., censored search in China, and weapons programs.
- The International Court of Justice has ordered provisional measures over a plausible risks of genocide and told Israel to halt operations placing duties on business partners
Look, employees absolutely have the right to raise concerns, but occupying the office isn’t really about discussion, it’s about forcing the company’s hand. Microsoft already has ways for staff to voice their views. If every group with a political objection shut down operations, no global business could run.
On the “singling out Israel” point, that’s not whataboutism, it’s a real double standard. Yes, there have been protests over ICE or China, but those were smaller and shorter-lived. The fact that Israel alone sparks this kind of sustained disruption says something about selective outrage. That’s worth calling out.
And about the ICJ, it hasn’t ruled that genocide is happening. It’s issued provisional measures, which it does pretty routinely before a case is decided. That’s very different from a verdict, and it doesn’t legally bind companies to cut ties. Suggesting otherwise is misleading.
Finally, pointing to individual settler violence doesn’t change the basic issue. Israel prosecutes those cases, and they don’t justify employees trying to hijack corporate policy. If people want to change foreign policy, the place to do that is through politics and public advocacy, not by staging sit-ins at work.
It's always hard to get a feel for how many people in these stories are currently employees.
I've worked enough places that I've even half agreed with some passionate folks, but wanted nothing to do with their exact actions and escalation.
Lots of situations where "You can't treat us this way <insert issue>, we're going to <something curious>!" And I'm more along the line "Man I just want the schedule to come out a bit earlier... this isn't worth going to the mattresses for at this point."
I recall when stories of google employees forming groups with some interesting points of view were circulating and folks on HN who claimed to work at google basically indicated something like "Naw it's just a few people in that chat and everyone else avoids them."
That's not a commentary on these people's opinions or views, more on how hard it is to know what IS going on inside a company and the real range of views of those employees.
It is hard to see the point of employees occupying their own company’s headquarters to protest contracts with Israel. Microsoft is not a government and it does not set foreign policy. It is a technology firm with clients that include many countries, including allies of the United States. Israel is one of those allies. Refusing to sell software or cloud services to Israel would not bring peace, it would simply undermine Microsoft’s ability to serve a lawful customer in line with international trade rules.
The workers demanding this kind of boycott ignore that Israel is a democratic state facing real security threats. They also ignore that their salaries and benefits come from contracts just like the ones they want cancelled. If every group of employees claimed veto power over which governments or companies their employer can serve, no global business could function.
There is also a basic issue of consistency. No one is occupying Microsoft offices over contracts with China, Saudi Arabia, or other states with serious human rights problems. Singling out Israel reveals that this is not a principled stand on universal rights, but a political campaign against one country. Employees are free to hold those views privately, but staging a disruptive occupation of their workplace crosses a line. It undermines trust, damages productivity, and forces colleagues into political disputes they did not sign up for.
If workers want to change foreign policy, the proper place is the ballot box, not the office lobby.
> it would simply undermine Microsoft’s ability to serve a lawful customer in line with international trade rules.
That's already happened so I don't quite see what Microsoft stands to lose: https://www.law.com/international-edition/2025/06/01/trump-s...
- The ballot box does not govern corporate deployments and the workplace is where employees can influence company policy when internal channels fail.
- “You’re singling out Israel” is a whataboutism. Many tech workers have protested deals with ICE in the U.S., censored search in China, and weapons programs.
- The International Court of Justice has ordered provisional measures over a plausible risks of genocide and told Israel to halt operations placing duties on business partners
"BBC witnesses Israeli settlers' attack on Palestinian farm in West Bank" - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cewy88jle0eo
Look, employees absolutely have the right to raise concerns, but occupying the office isn’t really about discussion, it’s about forcing the company’s hand. Microsoft already has ways for staff to voice their views. If every group with a political objection shut down operations, no global business could run.
On the “singling out Israel” point, that’s not whataboutism, it’s a real double standard. Yes, there have been protests over ICE or China, but those were smaller and shorter-lived. The fact that Israel alone sparks this kind of sustained disruption says something about selective outrage. That’s worth calling out.
And about the ICJ, it hasn’t ruled that genocide is happening. It’s issued provisional measures, which it does pretty routinely before a case is decided. That’s very different from a verdict, and it doesn’t legally bind companies to cut ties. Suggesting otherwise is misleading.
Finally, pointing to individual settler violence doesn’t change the basic issue. Israel prosecutes those cases, and they don’t justify employees trying to hijack corporate policy. If people want to change foreign policy, the place to do that is through politics and public advocacy, not by staging sit-ins at work.
It's always hard to get a feel for how many people in these stories are currently employees.
I've worked enough places that I've even half agreed with some passionate folks, but wanted nothing to do with their exact actions and escalation.
Lots of situations where "You can't treat us this way <insert issue>, we're going to <something curious>!" And I'm more along the line "Man I just want the schedule to come out a bit earlier... this isn't worth going to the mattresses for at this point."
I recall when stories of google employees forming groups with some interesting points of view were circulating and folks on HN who claimed to work at google basically indicated something like "Naw it's just a few people in that chat and everyone else avoids them."
That's not a commentary on these people's opinions or views, more on how hard it is to know what IS going on inside a company and the real range of views of those employees.
https://archive.ph/RQ9av