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.