During Microsoft’s 50th anniversary celebration, two employees, Ibtihal Aboussad and Vaniya Agrawal, protested against the company’s involvement with the Israeli military. They accused Microsoft of supplying AI technology that allegedly contributed to human rights violations in Palestine. Aboussad interrupted a speech by Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman, calling him a “war profiteer” and accusing the company of having “blood on its hands.” She threw a keffiyeh scarf onto the stage, a symbol of solidarity with Palestinians, before being escorted out. Agrawal later disrupted a panel featuring Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and Satya Nadella, echoing similar sentiments while accusing them of celebrating on the “blood” of Palestinians and demanding that Microsoft cut ties with Israel.
Thanks to The Palestinian Chronicle, we get a clear view of the protest.
The protests highlighted claims that Microsoft’s AI and cloud services were being used by the Israeli military for surveillance and targeting operations. These allegations were supported by reports of a $133 million contract between Microsoft and Israel’s Ministry of Defense.
Microsoft responded by terminating Aboussad’s employment, citing misconduct, and accelerating Agrawal’s resignation. The company emphasized its commitment to providing avenues for employee feedback but maintained that disruptions to business operations were unacceptable.
Thanks to The Verge we get some insight into Microsoft’s internal emails regarding the dismissal of protestors Ibtihal Aboussad and Vaniya Agrawal which read like a corporate manifesto for preserving image above all else. Aboussad’s termination email branded her actions as “hostile, unprovoked, and highly inappropriate,” which is executive speak for “You embarrassed us in front of an audience, and that’s just not on.” It even went so far as to accuse her of attempting to gain notoriety and cause disruption, because apparently drawing attention to alleged human rights abuses is just attention-seeking behavior.
Earlier today, you interrupted a speech by Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman during the Company’s 50th anniversary event in Redmond, Seattle, by yelling and finger-pointing at the CEO before a live audience of thousands of attendees, and making hostile, unprovoked, and highly inappropriate accusations against the CEO, the Company and Microsoft generally. While the CEO remained calm and attempted to de-escalate the matter, your conduct was so aggressive that you had to be escorted out of the room by security.
The company has concluded that your misconduct was designed to gain notoriety and cause maximum disruption to this highly anticipated event,” the email to Aboussad reads. “It is also concerning that you have not apologized to the company, and in fact you have shown no remorse for the effect that your actions have had and will have.
Agrawal, meanwhile, who had already tendered her resignation, was shown the door early. The company’s memo suggested that disrupting high-profile anniversary events wasn’t the ideal avenue for expressing dissent, implying that protesting genocide accusations should instead be confined to hushed HR meetings that go nowhere.
The emails make it clear that Microsoft values orderly celebrations over ethical discussions about its alleged ties with controversial military contracts. But, hey, at least the party continued uninterrupted, right? Priorities.
While Microsoft is free to let go of ‘disruptors’ from within the company, it should reconsider changing the rhetorical doublespeak it presents publicly about Human Rights including its commitment to “helping people use technology:”
- For the good of humanity
- To connect with others around the world, finding and sharing information, knowledge, ideas, and inspiration
- To overcome discrimination, exclusion, or oppression
- To save our planet
- To improve the health and wellbeing of people everywhere
- To defend and promote democracy, good governance, and the rule of law
- To protect and advance privacy, security, safety, freedoms of opinions, expression, association, peaceful assembly, and other human rights
This incident has sparked broader discussions about the ethical implications of tech companies’ involvement in military operations and the balance between corporate policies and employee activism.
