ADL calls on Google shareholders to vote down human rights proposal ‘whose goal is to delegitimize Israel’

New York Post - May 13th, 2025

Jewish rights groups, including the Anti-Defamation League and JLens, are urging shareholders of Alphabet, Google's parent company, to reject a proposal that seeks to investigate the company's cloud services in connection with potential human rights abuses in conflict zones. This proposal, to be voted on at the upcoming shareholder meeting, specifically targets Google's participation in Project Nimbus, a cloud-computing collaboration with the Israeli government. Critics of the proposal argue that it is a politically motivated effort aligned with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, aiming to undermine Israel's national security by restricting access to critical technology.

The call for rejection comes amid heightened tensions following recent terror attacks in Israel, with concerns that limiting Google's technology could jeopardize civilian safety and infrastructure. Alphabet's board and Jewish advocacy groups have voiced opposition, asserting that the proposal mischaracterizes Project Nimbus and could harm shareholder value by injecting geopolitics into corporate governance. This controversy is part of broader scrutiny on Alphabet's Israeli ties, which have previously sparked employee protests and backlash over acquisitions like that of Israeli cybersecurity firm Wiz.

Israel Google Human Rights Alphabet Anti Defamation League Cloud Computing Bds Movement Project Nimbus J Lens

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the debate surrounding Proposal 9 at Alphabet's shareholder meeting, focusing on the potential human rights implications of Project Nimbus. It effectively highlights the positions of key stakeholders, such as the ADL and JLens, while maintaining a clear and accessible narrative. However, the article could benefit from a more balanced representation of perspectives, particularly those supporting the proposal, and greater transparency regarding the sources of information. Overall, the story is timely and relevant, addressing important issues related to corporate responsibility and international relations, with the potential to influence public opinion and spark meaningful discussions.

Accuracy

The story accurately describes the main points of contention regarding Proposal 9 at Alphabet's shareholder meeting. It correctly identifies the proposal's aim to assess whether Alphabet's cloud-computing services contribute to human rights abuses, particularly in the context of Israel's Project Nimbus. However, the article could benefit from more precise details about the proposal's wording and scope. The claims about the involvement of groups like the ADL and JLens are supported by statements attributed to these organizations, but further verification of these statements would enhance accuracy. Additionally, the context of the October 7, 2023, attacks and their relevance to the debate over the proposal is mentioned but not deeply explored, leaving some factual gaps.

Balance

The article presents perspectives from both opponents and supporters of the proposal, primarily focusing on the opposition from Jewish rights groups and Alphabet's board. However, it leans towards the viewpoints of the ADL and JLens, with limited representation of the proponents' arguments or the rationale behind the proposal. The story could improve balance by including more detailed perspectives from those advocating for the proposal, such as their concerns about human rights in conflict zones and the potential implications of Project Nimbus.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the main points of the debate. The language is neutral and straightforward, making the content accessible to a broad audience. However, some complex issues, such as the technical aspects of Project Nimbus and its applications, could be explained in more detail to enhance understanding.

Source quality

The story cites credible organizations like the ADL and JLens, which are well-known and authoritative in their fields. However, it relies heavily on statements from these groups without providing a broader range of sources that could offer additional context or counterpoints. The lack of direct quotes from Alphabet or proponents of the proposal suggests a potential limitation in source variety, which could affect the depth of the reporting.

Transparency

The article provides a clear overview of the proposal and the positions of various stakeholders. However, it lacks transparency regarding the methodology used to gather these perspectives, such as whether the statements were obtained through interviews, press releases, or other means. Additionally, the article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as financial ties between the reporting entity and the stakeholders involved.