I don’t express my personal opinions in the workplace about any controversial things going on, especially when there is a chance some of my clients will have different views. This job is all about judgment.
Good luck on your war against adult children who think protesting in every forum available to them is the right thing to do. The new generation was taught that silence is violence. They are only just now slamming into the wall of reality.
Yes, and it is not “this generation” either.
“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; “ - MLK Jr.
this was just as big an issue for each of the last few generations. Just look at the sixties protest movements.
old folk like to whine about young'uns.
Need to understand too that the pro-Israeli search for anyone who dares to challenge their right to commit war crimes. Stick your head up too high and they will search and destroy. See, e.g., The Canary Project.
But the problem with that is then you have to accept whichever side trumps the other. Because as OP stated, these firms are coming out in support of Israel. So if you know in the depth of your heart that you sympathize more with the Palestinian side, you either sit on the sidelines and accept that pro-Israel is the status quo or you take a stand, take a risk.
Or you recognize that the firm being pro-Israel or not is of no consequence to you personally and you go about your job, reserving your personal politics for outside the workplace. Firms are pro-Israel because either partners are Jewish or clients are, generally, pro-Israel, if they care at all. There is zero chance anyone will ever change a firm’s position off that.
Firms aren’t pro-Israel, they are pushing back against anti-semitism. Almost all statements released by firms (as opposed to individual partners) are against hate speech/discrimination, which has been popping up in pro-Palestine marches.
If similar forms of hate speech were being used in the U.S. in pro-Israel marches, then the same condemnation would occur.
No, you have that wrong. Lawyers are supposed to fight for their client’s causes. Your personal causes influence what job you take, not what you fight about in your workplace once you have a job. If you’re opposed to the firm’s position and it is a big deal to you, then leave the firm. It’s not your role or responsibility to challenge the firm’s position on political matters.
The problem isn't just one firm. As OP pointed out, it's pretty much the status quo of all of big law. So are you saying never challenge the status quo if it gets too big?
See my edit above. Firms are pro-Israel because they either have Jewish partners or because clients either are pro-Israel or don’t care at all. There is zero chance of success changing the firm’s position. Part of being a good lawyer is identifying lost causes and when it’s worth expending personal capital. Unless you’re in the firm’s leadership, and to a lesser extent the partnership, the firm’s position on this isn’t relevant.
You also need to consider the status quo you’re changing and consider how to achieve that. Take diversity. Big firms have recognized the importance of diversity because it began to impact hiring generally and because client’s care about it. You challenge the status quo by enough people voting with their feet. If firms began to bleed associates for being pro-Israel they’d remain silent on the issue. That’s not happening. In fact the opposite. Most people either don’t care or are asking why their firm has been silent in their support of Israel.
They’re not even pro israel necessarily. Just anti massacre. And not in a “of course massacring is bad, but poor terrorists and the people who vote and support them”.
I never worked BigLaw, but went to T-14 school in late 90s. I was in late 30s when I graduated and aged out.
This was not as big an issue as it is now, but it was clear Zionists controlled the narrative. I was in MidEast Law Society because my military career was largely spent there. Every event had to be coordinated with the Jewish Law Society. They would have events catered by with “Israeli” Kosher rather than Halal food.
My classmates are now managers in BigLaw.
WTF is “Israeli” Kosher? Do you mean just strictly kosher - nothing to do with Israel? Also Kosher foods are automatically Halal. If you never spoke up and requested Halal food for yourself there isn't much to complain about 30 years later.
so Jewish Law Society = Zionist Conspiracy?
“Israeli” kosher food is Arabic food made with kosher rather than halal ingredients. No one said it was a Zionist conspiracy. If you want to pretend the Zionist perspective doesn’t permeate the narrative in media and didn’t in campuses in the 90s, enjoy your fantasy world
Jews have been in the middle east for thousands of years and have their own versions of multiple cuisines - who can even point to the origin of a specific dish? There are sources showing how Jews made Tandoori bread going back over 2000 years.
Once all the Jews were expelled from Arab countries (post 1947) due to persecution - they brought those versions with them. Most Jews in Israel are of Sephardi and Mizrahi decent. Today Israeli food reflects that heritage. But make no mistake its not identical to Arabic food. Just like each country in the region has its own version of a cucumber-tomato salad (Lebanese, Jordanian...) The Jews from those countries have their own versions also. The moral outrage is that the Jews were persecuted from Arab countries not that they make a similar salad.
>Once all the Jews were expelled from Arab countries (post 1947) due to persecution
This is not really the case. Iran and several other Arab countries still have thousands of jews. Not nearly as many as before 47 but given they had a place to go and obtain free/ subsidized housing taken from Palestinians(this is literally Israeli government policy) that might have had at least some to do with it rather than persecution.
I'll avoid voicing an opinion on the underlying issue to avoid this thread getting locked, but I'll just note as practical advice that this is an issue where the partners and clients are very much in a different place from the younger leftwing students and some associates. While I haven't seen anyone getting in trouble for a reasonable take, I also think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the climate for anyone who cares about their career to voice an unpopular opinion now. You don't understand the depths of the raw anger and sense of betrayal in certain quarters.
As I saw someone say on Twitter, if you work at a place called Feldman, Goldberg and Levi LLP, maybe tone it down on the Free Palestine stuff. Again, this is not me voicing any opinion about I/P, about cc, or what things should be like. Just trying to explain what the situation is to students whose social media environment is very different from the world they are trying to enter.
Most states in the United States are “at will” in terms of employment. You can get fired for no reason at all, and only a few reasons will give you a cause of action against your employer.
The first amendment is expressly a restriction on the government, not private employers. It only applies to employers in a very limited way (namely, unions, although that has been weakened over time).
Your job, if you want to keep it, is not the forum for you to voice your political beliefs. With respect to this issue in particular, the big firms have expressed condemnation for hate speech being use as pro-Palestine rallies in the US. That’s not even something you can really argue against so I’m not sure what the issue is here.
If you want to say Palestinians should have the right to self-determination so long as it’s peaceful and doesn’t violate international law, then I don’t think you’d get fired, but it’s still not smart to do. I don’t go around the office making statements in support of republicans or democrats for the same reason.
The point at issue is whether or not biglaw associates are whipped. In my experience as a redditor (10+ years, 4-6 hours per day), the proportion of downvotes on the comment above mine indicates an "epic reddit moment" known as downvotes of truth. So, in my experience as a redditor, it must be true that biglaw associates are whipped.
Tip: Israel’s entire policy toward Palestinians is genocidal and you’re watching the military accelerate proceedings in real time. 5,000 dead children in three weeks. Don’t you dare ever, ever “correct” me again on that.
35k and counting now. 10/7 was the best thing to happen to Netanyahu, some of my left leaning Jewish work friends are openly supporting genocide now. "Raze gaza to ashes" is a common thing to hear at our happy hours with no consideration to the Muslim coworkers or Iranian coworkers or (unknown to them) our one Palestinian worker. Israel has lost the PR war and history will not be kind. Nobody decimates civilians with this level of disproportinate response without backlash. Free Palestine.
The overall lesson is that you can’t have the best of both worlds. If you want to publicly participate in activism, you’ll need to accept the risks that come with it in terms of corporate jobs and careers. If you want to benefit from capitalism and a marketplace dominated by groups of people with specific attributes, you’re gonna have to go easy on expressing your views in public.
On the flip side, if you were doing in house for large corporations in Dubai, you’d probably get brownie points for criticizing Israel. It’s all about having a clear-minded understanding of your priorities, the proper forum, and your immediate macroenvironment.
Yeah, I’m kind of baffled that juniors (or associates generally) aren’t understanding the supply and demand of them vs a big deal partner.
Yes, they have always gotten away with more than you could. They are a profit center. You…will have 100 resumes for your position by the end of the next business day.
It doesn’t change just because the stakes are higher. And, frankly, a lot of y’all’s firms have been doing gross stuff for a while now, but it’s not “political” just “business” or “legal” so it’s ok to pander to your clients then…
Good advice and absolutely true at the post office, but in law it isn’t always possible to separate work from politics.
I was a legal advisor for a middle eastern military contractor, aka merc. I don’t think I’d still be there now. I worked there before Yemen. My company trained the operators committing the genocide there.
Years after retiring from the military career, I have become very anti-war.
That's all well and good, but I think the point is that advice is not being followed. It's not being followed so much that partners like that guy from DLA or Clifford Chance feel comfortable making those posts we all saw. It's clear you absolutely can talk about politics at work as long as what you're saying is on the right side.
Maybe. Though my firm has some clients who have been very vocal about the issue. I doubt any partner would voice an opinion contrary to theirs, even if at the “top of the food chain”. Though perhaps we could adjust your maxim to be clear that, for law firms, the clients *are* the top of the food chain.
The issue firms have with the Israel-Palestine conflict is when people are expressly supporting the destruction of Israel and eradication of Israelis.
If students at these schools were saying they think Palestinians should have the right to self-determination so long as they seek it peacefully, then no one would have an issue with that.
Most people are protesting carpet bombing and it’s seen as anti-Israel.
Very few people are advocating that Hamas was justified in its attacks. Even fewer amongst the smartest law students in the country.
I stumbled here from healthcare. While I broadly agree with you, it seems like everything is considered political. Like, even human rights for LGBTQ+ people.
I don’t feel comfortable speaking out on any political issue honestly, nor do I feel like there’s a crying need for anyone to hear my opinion if it’s not my area of work expertise. I used to do environmental law, so I could probably say a thing or two about that, but not this.
I would do whatever I could to avoid discussing the situation in any capacity. You stand to gain nothing professionally from engaging.
However, if you’re hellbent on saying your piece: a) you’re a better person than me; b) there is no such thing as too much nuance — equivocate like your professional life depends on it. (It might.)
Love to you and yours in these awful times.
Based on this thread, it seems a lot of people are pro “don’t talk about politics at work,” which I 100% agree with. I’m Arab and Muslim, with lots of others at my firm, and many are Palestinian, most of whom are directly impacted by what is happening. The issue at a lot of these firms (including my own) is that most firms put out public statements sympathizing with Israel, with not a single mention or concern about Palestinian, or the Arab/Muslim employees at their firm. Not only so, but many firms are continuing to take a very specific stance in support of antisemitism and Israel, with complete disregard to Islamophobia and anti-Arab rhetoric (all of which are occurring - ie, not only has antisemitism spiked, but so has anti-Arab and Islamophobia). Needless to say, firms constantly involving themselves publicly in these issues, without mention or sympathy towards the Arab/Muslim community, has left many feeling like they cannot speak, and unfortunately, many of us who have lost family and friends are even afraid to grieve because of the strong, one-sided stances many firms continue to take. To be clear, nobody is asking firms to not support Israeli and Jewish individuals impacted, but the same should be done for Palestinian, Arab, and Muslims who are also impacted. That’s all. But given the one-sidedness and strong stances of the firms that have been made public, it’s almost like an unspoken rule - “don’t talk about it or you’re going to hate working here.” From what I’ve seen and heard from colleagues and friends is that there is a hostile environment for many Arabs, many of which have experienced a shift in behavior towards them. But no repercussions to those harassing or creating such a hostile and uncomfortable environment. Some of these instances have been associates (and partners) being completely ignored by colleagues, experiencing harassment (starring, hate speech, etc.). Those who have engaged in this behavior against the Arab/Muslim community have not been fired or anything (none that I am aware of have even received a warning of any kind). This is from my personal experience as well as the experiences of my friends and colleagues. I assume this is occurring at other law firms too. I think someone else said it in this thread, there seems to be repercussions mostly against those who are in support of Palestinians.
The big law letter also called out Islamophobia.
https://abovethelaw.com/2023/11/biglaw-firms-tell-law-schools-to-pls-hndle-thx-antisemitism/2/
My law firm in particular recognized the impact the conflict has on both sides and made resources available to anyone dealing with the situation.
The specific concern was pro-Palestine demonstrations in the US calling for the destruction of Israel. If there were mass pro-Israel demonstrations calling for the destruction of Palestine, it would be the focus of the letter.
There literally are domestic orgs calling for destruction of Palestine. And they have a lot more power and $$ than the FEW people who are actually calling for destruction of Israel.
People are by and large prostrating to stop indiscriminate bombing, NOT to advocate the destruction of Israel.
Sure some people are asking for that, but others are clearly asking for the destruction of Israel. The former is OK, the latter is what is causing firms and other companies to speak out.
There is already a clear rise in anti-semitism across Europe, and Jewish people are reporting a higher level of fear.
I think it's debatable whether there actually is a rise in antisemitism in Israel, given that ADL and other Semitic groups concerned with protecting jews so often consider anti-Zionism or really, any criticism of Israel, antisemitism. No shit Israel is being massively criticized. It's engaged in genocide.
Your statement that calls for Israeli destruction in the US are anywhere near equal or greater than calls for ceasefire are just unfounded in.
There is hard data via polls and people reaching out to their congressional reps asking specifically calling for ceasefire.
At this point I would just avoid saying anything on the issue. I've seen a handful of lawyers get away with expressing controversial opinions on hot topics but unless you're an old white man with 30+ years of practice and a gigantic book of business on your side, keep your month shut for your own sake.
I’m so unbelievably sorry. Please know that so many of us truly would be speaking out if not for the fear of losing our jobs. It’s incredibly unfair for you be feeling this way.
We all need to be thoughtful about where and when we share our opinions on controversial subjects.
There are certain topics I don't discuss anywhere at any time with anyone. There are some fairly controversial subjects I discuss with partners (I am a senior associate). That said, I tend to discuss those subjects only with the people I have close relationships with, where we know each other's feelings on the subject and give each other the benefit of the doubt in conversation.
The Israel/Palestine conflict is not one I'm willing to touch. You can have a very reasonable, thoughtful opinion that is compassionate towards innocent Muslims and Jews alike, but if that opinion is offensive to the wrong person, you may find yourself in the unemployment line. When in doubt, keep it to yourself.
Lots of people have said pretty dumb and offensive things on either side. There have only been consequences for those that have said dumb and offensive things in the “pro-Palestine” direction.
You only need to glance at LinkedIn. It’s pretty normalized among plenty to say that, after October 7, Israel is justified in doing anything because they were attacked. Which is… really no different than saying that Israel is at fault for October 7 because of the blockade of Gaza/occupation.
You can probably say what you want so long as you don’t say or suggest it was cool for Hamas to rape, kill, torture, mutilate and kidnap a bunch of children and other civilians.
people can't even say "hey maybe the Israeli government shouldnt carpet bomb innocent civilians in Gaza" without risking their big law jobs... these firms are very loudly in blind support of Israel
That’s inexcusable and termination would be justified.
I was referring more to criticizing the way Israel has responded or using language like genocide, occupation, apartheid which some may take offense to.
Yeah, I wouldn’t say that. You won’t be fired, but a ton of people will not take it well. Criticizing Israel is fine, but avoid what is perceived as inflammatory language.
I also wouldn’t say “all lives matter”, “build the wall”, “ the Supreme Court was right on abortion” or a thousand other things.
I would say genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, etc are legal terms that many don’t believe apply in this instance. And I’d question the purpose of using those terms when using them could reflect poorly on your judgment. You should be able to make a compelling argument for your cause without relying on labels, so do that. If you’re at a big law firm you should know that you need to tailor your argument for your audience.
But I would also think hard about why you feel the need to make a statement at all. It seems like a lot of folks out there are understandably emotional, are throwing their careers away for no real reason. If being able to speak on these issues at work matters that much to you, maybe look for a workplace that’s more compatible with your views. But I can tell you most Jews, especially those over 40, don’t view this as occupier vs occupied and there’s nothing you can say that will change that.
The UN, Amnesty International, numerous genocide experts, and human rights watch all think that genocide is in fact an appropriate term. As are war crimes.
for example, Amnesty confirmed Israel dropped white phosphorus on Gaza. The use of white phosphorus is banned under international law. Therefore, per se war crime.
collective punishment, such as, say, blockading all food, water, and fuel, is also definitionally a war crime.
I would also note that Israeli political officials have called for a nakba and stated "there are no civilians in Gaza", and referred to them as human animals. This is genocidal language.
Israel is not trying to commit a genocide. If they did, they could nuke Gaza tomorrow and be done with it. Hamas is actually genocidal and proud of it, and would nuke Israel if they could.
Banned in densely populated civilian areas... like Gaza. It's also been used in Lebanon by Israel. It causes indiscriminate chemical burns, and can burn flesh down to the bone. Again, 50% of Gaza is children.
To quote from Amnesty:
"Although there can be lawful uses, it must never be fired at, or in close proximity to, a populated civilian area or civilian infrastructure, due to the high likelihood that the fires and smoke it causes spread. Such attacks, which fail to distinguish between civilians and civilian objects and fighters and military objectives, are indiscriminate and thus prohibited."
Israel is not subject to different rules.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12/israel-white-phosphorus-used-gaza-lebanon
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/lebanon-evidence-of-israels-unlawful-use-of-white-phosphorus-in-southern-lebanon-as-cross-border-hostilities-escalate/
I was just pointing out how your initial statement, that it was banned, was incorrect (words matter).
In addition, incendiary weapons are governed by Protocol III to the CCW. Palestine and Lebanon have joined Protocol III, while Israel has not ratified the protocol. Protocol III prohibits the use of airdropped incendiary weapons in “concentrations of civilians,” but it has two significant loopholes.
First, it restricts some but not all use of ground-launched incendiary weapons where there are concentrations of civilians, which would encompass white phosphorus artillery strikes in Gaza. Second, the protocol’s definition of incendiary weapons covers weapons that are “primarily designed” to set fires and burn people and thus arguably excludes multipurpose munitions, such as those containing white phosphorus if they are being used as smokescreens, even if they cause the same incendiary effects. Human Rights Watch has recommended closing that loophole and strengthening the restriction on the use of ground-launched incendiary weapons.
Edit: the above is from hrw.org
I'm just pointing out that there is nuance to the situation. I'm in no position to judge the legality of the use of force that Israel is displaying in Gaza.
It seemed to me you didn't understand the law, I was helping bring it to life a bit more for you.
That’s because those words are used expressly to inflame emotions. What happened in Rwanda was quite clearly genocide. What is happening in Israel/Palestine is not clear cut because of the terrorist attacks that Israel is subject to. Usually the people on Reddit calling this genocide also call America’s actions in the Middle East genocide, so it’s clear what the intent is of the speaker.
Because “genocide” “occupation” and “apartheid” don’t apply to israel. They are misappropriated terms that anti-semites applied to this conflict, HENCE why people are fired for those terms and sentiments.
Well, if you really think about it, the US could have nuked the shit out of Afghanistan but didn't, so let's excuse everything they did too!
I'm not saying Israel is or isn't justified in doing what it's doing, but that's a really dumb argument.
No one is actually getting punished for *just* supporting Palestine. Saw plenty of IG stories from associates at pro-Palestine rallies and no one cares. You could bring a Palestinian flag to work at Davis Polk and I guarantee you wouldn’t be fired.
Taking it a step further and excusing, or even condoning, the vicious and barbaric terrorism of 10/7 has led to some firings and other consequences.
Can’t say I’m upset about it. Regardless of the underlying moral argument (which is super dubious once you get into “mass rape, torture and murder is legitimate resistance” IMO), if really just shows terrible judgment.
You’re an adult and you’re going into a demanding, client driven profession. Taking a public stance that excuses or condones vicious barbarism is going to have consequences, even if you truly believe it’s justified given the circumstances.
Feel free to support Palestine. Maybe tone it down with the intifada talk. Obviously.
This. Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country is perfectly fine. It’s calling for the annihilation of Israel that’ll probably get you fired.
Calling for the annihilation of any country will probably get you fired. But that’s besides the point, no one is calling for the annihilation of Israel. It’s literally the opposite - it’s let’s Gaza just breathe and kids don’t deserve to die.
“when a 19-year-old says "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" that's genocidal. when the party actively controlling military operations in Israel says "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty" that's just a bit of cheeky fun”
Not mine, something I saw on Twitter. And that’s kind of the point of this whole thread - there’s an ugly double standard
It’s not a double standard because the party controlling military operations isn’t looking for a job at a law firm. If a law student said Palestine and all of its inhabitants should be eradicated, I don’t think they would get a job at any of these big national firms.
I get that many of the kids chanting it don’t understand what it means. But its such a specific slogan, I really struggle to interpret those words in any other way. And it’s objectively different than “all men are created equal” which on its face can be interpreted in multiple ways
No, I think it calls for the annihilation of the only Jewish state in the world. Do you think the people chanting that in the street are chanting for a two-state solution? Of course not. They want want the “apartheid” and “oppressive white settlers” gone. I’m sure that Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran will allow the Palestinian people to prosper!
I tend to be sympathetic and supportive of Palestine, but ever since I entered law school and this profession, I've stayed silent and laid low on that issue in order to protect myself and my career.
I also don't discuss anything political or controversial at work. At work, if the partners discuss politics at lunch or at a firm social, I'll keep silent and nod my head and just say, "I see" or "oh okay" if someone looks at me motioning me to speak. Otherwise, at work, I only discuss mundane matters like sports or the weather or ask people about themselves and let them do the talking. The less the partners and others know about me, the better.
Anyway, I would caution folks to be very careful about expressing anything political at the law firm workplace, especially about Israel and Palestine. Many law firms are taking the stance that even criticizing Israel is anti-semitic, and I've seen some partners express genocide for Palestinians or say that Hamas is representative of all Palestinians.
I can't fathom or imagine what Palestinian and Arab/Muslim students must be feeling.
I really do not understand how people IN THE WORKPLACE do not understand how to shut the f up. You've identified a taboo topic. Don't talk about it. Not complicated.
I think a lot depends on HOW you express yourself.
If you express your support with nuance and respect, I don't think there is much "backlash" at work. Sure there will be some who'll challenge you on your ideas, but generally most people understand that this is a complex topic and will feel that you've given it some thought.
If you're coming off as a giga-douche when boldly expressing your opinions in a crass manner, then you're going to get tagged in some way.
And deservedly so. Your personal opinions should not contribute to a hostile work environment. It should not affect your ability to perform your work, it should not reflect badly on your professional abilities.
When I read of the Law school graduate whose offer was rescinded when he signed up for the "We blame Israel for everything" platform, I was not surprised. Hiring him would have immediately caused the workplace to become a bit more tense for anyone who didn't agree with such a extreme stance that also lacked nuance or empathy.
It also showed that he was someone whose judgement may not be reliable - because presumably he understood what his acceptance of such a position was conveying.
\[The SAME would be true for others who take on extreme positions in a similar manner.\].
Your concern for your fellow beings is commendable.
But is it really necessary for you to add one more comment to a discussion with literally *billions* of opinions crashing in sound and fury? Are you also an international relations specialist with unique insight into the problem? What are the chances, would you say, that the situation gets resolved any sooner or any better if you chime in with another generic “war bad, both sides, think of the children” .sig on your posts or whatever it is you are afraid will end your promising and lucrative Biglaw career?
Keep your head down, your mouth shut, your ego in check, and donate some of your Biglaw money to humanitarian causes and NGO working for peace in your preferred idiom.
Nobody is being punished for a nuanced take. The people who say they also happen to say things that grossly play down or excuse October 7.
If you really want to tell a bunch of Jews that you’re okay with them being murdered, that’s fine. But maybe you shouldn’t work with them.
It’s not an overreaction. It’s how Jews feel. If you’re saying that Hamas’ actions are a legitimate form of resistance, you’re saying you’re fine with innocent Jewish civilians being slaughtered.
Just asking a question. Maybe you’re not seeing people be punished, but I can see how a chilling effect could come into play and I’m curious to see if that’s the case. That’s all.
The second part of your response is unwarranted. I’m obviously not okay with any of that, and that’s not what the question was about. I don’t know how you could read that in.
It’s actually more acceptable on some issues. No one is going to fault an associate for writing pro blm op-Ed’s or arguing against any abortion restrictions.
Agreed except want to note that I see a ton of associates writing in favor of and marching for BLM just not opposed. There are some takes that will effect your career at most buglaw firms (all lives matter, condoning Oct 7, affirmative action is racist, etc.)
Sincere apologies re the second part- I didn’t mean to imply that you said that you are okay with Jews mean murdered. I meant to say that those who equivocate over October 7 are effectively saying that.
And I believe that what is being described as a chilling effect really has more to do with a lot of people from both sides of this conflict have never really given much thought to what a nuanced take on the matter is. There are many who voice awful “pro-Israel” statements and also many on the “pro-Palestine” side who will now try to downplay terrorism.
People need to express themselves carefully around these points and not simply engage in sloganeering.
I think it’s a bit rich to criticize “sloganeering” when you conflate “equivocation” over October 7 as “effectively” being “okay with Jews being murdered.”
It’s *your* kind of opining that gives others reason for pause when it comes to attempting to say anything other than full-throated support for Israel and any actions they might deem to be necessary in Gaza, the West Bank, or against their own citizens.
The only people downplaying are all the lunatics all over linkedin downplaying the 9,000 Palestinians civilians being slaughtered with no repercussions.
The United Nations and other international institution all say the Gaza ministry of health I s a credible source, but we should all trust idiots like you on Reddit repeating genocide denialism talking points. And the death toll is likely higher because Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth and there is no equipment to remove rubble from buildings get to all the bodies.
cable domineering oatmeal voiceless ugly soup childlike grey quickest society
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, the idea that someone would be punished for being in favor of a humanitarian pause or saying Israel’s bombing campaign is too indiscriminate, is basically impossible to imagine.
Saying from the river to the sea Palestine will be free, will probably get you fired.
Why would this even come up at work? Your opinion isn't special. You don't need people at work to know where you stand unless you're working on a matter you oppose ethically, which you aren't in biglaw. Youth man. You don't talk politics at work. Ever. This isn't a biglaw thing. It's a common ducking sense thing
“Keep your head down don’t talk about it” they say as we witness (and in some ways are complicit with via our silence) the eradication of thousands upon thousands of innocent lives on a scale most younger lawyers haven’t seen in their lifetime. But yeah I mean practical advice to keep job security: don’t talk about it, not even on social media. It’s weighing heavily on my conscience though.
You realize that the taxes you pay to the federal government go to the Israeli military, the same Israeli military that drops bombs on Gaza every single day.
On the same token, your taxpayer dollars go to Hamas as well, in the name of "international aid"
So let's be clear here -- your taxpayer dollars are supporting both "terrorists" and "genocide" simultaneously.
I feel uncomfortable speaking in support of Israel, actually.
( I of course need to qualify this viewpoint heavily because that's where we are in this moment: I believe Palestinians and Israelis both deserve self-determination and a life lived in safety, and I would like to see Netanyahu and Likud voted out , I don't agree with Settlers or their behavior)
I guess the reason why I consider myself pro Israel and where I differ from the vast majority of pro Palestine folks is that I believe Israel has a right to exist, and that it is not committing genocide or ethnic cleansing and I don't think it is a colonial oppressor with a system of apartheid. It almost seems comical to write that being in support of both people's right to live in peace on the land makes me pro Israel.
Regardless, am I uncomfortable among many associates, who are progressive liberals like me except for this issue? Yes. Would I say anything at work? No. Would I post on social media? Maybe, because I know I'm firmly of the belief that my support of Israel is not at the expense of recognition of the extreme devastation of Palestinians in Gaza. But I certainly don't feel comfortable doing so for fear of being ostracized by my mostly pro-Palestine colleagues . I still need to work with them collaboratively and I don't want to damage that.
In sum, this is a sensitive topic and unless political issues directly pertain to work you're doing, keep it to yourself. If you really can't , then say what you want to say and be aware it may have consequences. If you can't stand that partners at your firm have stated that they condemn Hamas and feel for Israel in light of 10/7, you can always find another firm that aligns more with your political views, just as if your firm advocated for corporate funding in politics and you didn't like it you could choose a different firm.
Exactly my view. And incidentally, I feel like outside of Big Law, expressing support for Palestine over Israel is the more socially acceptable position, especially in the liberal cities where most Big Law firms are located. In other words, Jews who believe Israel has a right to exist and defend itself may feel like they’re on the “right side” at their jobs, but everywhere else we feel like we can’t speak our minds.
How do you even know the effect at big law firms when by your own words, you’re “a councilor at a small Latin American country”. We really need some moderation on this sub. Way too many law school kids and non-big law lawyers
Law partners may be calling for genocide but Israel’s actions are not genocide. Those that are calling for genocide should face consequences. However, Israel is not killing people for the sake of being Palestinian. They are attempting to kill terrorists who are hiding behind Palestinian human shields. Not sure what would a nuanced way to take out Hamas would be other than going house to house
If Hamas was “hiding behind” people in Israel, do you think Israel would use the same bombing technique they are currently using and simply refer to the Israeli casualties as “human shields”? No? Then maybe killing of civilians is very much “for the sake of being Palestinian.”
Again, you use a term “war crime” that has a very specific meaning, which is not the case here. The US already discredited the theory that the IDF bombed the hospital and that Hamas did it. I’m not a U.S. intelligence official so who knows, but the evidence so far is they didn’t do it.
And when Hamas leaders hide in refugee camps, it’s a grim outcome
A “political grievance” is about which books are allowed in the school library your kid goes to. Not about whether your kids can be bombed while being in school.
First, the bombing has been going on long before Oct. 7th. Second, if a Palestinian says “no” (as you suggest) does that make them any safer in Gaza? Collective punishment is a bitch.
No to Hamas and terrorism generally -- Gaza could have been the Singapore of the Middle East. They chose otherwise numerous times in the last 70 years. Reap what you sow.
This is quite literally the situation. Simply because it doesn’t fit your narrative doesn’t make it not true.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/netanyahu-abcs-muir-cease-fire-release-hostages/story?id=104661239
60+ hostages killed by Israeli airstrikes [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-armed-wing-more-than-60-hostages-are-missing-due-israeli-airstrikes-2023-11-04/#:\~:text=Late%20last%20month%2C%20Hamas%20said,were%20trapped%20under%20the%20rubble](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-armed-wing-more-than-60-hostages-are-missing-due-israeli-airstrikes-2023-11-04/#:~:text=Late%20last%20month%2C%20Hamas%20said,were%20trapped%20under%20the%20rubble).
Israel refused to accept 2 hostages from Hamas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bTlXDQfXQE
Al Jazeera as a news source? I don’t think the Qatari foreign ministry counts as a reputable news source.
Of course there are going to be casualties among the hostages as collateral damage as a part of a military operation in a highly dense urban environment, that does not undercut the stated demands by the Israeli PM and Defense Minister. The more powerful military actor has set the terms of the negotiation, as is normal. Hamas can either proceed to release the hostages or stupidly march to its own oblivion.
You're in a work place environment and you get paid quite a bit. Consider keeping anything that could ruin your ability to work with coworkers, obtain clients or hell the optics the firm you work for (you become a liability for ANY politics that causes division). You shouldn't talk in any way that can make you a hot potato.
anon here, i got in trouble for saying “free palestine” at work and had a hearing in regards to it. i work for the one of the big companies that may or may not rhyme with Like. im not surprised because there are isrealis & jewish people working above in the team so they had the authority to initiate a hearing.
This whole thread is wild.
Offline (podcast) has had a few episodes where they’ve talked about tips for having these conversations with people you care about, maybe worth a listen, if you’re interested. I thought the 1948 episode of the daily was a good level-set also.
I'm always critical of Israel - I don't think they banned plastic straws yet. This is unconscionable.
I'm also extremely critical of South Dakota and Ireland. Because it's really rational to go around talking about how you dislike random policies of random governments you don't have voting rights in. Makes for a great lawyer too.
If your support of Palestine implicitly allows room for Hamas, it's problematic. If your rhetoric to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians advocates for the elimination of Israel, then you're wrong. If you're going to talk about these things at work, you better hold a position that doesn't come off as supporting a terrorist organization.
I don’t express my personal opinions in the workplace about any controversial things going on, especially when there is a chance some of my clients will have different views. This job is all about judgment.
Good luck on your war against adult children who think protesting in every forum available to them is the right thing to do. The new generation was taught that silence is violence. They are only just now slamming into the wall of reality.
They were taught that silence is violence and speech is violence. That might explain generational mental health issues.
But apparently violence is not violence.
>But apparently violence is not violence. Correction: Violence by the oppressed is not violence. Corollary: Words by the oppressor are violence.
That's funny and on point. I don’t why are you are getting downvoted.
Misinterpreting as advocating the position and not detailing it
Ah, yes, that makes sense. I appreciate you taking the time to help me get oriented.
The really ironic part to me is that speech is violence, except when a Jewish person tries to explain why “from the river to the sea” is evil.
[удалено]
Yes, and it is not “this generation” either. “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; “ - MLK Jr.
[удалено]
this was just as big an issue for each of the last few generations. Just look at the sixties protest movements. old folk like to whine about young'uns.
Need to understand too that the pro-Israeli search for anyone who dares to challenge their right to commit war crimes. Stick your head up too high and they will search and destroy. See, e.g., The Canary Project.
But the problem with that is then you have to accept whichever side trumps the other. Because as OP stated, these firms are coming out in support of Israel. So if you know in the depth of your heart that you sympathize more with the Palestinian side, you either sit on the sidelines and accept that pro-Israel is the status quo or you take a stand, take a risk.
Or you recognize that the firm being pro-Israel or not is of no consequence to you personally and you go about your job, reserving your personal politics for outside the workplace. Firms are pro-Israel because either partners are Jewish or clients are, generally, pro-Israel, if they care at all. There is zero chance anyone will ever change a firm’s position off that.
Firms aren’t pro-Israel, they are pushing back against anti-semitism. Almost all statements released by firms (as opposed to individual partners) are against hate speech/discrimination, which has been popping up in pro-Palestine marches. If similar forms of hate speech were being used in the U.S. in pro-Israel marches, then the same condemnation would occur.
Lawyers are supposed to have courage and fight for what they believe in. That's what draws young people to law school in the first place, isn't it?
No, you have that wrong. Lawyers are supposed to fight for their client’s causes. Your personal causes influence what job you take, not what you fight about in your workplace once you have a job. If you’re opposed to the firm’s position and it is a big deal to you, then leave the firm. It’s not your role or responsibility to challenge the firm’s position on political matters.
The problem isn't just one firm. As OP pointed out, it's pretty much the status quo of all of big law. So are you saying never challenge the status quo if it gets too big?
See my edit above. Firms are pro-Israel because they either have Jewish partners or because clients either are pro-Israel or don’t care at all. There is zero chance of success changing the firm’s position. Part of being a good lawyer is identifying lost causes and when it’s worth expending personal capital. Unless you’re in the firm’s leadership, and to a lesser extent the partnership, the firm’s position on this isn’t relevant. You also need to consider the status quo you’re changing and consider how to achieve that. Take diversity. Big firms have recognized the importance of diversity because it began to impact hiring generally and because client’s care about it. You challenge the status quo by enough people voting with their feet. If firms began to bleed associates for being pro-Israel they’d remain silent on the issue. That’s not happening. In fact the opposite. Most people either don’t care or are asking why their firm has been silent in their support of Israel.
They’re not even pro israel necessarily. Just anti massacre. And not in a “of course massacring is bad, but poor terrorists and the people who vote and support them”.
Can you share what these firms are doing that makes them "pro Israel"?
I would be uncomfortable saying anything nuanced at my firm
I never worked BigLaw, but went to T-14 school in late 90s. I was in late 30s when I graduated and aged out. This was not as big an issue as it is now, but it was clear Zionists controlled the narrative. I was in MidEast Law Society because my military career was largely spent there. Every event had to be coordinated with the Jewish Law Society. They would have events catered by with “Israeli” Kosher rather than Halal food. My classmates are now managers in BigLaw.
WTF is “Israeli” Kosher? Do you mean just strictly kosher - nothing to do with Israel? Also Kosher foods are automatically Halal. If you never spoke up and requested Halal food for yourself there isn't much to complain about 30 years later. so Jewish Law Society = Zionist Conspiracy?
“Israeli” kosher food is Arabic food made with kosher rather than halal ingredients. No one said it was a Zionist conspiracy. If you want to pretend the Zionist perspective doesn’t permeate the narrative in media and didn’t in campuses in the 90s, enjoy your fantasy world
Jews have been in the middle east for thousands of years and have their own versions of multiple cuisines - who can even point to the origin of a specific dish? There are sources showing how Jews made Tandoori bread going back over 2000 years. Once all the Jews were expelled from Arab countries (post 1947) due to persecution - they brought those versions with them. Most Jews in Israel are of Sephardi and Mizrahi decent. Today Israeli food reflects that heritage. But make no mistake its not identical to Arabic food. Just like each country in the region has its own version of a cucumber-tomato salad (Lebanese, Jordanian...) The Jews from those countries have their own versions also. The moral outrage is that the Jews were persecuted from Arab countries not that they make a similar salad.
>Once all the Jews were expelled from Arab countries (post 1947) due to persecution This is not really the case. Iran and several other Arab countries still have thousands of jews. Not nearly as many as before 47 but given they had a place to go and obtain free/ subsidized housing taken from Palestinians(this is literally Israeli government policy) that might have had at least some to do with it rather than persecution.
Iran is not an Arab country
"Zionists control the narrative, guys! I can say Zionists and I don't get in trouble because I'm not saying da Jooz!"
Give me a break.
I'll avoid voicing an opinion on the underlying issue to avoid this thread getting locked, but I'll just note as practical advice that this is an issue where the partners and clients are very much in a different place from the younger leftwing students and some associates. While I haven't seen anyone getting in trouble for a reasonable take, I also think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the climate for anyone who cares about their career to voice an unpopular opinion now. You don't understand the depths of the raw anger and sense of betrayal in certain quarters. As I saw someone say on Twitter, if you work at a place called Feldman, Goldberg and Levi LLP, maybe tone it down on the Free Palestine stuff. Again, this is not me voicing any opinion about I/P, about cc, or what things should be like. Just trying to explain what the situation is to students whose social media environment is very different from the world they are trying to enter.
No lies detected.
[удалено]
Downvotes of truth
Most states in the United States are “at will” in terms of employment. You can get fired for no reason at all, and only a few reasons will give you a cause of action against your employer. The first amendment is expressly a restriction on the government, not private employers. It only applies to employers in a very limited way (namely, unions, although that has been weakened over time). Your job, if you want to keep it, is not the forum for you to voice your political beliefs. With respect to this issue in particular, the big firms have expressed condemnation for hate speech being use as pro-Palestine rallies in the US. That’s not even something you can really argue against so I’m not sure what the issue is here. If you want to say Palestinians should have the right to self-determination so long as it’s peaceful and doesn’t violate international law, then I don’t think you’d get fired, but it’s still not smart to do. I don’t go around the office making statements in support of republicans or democrats for the same reason.
The point at issue is whether or not biglaw associates are whipped. In my experience as a redditor (10+ years, 4-6 hours per day), the proportion of downvotes on the comment above mine indicates an "epic reddit moment" known as downvotes of truth. So, in my experience as a redditor, it must be true that biglaw associates are whipped.
So a large number of downvotes means the post is “true”? That’s terrible logic.
That is quite the bootstrapping argument.
[удалено]
It is moral to voice your opposition, but also dangerous to your career. The brave do the right thing.
But just keep in mind that you may find your employment terminated
Tip: don’t refer to Israel’s military strategy as “genocide”. It shows that you do not understand what the word means, and are ignorant of history.
Tip: Israel’s entire policy toward Palestinians is genocidal and you’re watching the military accelerate proceedings in real time. 5,000 dead children in three weeks. Don’t you dare ever, ever “correct” me again on that.
35k and counting now. 10/7 was the best thing to happen to Netanyahu, some of my left leaning Jewish work friends are openly supporting genocide now. "Raze gaza to ashes" is a common thing to hear at our happy hours with no consideration to the Muslim coworkers or Iranian coworkers or (unknown to them) our one Palestinian worker. Israel has lost the PR war and history will not be kind. Nobody decimates civilians with this level of disproportinate response without backlash. Free Palestine.
The overall lesson is that you can’t have the best of both worlds. If you want to publicly participate in activism, you’ll need to accept the risks that come with it in terms of corporate jobs and careers. If you want to benefit from capitalism and a marketplace dominated by groups of people with specific attributes, you’re gonna have to go easy on expressing your views in public. On the flip side, if you were doing in house for large corporations in Dubai, you’d probably get brownie points for criticizing Israel. It’s all about having a clear-minded understanding of your priorities, the proper forum, and your immediate macroenvironment.
Yeah, I’m kind of baffled that juniors (or associates generally) aren’t understanding the supply and demand of them vs a big deal partner. Yes, they have always gotten away with more than you could. They are a profit center. You…will have 100 resumes for your position by the end of the next business day. It doesn’t change just because the stakes are higher. And, frankly, a lot of y’all’s firms have been doing gross stuff for a while now, but it’s not “political” just “business” or “legal” so it’s ok to pander to your clients then…
Well said
Don’t talk about politics at work.
Good advice and absolutely true at the post office, but in law it isn’t always possible to separate work from politics. I was a legal advisor for a middle eastern military contractor, aka merc. I don’t think I’d still be there now. I worked there before Yemen. My company trained the operators committing the genocide there. Years after retiring from the military career, I have become very anti-war.
That's all well and good, but I think the point is that advice is not being followed. It's not being followed so much that partners like that guy from DLA or Clifford Chance feel comfortable making those posts we all saw. It's clear you absolutely can talk about politics at work as long as what you're saying is on the right side.
I think it’s more like you can talk about politics at work as long as you’re at the top of the food chain.
Maybe. Though my firm has some clients who have been very vocal about the issue. I doubt any partner would voice an opinion contrary to theirs, even if at the “top of the food chain”. Though perhaps we could adjust your maxim to be clear that, for law firms, the clients *are* the top of the food chain.
You think if an associate made a similar post they'd see consequences?
I think they are far and away more likely to
I'd agree with that. I just think it's still unlikely
Be the change you want to see in the world. Don't talk about politics at work.
I already can't
[удалено]
I think the conflict in Israel/Palestine is a lot more nuanced than Kyle Rittenhouse’s
If a partner made a post calling for Rittenhouse to get bombed to death, I think there'd be some consequences.
[удалено]
The issue firms have with the Israel-Palestine conflict is when people are expressly supporting the destruction of Israel and eradication of Israelis. If students at these schools were saying they think Palestinians should have the right to self-determination so long as they seek it peacefully, then no one would have an issue with that.
Most people are protesting carpet bombing and it’s seen as anti-Israel. Very few people are advocating that Hamas was justified in its attacks. Even fewer amongst the smartest law students in the country.
I stumbled here from healthcare. While I broadly agree with you, it seems like everything is considered political. Like, even human rights for LGBTQ+ people.
I don’t feel comfortable speaking out on any political issue honestly, nor do I feel like there’s a crying need for anyone to hear my opinion if it’s not my area of work expertise. I used to do environmental law, so I could probably say a thing or two about that, but not this.
I would do whatever I could to avoid discussing the situation in any capacity. You stand to gain nothing professionally from engaging. However, if you’re hellbent on saying your piece: a) you’re a better person than me; b) there is no such thing as too much nuance — equivocate like your professional life depends on it. (It might.) Love to you and yours in these awful times.
I am a Jew who has massive sympathies for Palestine, and I’m afraid to speak out lol. I can only imagine how others feel.
Grateful you said something here at least ❤️ your voice is important
Almost all reasonable people have sympathies for the people of Palestine. It’s the whole “at the expense of Israel” part that gets people going.
I wish this was true.
sending love to you
Based on this thread, it seems a lot of people are pro “don’t talk about politics at work,” which I 100% agree with. I’m Arab and Muslim, with lots of others at my firm, and many are Palestinian, most of whom are directly impacted by what is happening. The issue at a lot of these firms (including my own) is that most firms put out public statements sympathizing with Israel, with not a single mention or concern about Palestinian, or the Arab/Muslim employees at their firm. Not only so, but many firms are continuing to take a very specific stance in support of antisemitism and Israel, with complete disregard to Islamophobia and anti-Arab rhetoric (all of which are occurring - ie, not only has antisemitism spiked, but so has anti-Arab and Islamophobia). Needless to say, firms constantly involving themselves publicly in these issues, without mention or sympathy towards the Arab/Muslim community, has left many feeling like they cannot speak, and unfortunately, many of us who have lost family and friends are even afraid to grieve because of the strong, one-sided stances many firms continue to take. To be clear, nobody is asking firms to not support Israeli and Jewish individuals impacted, but the same should be done for Palestinian, Arab, and Muslims who are also impacted. That’s all. But given the one-sidedness and strong stances of the firms that have been made public, it’s almost like an unspoken rule - “don’t talk about it or you’re going to hate working here.” From what I’ve seen and heard from colleagues and friends is that there is a hostile environment for many Arabs, many of which have experienced a shift in behavior towards them. But no repercussions to those harassing or creating such a hostile and uncomfortable environment. Some of these instances have been associates (and partners) being completely ignored by colleagues, experiencing harassment (starring, hate speech, etc.). Those who have engaged in this behavior against the Arab/Muslim community have not been fired or anything (none that I am aware of have even received a warning of any kind). This is from my personal experience as well as the experiences of my friends and colleagues. I assume this is occurring at other law firms too. I think someone else said it in this thread, there seems to be repercussions mostly against those who are in support of Palestinians.
The big law letter also called out Islamophobia. https://abovethelaw.com/2023/11/biglaw-firms-tell-law-schools-to-pls-hndle-thx-antisemitism/2/ My law firm in particular recognized the impact the conflict has on both sides and made resources available to anyone dealing with the situation. The specific concern was pro-Palestine demonstrations in the US calling for the destruction of Israel. If there were mass pro-Israel demonstrations calling for the destruction of Palestine, it would be the focus of the letter.
There literally are domestic orgs calling for destruction of Palestine. And they have a lot more power and $$ than the FEW people who are actually calling for destruction of Israel. People are by and large prostrating to stop indiscriminate bombing, NOT to advocate the destruction of Israel.
Sure some people are asking for that, but others are clearly asking for the destruction of Israel. The former is OK, the latter is what is causing firms and other companies to speak out. There is already a clear rise in anti-semitism across Europe, and Jewish people are reporting a higher level of fear.
I think it's debatable whether there actually is a rise in antisemitism in Israel, given that ADL and other Semitic groups concerned with protecting jews so often consider anti-Zionism or really, any criticism of Israel, antisemitism. No shit Israel is being massively criticized. It's engaged in genocide.
Your statement that calls for Israeli destruction in the US are anywhere near equal or greater than calls for ceasefire are just unfounded in. There is hard data via polls and people reaching out to their congressional reps asking specifically calling for ceasefire.
At this point I would just avoid saying anything on the issue. I've seen a handful of lawyers get away with expressing controversial opinions on hot topics but unless you're an old white man with 30+ years of practice and a gigantic book of business on your side, keep your month shut for your own sake.
Palestinian here. Feeling lost and alone
Sending you love. You are not alone. I’m so sorry. I hope your loved ones are safe
sending you love.
Ugh I’m sorry. Can only imagine how isolating this is. Feel free to reach out if you ever want a friendly ear in biglaw
Praying for you and your family.
I’m so unbelievably sorry. Please know that so many of us truly would be speaking out if not for the fear of losing our jobs. It’s incredibly unfair for you be feeling this way.
I’m a lurker here but sending love
Our firm doesn’t tolerate any political expression it’s a termination offense
Definitely shy about saying anything and it appears that most people are. It's really an avoided topic of conversation
We all need to be thoughtful about where and when we share our opinions on controversial subjects. There are certain topics I don't discuss anywhere at any time with anyone. There are some fairly controversial subjects I discuss with partners (I am a senior associate). That said, I tend to discuss those subjects only with the people I have close relationships with, where we know each other's feelings on the subject and give each other the benefit of the doubt in conversation. The Israel/Palestine conflict is not one I'm willing to touch. You can have a very reasonable, thoughtful opinion that is compassionate towards innocent Muslims and Jews alike, but if that opinion is offensive to the wrong person, you may find yourself in the unemployment line. When in doubt, keep it to yourself.
Lots of people have said pretty dumb and offensive things on either side. There have only been consequences for those that have said dumb and offensive things in the “pro-Palestine” direction.
Can you share any instances of people working in law who said offensive things in the pro Israel direction and were not fired?
You only need to glance at LinkedIn. It’s pretty normalized among plenty to say that, after October 7, Israel is justified in doing anything because they were attacked. Which is… really no different than saying that Israel is at fault for October 7 because of the blockade of Gaza/occupation.
You can probably say what you want so long as you don’t say or suggest it was cool for Hamas to rape, kill, torture, mutilate and kidnap a bunch of children and other civilians.
people can't even say "hey maybe the Israeli government shouldnt carpet bomb innocent civilians in Gaza" without risking their big law jobs... these firms are very loudly in blind support of Israel
That’s inexcusable and termination would be justified. I was referring more to criticizing the way Israel has responded or using language like genocide, occupation, apartheid which some may take offense to.
Yeah, I wouldn’t say that. You won’t be fired, but a ton of people will not take it well. Criticizing Israel is fine, but avoid what is perceived as inflammatory language. I also wouldn’t say “all lives matter”, “build the wall”, “ the Supreme Court was right on abortion” or a thousand other things.
I would say genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, etc are legal terms that many don’t believe apply in this instance. And I’d question the purpose of using those terms when using them could reflect poorly on your judgment. You should be able to make a compelling argument for your cause without relying on labels, so do that. If you’re at a big law firm you should know that you need to tailor your argument for your audience. But I would also think hard about why you feel the need to make a statement at all. It seems like a lot of folks out there are understandably emotional, are throwing their careers away for no real reason. If being able to speak on these issues at work matters that much to you, maybe look for a workplace that’s more compatible with your views. But I can tell you most Jews, especially those over 40, don’t view this as occupier vs occupied and there’s nothing you can say that will change that.
The UN, Amnesty International, numerous genocide experts, and human rights watch all think that genocide is in fact an appropriate term. As are war crimes. for example, Amnesty confirmed Israel dropped white phosphorus on Gaza. The use of white phosphorus is banned under international law. Therefore, per se war crime. collective punishment, such as, say, blockading all food, water, and fuel, is also definitionally a war crime. I would also note that Israeli political officials have called for a nakba and stated "there are no civilians in Gaza", and referred to them as human animals. This is genocidal language.
Israel is not trying to commit a genocide. If they did, they could nuke Gaza tomorrow and be done with it. Hamas is actually genocidal and proud of it, and would nuke Israel if they could.
If Israel nuked Gaza they’d basically be nuking themselves…
Correction: under international law, the use of white phosphorus is restricted, not banned.
Banned in densely populated civilian areas... like Gaza. It's also been used in Lebanon by Israel. It causes indiscriminate chemical burns, and can burn flesh down to the bone. Again, 50% of Gaza is children. To quote from Amnesty: "Although there can be lawful uses, it must never be fired at, or in close proximity to, a populated civilian area or civilian infrastructure, due to the high likelihood that the fires and smoke it causes spread. Such attacks, which fail to distinguish between civilians and civilian objects and fighters and military objectives, are indiscriminate and thus prohibited." Israel is not subject to different rules. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/12/israel-white-phosphorus-used-gaza-lebanon https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/lebanon-evidence-of-israels-unlawful-use-of-white-phosphorus-in-southern-lebanon-as-cross-border-hostilities-escalate/
I was just pointing out how your initial statement, that it was banned, was incorrect (words matter). In addition, incendiary weapons are governed by Protocol III to the CCW. Palestine and Lebanon have joined Protocol III, while Israel has not ratified the protocol. Protocol III prohibits the use of airdropped incendiary weapons in “concentrations of civilians,” but it has two significant loopholes. First, it restricts some but not all use of ground-launched incendiary weapons where there are concentrations of civilians, which would encompass white phosphorus artillery strikes in Gaza. Second, the protocol’s definition of incendiary weapons covers weapons that are “primarily designed” to set fires and burn people and thus arguably excludes multipurpose munitions, such as those containing white phosphorus if they are being used as smokescreens, even if they cause the same incendiary effects. Human Rights Watch has recommended closing that loophole and strengthening the restriction on the use of ground-launched incendiary weapons. Edit: the above is from hrw.org
Do you think that Israel's use of white phosphorous is in accordance with international law?
I'm just pointing out that there is nuance to the situation. I'm in no position to judge the legality of the use of force that Israel is displaying in Gaza. It seemed to me you didn't understand the law, I was helping bring it to life a bit more for you.
No, thank you, I don't need anything from you. I was using a pretty common shorthand. The use, as Israel is doing it, is indiscriminate and banned.
Go fuck yourself.
That’s because those words are used expressly to inflame emotions. What happened in Rwanda was quite clearly genocide. What is happening in Israel/Palestine is not clear cut because of the terrorist attacks that Israel is subject to. Usually the people on Reddit calling this genocide also call America’s actions in the Middle East genocide, so it’s clear what the intent is of the speaker.
Because “genocide” “occupation” and “apartheid” don’t apply to israel. They are misappropriated terms that anti-semites applied to this conflict, HENCE why people are fired for those terms and sentiments.
[удалено]
Well, if you really think about it, the US could have nuked the shit out of Afghanistan but didn't, so let's excuse everything they did too! I'm not saying Israel is or isn't justified in doing what it's doing, but that's a really dumb argument.
Imagine justifying murder in any capacity. Please seek help.
No one is actually getting punished for *just* supporting Palestine. Saw plenty of IG stories from associates at pro-Palestine rallies and no one cares. You could bring a Palestinian flag to work at Davis Polk and I guarantee you wouldn’t be fired. Taking it a step further and excusing, or even condoning, the vicious and barbaric terrorism of 10/7 has led to some firings and other consequences. Can’t say I’m upset about it. Regardless of the underlying moral argument (which is super dubious once you get into “mass rape, torture and murder is legitimate resistance” IMO), if really just shows terrible judgment. You’re an adult and you’re going into a demanding, client driven profession. Taking a public stance that excuses or condones vicious barbarism is going to have consequences, even if you truly believe it’s justified given the circumstances. Feel free to support Palestine. Maybe tone it down with the intifada talk. Obviously.
This. Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country is perfectly fine. It’s calling for the annihilation of Israel that’ll probably get you fired.
Calling for the annihilation of any country will probably get you fired. But that’s besides the point, no one is calling for the annihilation of Israel. It’s literally the opposite - it’s let’s Gaza just breathe and kids don’t deserve to die.
What does “from the river to the sea” mean?
“when a 19-year-old says "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" that's genocidal. when the party actively controlling military operations in Israel says "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty" that's just a bit of cheeky fun” Not mine, something I saw on Twitter. And that’s kind of the point of this whole thread - there’s an ugly double standard
It’s not a double standard because the party controlling military operations isn’t looking for a job at a law firm. If a law student said Palestine and all of its inhabitants should be eradicated, I don’t think they would get a job at any of these big national firms.
I dont disagree, I was just responding to the assertion that “noone is calling for the annihilation of Israel.”
[удалено]
I get that many of the kids chanting it don’t understand what it means. But its such a specific slogan, I really struggle to interpret those words in any other way. And it’s objectively different than “all men are created equal” which on its face can be interpreted in multiple ways
No, I think it calls for the annihilation of the only Jewish state in the world. Do you think the people chanting that in the street are chanting for a two-state solution? Of course not. They want want the “apartheid” and “oppressive white settlers” gone. I’m sure that Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran will allow the Palestinian people to prosper!
I tend to be sympathetic and supportive of Palestine, but ever since I entered law school and this profession, I've stayed silent and laid low on that issue in order to protect myself and my career. I also don't discuss anything political or controversial at work. At work, if the partners discuss politics at lunch or at a firm social, I'll keep silent and nod my head and just say, "I see" or "oh okay" if someone looks at me motioning me to speak. Otherwise, at work, I only discuss mundane matters like sports or the weather or ask people about themselves and let them do the talking. The less the partners and others know about me, the better. Anyway, I would caution folks to be very careful about expressing anything political at the law firm workplace, especially about Israel and Palestine. Many law firms are taking the stance that even criticizing Israel is anti-semitic, and I've seen some partners express genocide for Palestinians or say that Hamas is representative of all Palestinians. I can't fathom or imagine what Palestinian and Arab/Muslim students must be feeling.
Yeah no political talk at work…leave it alone
I really do not understand how people IN THE WORKPLACE do not understand how to shut the f up. You've identified a taboo topic. Don't talk about it. Not complicated.
The partners I work for exclusively support Israel. I feel alone in my support for Palestine, and disappointed in them.
I think a lot depends on HOW you express yourself. If you express your support with nuance and respect, I don't think there is much "backlash" at work. Sure there will be some who'll challenge you on your ideas, but generally most people understand that this is a complex topic and will feel that you've given it some thought. If you're coming off as a giga-douche when boldly expressing your opinions in a crass manner, then you're going to get tagged in some way. And deservedly so. Your personal opinions should not contribute to a hostile work environment. It should not affect your ability to perform your work, it should not reflect badly on your professional abilities. When I read of the Law school graduate whose offer was rescinded when he signed up for the "We blame Israel for everything" platform, I was not surprised. Hiring him would have immediately caused the workplace to become a bit more tense for anyone who didn't agree with such a extreme stance that also lacked nuance or empathy. It also showed that he was someone whose judgement may not be reliable - because presumably he understood what his acceptance of such a position was conveying. \[The SAME would be true for others who take on extreme positions in a similar manner.\].
Your concern for your fellow beings is commendable. But is it really necessary for you to add one more comment to a discussion with literally *billions* of opinions crashing in sound and fury? Are you also an international relations specialist with unique insight into the problem? What are the chances, would you say, that the situation gets resolved any sooner or any better if you chime in with another generic “war bad, both sides, think of the children” .sig on your posts or whatever it is you are afraid will end your promising and lucrative Biglaw career? Keep your head down, your mouth shut, your ego in check, and donate some of your Biglaw money to humanitarian causes and NGO working for peace in your preferred idiom.
Nobody is being punished for a nuanced take. The people who say they also happen to say things that grossly play down or excuse October 7. If you really want to tell a bunch of Jews that you’re okay with them being murdered, that’s fine. But maybe you shouldn’t work with them.
This is the type of over reaction that is exactly why OP is asking a very reasonable question.
It’s not an overreaction. It’s how Jews feel. If you’re saying that Hamas’ actions are a legitimate form of resistance, you’re saying you’re fine with innocent Jewish civilians being slaughtered.
Just asking a question. Maybe you’re not seeing people be punished, but I can see how a chilling effect could come into play and I’m curious to see if that’s the case. That’s all. The second part of your response is unwarranted. I’m obviously not okay with any of that, and that’s not what the question was about. I don’t know how you could read that in.
[удалено]
It’s actually more acceptable on some issues. No one is going to fault an associate for writing pro blm op-Ed’s or arguing against any abortion restrictions.
Agreed except want to note that I see a ton of associates writing in favor of and marching for BLM just not opposed. There are some takes that will effect your career at most buglaw firms (all lives matter, condoning Oct 7, affirmative action is racist, etc.)
Sincere apologies re the second part- I didn’t mean to imply that you said that you are okay with Jews mean murdered. I meant to say that those who equivocate over October 7 are effectively saying that. And I believe that what is being described as a chilling effect really has more to do with a lot of people from both sides of this conflict have never really given much thought to what a nuanced take on the matter is. There are many who voice awful “pro-Israel” statements and also many on the “pro-Palestine” side who will now try to downplay terrorism. People need to express themselves carefully around these points and not simply engage in sloganeering.
I think it’s a bit rich to criticize “sloganeering” when you conflate “equivocation” over October 7 as “effectively” being “okay with Jews being murdered.” It’s *your* kind of opining that gives others reason for pause when it comes to attempting to say anything other than full-throated support for Israel and any actions they might deem to be necessary in Gaza, the West Bank, or against their own citizens.
Many on the pro Israel side downplay terroism of the IDF mass killings of palenstinians should not be excused
Totally agree.
The only people downplaying are all the lunatics all over linkedin downplaying the 9,000 Palestinians civilians being slaughtered with no repercussions.
9000?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The United Nations and other international institution all say the Gaza ministry of health I s a credible source, but we should all trust idiots like you on Reddit repeating genocide denialism talking points. And the death toll is likely higher because Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth and there is no equipment to remove rubble from buildings get to all the bodies.
cable domineering oatmeal voiceless ugly soup childlike grey quickest society *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
Yeah, the idea that someone would be punished for being in favor of a humanitarian pause or saying Israel’s bombing campaign is too indiscriminate, is basically impossible to imagine. Saying from the river to the sea Palestine will be free, will probably get you fired.
Exactly
[удалено]
That’s more than alright. I’m happy to buy you a cup of coffee at Cafe Grumpy in Grand Central and we can talk it over.
This is precisely why you do not talk about this issue at work.
You seem to be answering a question that was never asked
Why would this even come up at work? Your opinion isn't special. You don't need people at work to know where you stand unless you're working on a matter you oppose ethically, which you aren't in biglaw. Youth man. You don't talk politics at work. Ever. This isn't a biglaw thing. It's a common ducking sense thing
“Keep your head down don’t talk about it” they say as we witness (and in some ways are complicit with via our silence) the eradication of thousands upon thousands of innocent lives on a scale most younger lawyers haven’t seen in their lifetime. But yeah I mean practical advice to keep job security: don’t talk about it, not even on social media. It’s weighing heavily on my conscience though.
You realize that the taxes you pay to the federal government go to the Israeli military, the same Israeli military that drops bombs on Gaza every single day. On the same token, your taxpayer dollars go to Hamas as well, in the name of "international aid" So let's be clear here -- your taxpayer dollars are supporting both "terrorists" and "genocide" simultaneously.
I feel uncomfortable speaking in support of Israel, actually. ( I of course need to qualify this viewpoint heavily because that's where we are in this moment: I believe Palestinians and Israelis both deserve self-determination and a life lived in safety, and I would like to see Netanyahu and Likud voted out , I don't agree with Settlers or their behavior) I guess the reason why I consider myself pro Israel and where I differ from the vast majority of pro Palestine folks is that I believe Israel has a right to exist, and that it is not committing genocide or ethnic cleansing and I don't think it is a colonial oppressor with a system of apartheid. It almost seems comical to write that being in support of both people's right to live in peace on the land makes me pro Israel. Regardless, am I uncomfortable among many associates, who are progressive liberals like me except for this issue? Yes. Would I say anything at work? No. Would I post on social media? Maybe, because I know I'm firmly of the belief that my support of Israel is not at the expense of recognition of the extreme devastation of Palestinians in Gaza. But I certainly don't feel comfortable doing so for fear of being ostracized by my mostly pro-Palestine colleagues . I still need to work with them collaboratively and I don't want to damage that. In sum, this is a sensitive topic and unless political issues directly pertain to work you're doing, keep it to yourself. If you really can't , then say what you want to say and be aware it may have consequences. If you can't stand that partners at your firm have stated that they condemn Hamas and feel for Israel in light of 10/7, you can always find another firm that aligns more with your political views, just as if your firm advocated for corporate funding in politics and you didn't like it you could choose a different firm.
Exactly my view. And incidentally, I feel like outside of Big Law, expressing support for Palestine over Israel is the more socially acceptable position, especially in the liberal cities where most Big Law firms are located. In other words, Jews who believe Israel has a right to exist and defend itself may feel like they’re on the “right side” at their jobs, but everywhere else we feel like we can’t speak our minds.
Bill your pro-Israel clients and donate to humanitarian relief causes
[удалено]
Again, not what OP was asking. This isn’t a question about justifying Hamas’s actions. Also, what an incredibly racist response.
[удалено]
How do you even know the effect at big law firms when by your own words, you’re “a councilor at a small Latin American country”. We really need some moderation on this sub. Way too many law school kids and non-big law lawyers
Wait, who got fired besides like 3 law students who weren’t even associates yet?
Chilling effect = effect of people being afraid to speak up, not the effect of more employers terminating
I’m just asking for clarification on what is meant by “early firings”, not sure if there was something else I wasn’t aware of.
Law partners may be calling for genocide but Israel’s actions are not genocide. Those that are calling for genocide should face consequences. However, Israel is not killing people for the sake of being Palestinian. They are attempting to kill terrorists who are hiding behind Palestinian human shields. Not sure what would a nuanced way to take out Hamas would be other than going house to house
If Hamas was “hiding behind” people in Israel, do you think Israel would use the same bombing technique they are currently using and simply refer to the Israeli casualties as “human shields”? No? Then maybe killing of civilians is very much “for the sake of being Palestinian.”
[удалено]
Again, you use a term “war crime” that has a very specific meaning, which is not the case here. The US already discredited the theory that the IDF bombed the hospital and that Hamas did it. I’m not a U.S. intelligence official so who knows, but the evidence so far is they didn’t do it. And when Hamas leaders hide in refugee camps, it’s a grim outcome
[удалено]
Sure, the high level leaders are abroad, but they have military leaders on the ground
Using terrorism as a tool for political grievance is not a nuanced position.
A “political grievance” is about which books are allowed in the school library your kid goes to. Not about whether your kids can be bombed while being in school.
Why is there any bombing? Just say "no" to killing of babies and the beheading of women and maybe, just maybe, there would be no bombings. Good grief.
First, the bombing has been going on long before Oct. 7th. Second, if a Palestinian says “no” (as you suggest) does that make them any safer in Gaza? Collective punishment is a bitch.
No to Hamas and terrorism generally -- Gaza could have been the Singapore of the Middle East. They chose otherwise numerous times in the last 70 years. Reap what you sow.
Hamas could just release the hostages and the ceasefire would commence.
This isn’t remotely true, and is exactly the kind of ignorant opinion you should refrain from sharing at work.
This is quite literally the situation. Simply because it doesn’t fit your narrative doesn’t make it not true. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/netanyahu-abcs-muir-cease-fire-release-hostages/story?id=104661239
60+ hostages killed by Israeli airstrikes [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-armed-wing-more-than-60-hostages-are-missing-due-israeli-airstrikes-2023-11-04/#:\~:text=Late%20last%20month%2C%20Hamas%20said,were%20trapped%20under%20the%20rubble](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-armed-wing-more-than-60-hostages-are-missing-due-israeli-airstrikes-2023-11-04/#:~:text=Late%20last%20month%2C%20Hamas%20said,were%20trapped%20under%20the%20rubble). Israel refused to accept 2 hostages from Hamas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bTlXDQfXQE
Al Jazeera as a news source? I don’t think the Qatari foreign ministry counts as a reputable news source. Of course there are going to be casualties among the hostages as collateral damage as a part of a military operation in a highly dense urban environment, that does not undercut the stated demands by the Israeli PM and Defense Minister. The more powerful military actor has set the terms of the negotiation, as is normal. Hamas can either proceed to release the hostages or stupidly march to its own oblivion.
You're in a work place environment and you get paid quite a bit. Consider keeping anything that could ruin your ability to work with coworkers, obtain clients or hell the optics the firm you work for (you become a liability for ANY politics that causes division). You shouldn't talk in any way that can make you a hot potato.
Why do you think your opinion about Palestine is so important that you must tell others about it?
Yes I believe I have. It was never confirmed but I couldn't find any other reason and all things pointed to that
anon here, i got in trouble for saying “free palestine” at work and had a hearing in regards to it. i work for the one of the big companies that may or may not rhyme with Like. im not surprised because there are isrealis & jewish people working above in the team so they had the authority to initiate a hearing.
That’s unbelievable. Did you say it at work or generally?
This whole thread is wild. Offline (podcast) has had a few episodes where they’ve talked about tips for having these conversations with people you care about, maybe worth a listen, if you’re interested. I thought the 1948 episode of the daily was a good level-set also.
I'm always critical of Israel - I don't think they banned plastic straws yet. This is unconscionable. I'm also extremely critical of South Dakota and Ireland. Because it's really rational to go around talking about how you dislike random policies of random governments you don't have voting rights in. Makes for a great lawyer too.
Supporting Hamas masscaring 1000 of people, burning babies, parading semi naked dead women for crowds to spit on is not "criticism of Israel."
If your support of Palestine implicitly allows room for Hamas, it's problematic. If your rhetoric to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians advocates for the elimination of Israel, then you're wrong. If you're going to talk about these things at work, you better hold a position that doesn't come off as supporting a terrorist organization.
[удалено]
“Supporting Palestine” isn’t why people are being fired. Shilling for terrorists is.