Company: GOOGL
Filing Date: 2025-05-07
Form Type: PX14A6G
Source: 0000921895-25-001315
Chunk: 2

Company: Alphabet Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-05-07
Form: PX14A6G
Chunk 2
---
 attacks
on Israel, which claimed over 1,200 lives and took hundreds of hostages, underscore why modern defense capabilities are vital [5]. Despite
this reality, the proposal:

| ● | Portrays Israel’s adoption of AI for defense as a unique ethical risk. |

| ● | Overlooks the persistent terrorist threat facing Israeli civilians and the corresponding need for robust defensive measures. |

| ● | Ignores that Israel’s defense partnerships, including Project Nimbus, comply with U.S. and international law. |

In our view, the proposal downplays terrorism
by omitting any mention of the October 7, 2023 massacre or the broader context of persistent rocket attacks, suicide bombings, and armed
incursions that target Israeli civilians. By treating Israel’s defensive measures as inherently suspect, the proposal distorts the
legitimate security needs of a democratic ally responding to existential threats.

Disproportionate Focus on Israel

We believe Proposal 9 reflects a core tactic
of the BDS movement by disproportionately scrutinizing Israel’s adoption of technology for defense, while downplaying comparable
uses by other nations. Alphabet’s products power defense, healthcare, transportation, and tax systems worldwide, yet Israel’s
projects are singled out for censure. The proposal exemplifies this in the following ways:

| ● | Of the five CAHRA examples cited, the section on Israel is the longest and most detailed. |

| ● | Israel is the only country where internal employee dissent is cited to suggest reputational risk, amplifying controversy without substantiated 
 evidence.                                                                                                                                      |

| ● | References to Israeli military operations are presented without any context. |

| ● | There is no mention of terrorism, Israel’s democratic legal system, or the extensive civilian uses of Project Nimbus, despite 
 these being public and material facts.                                                                                        |

The proposal brands Project Nimbus as an
“ethical, legal, and reputational” risk, but ignores comparable cloud-and-AI programs in other democracies. It portrays Israel’s
use of facial recognition and sentiment analysis as uniquely condemnable, even though the U.K., France, Germany, Australia, Canada, and
many others deploy the same tools for legitimate public-safety purposes [6]. No such criticism is leveled at those nations, or at authoritarian
regimes with far worse human-rights records. It is clear to us that this selective omission exposes a political bias, not a principled,
universal standard.

Relies on Biased and Unreliable Sources

We believe Proposal 9 relies heavily
on