Company: GOOGL
Filing Date: 2025-05-07
Form Type: PX14A6G
Source: 0000921895-25-001315
Chunk: 3

Company: Alphabet Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-05-07
Form: PX14A6G
Chunk 3
---
 direct and indirect sources that lack neutrality and reflect a broader political campaign against Israel. Much of the
proposal’s supporting arguments draw from a web of interconnected organizations and media outlets known for promoting the BDS
movement and the delegitimization of Israel.

| ● | The Intercept - Publishes highly critical pieces on Israeli defense projects, quoting No Tech for Apartheid and HRW 
 without presenting legal or security context [7].                                                                   |

| ● | Anadolu Agency - Turkey’s state-run outlet; amplifies BDS rhetoric and repeats claims that Project Nimbus “enables 
 apartheid and genocide” [8].                                                                                       |

| ● | Human Rights Watch - Frequently labels Israel an apartheid state; its founder, Robert Bernstein, publicly rebuked the group 
 for disproportionate focus on Israel [9].                                                                                   |

| ● | No Tech for Apartheid - Activist campaign demanding Google and Amazon cut all ties with Israel and calling the state “illegitimate” 
 and guilty of “ethnic cleansing” [10].                                                                                              |

| ● | American Friends Service Committee “Investigate” Initiative - A BDS-aligned project that brands Israel an apartheid                          
 regime while omitting terrorism and regional-security context. While AFSC is not directly cited in the proposal, its framing and conclusions 
 have clearly shaped the broader narrative that Proposal 9 seeks to legitimize [4] [11].                                                      |

By relying on sources widely criticized
for bias, Proposal 9 erodes the very foundation of its case. When the supporting evidence comes from outlets and campaigns with explicit
anti-Israel agendas, the proposal cannot offer a neutral, independently verified assessment of human-rights risk; it simply repackages
politicized narratives that mirror the BDS movement, an agenda the ADL and others call antisemitic for denying Jewish self-determination
[12].

How This Proposal Could Harm Alphabet and Risk Shareholder Value

We believe that approving a human rights
due diligence report that fixates on Israel:

| ● | Invites Activist Pressure: A narrowly-scoped report could open the door to pressure campaigns seeking to limit or terminate 
 Alphabet’s lawful agreements with Israel, encouraging further misuse of shareholder processes to advance political agendas. |

| ● | Undercuts Business Certainty: Continual efforts to challenge standard technology contracts based on political motives, not 
 objective risk assessments, can disrupt long-term planning, especially when they’re politicized around Israel.             |

| ● | Undermines Confidence in Oversight Mechanisms: A truly fair due diligence process ought to consider the complexities of