Google co-founder Sergey Brin calls UN ‘transparently antisemitic' after report on tech firms and Gaza
Image: AFP
Google co-founder Sergey Brin called the United Nations 'transparently antisemitic' on Saturday in an internal forum for employees, according to screenshots reviewed by The Washington Post and verified with a current member of the forum.
His comments came in response to a UN report released last month that alleged technology firms including Google and its parent company Alphabet had profited from 'the genocide carried out by Israel' in Gaza by providing cloud and AI technologies to the Israeli government and military.
'With all due respect, throwing around the term genocide in relation to Gaza is deeply offensive to many Jewish people who have suffered actual genocides. I would also be careful citing transparently antisemitic organizations like the UN in relation to these issues,' Brin wrote in a forum for staff at Google DeepMind, the company's artificial intelligence division, where workers were debating the report, according to the screenshots.
The UN report was authored by its special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Italian legal scholar Francesca Albanese. The US representative to the UN has asked for her removal, accusing her of antisemitism and bias against Israel.
Critics of Israel have said its war in Gaza meets the definition of genocide, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected those claims, saying his country is defending itself against an attempted genocide by Hamas. The Gaza Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants, has said the war has killed over 57 000 Palestinians.
'My comments came in response to an internal discussion that was citing a plainly biased and misleading report,' Brin said in a statement provided by his spokesperson. Google and the United Nations did not respond to requests for comment.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad Loading
Brin rarely comments in the internal forum, which is hosted on Google Chat and has nearly 2 500 members, many of them AI researchers. His accusation against the UN confused and upset some employees, according to the forum member and screenshots reviewed by The Post.
Google's leadership has previously clashed with and fired workers who protested the company's dealings with Israel after its military action in Gaza following the Hamas attacks on the country on October 7, 2023, that killed about 1 200 people.
The company moved to sell its AI tools to Israel's military after the incursion by the militant group, The Post reported in January.
Brin immigrated to the United States as a child with his parents, Russian Jews who sought to escape the antisemitism they faced in the Soviet Union, according to the 2009 book 'Googled: The End of the World as We Know It,' by Ken Auletta. Brin and Google co-founder Larry Page left their daily roles at the company in 2019. But Brin has become involved with Google's efforts to compete in AI following the launch of OpenAI's ChatGPT in late 2022.
The UN report names corporations that the organisation's special rapporteur Albanese says should be held accountable for Israel's military action in Gaza. It claims American tech giants have capitalized on a lucrative opportunity created by its military's expanding need for computing services and cloud storage, driven by the copious data generated by Israel's control of Gaza.
The report highlights a $1.2 billion (R21bn) cloud computing contract that Israel awarded to Google and Amazon in 2021 called Project Nimbus, claiming that they 'stepped in with critical cloud and AI infrastructure,' after Israel's internal military cloud overloaded in the wake of the Hamas attacks.
Amazon declined to comment. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.
Last week, the US Mission to the United Nations called on the secretary general of the UN to condemn Albanese's activities and remove her from her role, reiterating a request it made earlier this year opposing the renewal of her appointment.
Google has sought to publicly distance itself from Israel's national security agencies, but The Post reported in January that documents inside the company's cloud division showed staff directly helping the country's Defense Ministry and the Israel Defense Forces access AI technology after the October 7 attacks.
In February, the company dropped a pledge not to use AI technology for weapons or surveillance from its ethical guidelines for the technology around AI. The broad guidelines, first issued in 2018 after employee protests against Google's military contracts, promise to pursue responsible AI that aligns with 'widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.'
Some tech companies have cracked down on employee activism and political dissent following worker protests for doing business with the Israeli government.
After Google fired some workers in 2024 for protesting its cloud contract with Israel, CEO Sundar Pichai said in a company memo that employees should not use their workplace to 'fight over disruptive issues or debate politics.'
Brin's comment on the AI forum, named GDM Hot Goss in reference to Google DeepMind, followed a message from an AI research engineer who appeared dismayed by the report's findings but noted much of Google's AI investment focused on its virtual assistant app, Gemini. 'The only bright spot here is that we're spending all of our time and money on Gemini and not anything more useful for genocide,' screenshots show.
WASHINGTON POST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
26 minutes ago
- The Star
South Africa Is No Longer Alone on the International Stage
Vashna Jagannath | Published 1 week ago South Africa's position on the human catastrophe in Gaza has been consistent, lawful and morally serious. It has insisted that international law must be applied equally to all countries, regardless of their power or alliances. This has included the referral of Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on charges of genocide. While Pretoria has won international respect in many quarters, the price has been steep. It has come under immense pressure from the United States, in particular the Trump-aligned right, as well as from domestic organisations and figures closely aligned with the West. In this context the formation of the Hague Group—a bloc of states committed to defending international law and ending impunity—marks a development of considerable significance. The group was convened by the Progressive International and launched on 31 January 2025. It is chaired by Colombia and South Africa, with current members also including Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, and Senegal. The coalition—spanning Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Caribbean—pledged to support ICJ and International Criminal Court (ICC) rulings, prevent arms transfers to Israel, bar military fuel shipments, and pursue legal accountability for violations in Gaza. Western governments have long invoked the language of a 'rules-based international order'—sometimes in strident moral terms—to justify their global domination. But this order has often served to shield the West and its allies from legal scrutiny while imposing strictures on others. The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States was a clear violation of international law. The NATO-led regime change intervention in Libya in 2011 was also unlawful. In Afghanistan, elements of the two-decade occupation—including targeted killings and drone strikes—breached international humanitarian law. Israel's bombing campaigns in Syria and Yemen, sometimes backed or tacitly accepted by the West, included strikes on civilian infrastructure and violations of territorial sovereignty and have been deemed unlawful by UN experts and legal assessments. In each case, a supposedly rules-based order yielded to the impunity of powerful Western states. Until now, the idea of international law as a universal normative system has been more aspiration than reality. The United States has not ratified the Rome Statute and has actively resisted ICC investigations, including imposing sanctions during the probe into alleged U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan. Israel remains outside the court's jurisdiction. The ICJ—though central to the UN system—continues to be undermined: the U.S. withdrew from its compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 after being found to have violated international law in Nicaragua. South Africa's decision to bring the genocide case against Israel before the ICJ was bold and principled. Though the Court's final ruling is pending, provisional measures have already instructed Israel to prevent genocidal acts and allow humanitarian aid. That legal action made South Africa a target. In the US the Biden administration expressed concern, but pressure escalated dramatically when Donald Trump returned to the Presidency. This is one reason among many why the Hague Group matters. By aligning with other states in defence of international law, South Africa has built a collective bloc. This bloc's cohesion offers protection as well as enhancing the aim of defending international law. Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, argues that the Hague Group provides 'a global push for collective action through international law—no arms for genocide, no aid for occupation, and no tolerance for apartheid.' In her view, the initiative not only exemplifies states meeting their legal obligations but also challenges the exceptionalism that shields powerful states from accountability. She has argued that the Group's efforts 'must become a global initiative' if the integrity of international law is to be affirmed. The next milestone for the Group is the Emergency Conference co-hosted by South Africa and Colombia and set for 15–16 July 2025 in Bogotá. This gathering will include many non-member states—though not all are expected to formally join the Group—and focus on enforcing ICJ rulings, halting ongoing violations, and affirming Palestinian self-determination. Delegates are expected to announce coordinated legal and diplomatic measures. South Africa's response to the crisis in Palestine has helped restore some of the international moral standing lost during the Zuma years. At home, it has given some citizens hope that an ethical core still exists within the ANC and government, and could extend to other pressing issues at home and abroad. Perhaps this is why the legal team were greeted at the airport with the kind of warmth and pride usually reserved for triumphant sports teams when they returned from the ICJ. It was a moment that revealed a deep public hunger for moral seriousness and national purpose. Tellingly, the approach to the ICJ won strong support from mass-based organisations such as the National Union of Metalworkers (NUMSA) and Abahlali baseMjondolo, which are usually intensely critical of the ANC. In the West there is a clear shift, especially among young people, from uncritical support for Israel. Nonetheless, governments in countries like Germany and the United Kingdom, along with the US of course, continue to back Israel's unlawful actions in Gaza, as well as Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iran. In this context where support for change still confronts powerful opposition the Hague Group is a significant collective challenge to the impunity of powerful Western states. The era in which Western exceptionalism defined the limits of legal accountability is being directly contested . Whether this results in meaningful enforcement or another retreat into hypocrisy will depend not only on the Hague Group's resolve, but on whether other states are prepared to act on the principles they claim to uphold. * Dr Jagarnath sits on the council of the Progressive International. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
IOL News
8 hours ago
- IOL News
BRICS+ Series: Tackling the Global Water Crisis Through BRICS
Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (3-L) speaks during a plenary session of the BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on July 7, 2025. BRICS leaders at a summit on Sunday took aim at US President Donald Trump's "indiscriminate" import tariffs and recent Israeli-US strikes on Iran. (Photo by Mauro PIMENTEL / AFP) Image: AFP Understanding the BRICS Water Dilemma The global water crisis is no longer a distant threat but an unfolding reality. By 2025, an alarming 2.8 billion people, roughly 35% of the world's population, will face water scarcity. In the face of this escalating emergency, BRICS, a powerful bloc from the Global South, is emerging as a leader, not just in survival, but in charting a path forward. Water insecurity varies among BRICS nations, reflecting the bloc's diversity and scale. India, for instance, faces one of the most severe water stress crises globally. Despite housing 18% of the world's population, it possesses only 4% of its water resources. This disparity has led to high to extreme water stress for over 600 million Indians, with groundwater depletion in areas such as Punjab and Haryana reaching unsustainable levels. Despite being a global leader in infrastructure, China grapples with significant regional disparities. The northern part of the country, home to over 40% of its population and a large portion of its agricultural land, possesses only 20% of the nation's water resources. To address this imbalance, China has invested over $79 billion in the South-North Water Transfer Project, the world's largest water diversion scheme. Brazil presents a striking paradox: it holds 12% of the world's freshwater, yet major areas, such as São Paulo (Latin America's largest city), have endured recurring droughts. This situation is exacerbated by Amazon deforestation, which imperils the flying rivers in the atmosphere vital for rainfall in southern agricultural regions. South Africa is an arid country that has experienced severe droughts over the past decade. Notably, Cape Town's 2018 Day Zero water crisis garnered international attention. The Department of Water and Sanitation warns that the country faces a 17% water deficit by 2030 unless immediate action is taken. While Russia possesses substantial freshwater reserves, mitigating its vulnerability in terms of volume, persistent pollution and inadequate management, particularly within Siberia and the Volga River Basin, present considerable long-term challenges. The expansion of BRICS introduces greater diversity to the global water landscape. Ethiopia's Blue Nile projects, while causing geopolitical tension, reflect a sovereign effort to utilize water for development. Egypt, which relies on the Nile for over 90% of its freshwater, is highly susceptible to climate fluctuations and upstream damming. Iran grapples with both water scarcity and mismanagement, whereas the UAE, heavily dependent on desalination, is investing significantly in technological advancements. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Water and Sovereignty: A Political Standpoint BRICS's water strategy subtly challenges the West's long-standing influence over global environmental policies. For too long, organisations like the World Bank, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and various Northern think tanks have shaped global water security discussions. BRICS is advocating for a shift, promoting financing models that prioritise national interests and fostering scientific collaboration built on mutual benefit rather than exploitation. Over $2.5 billion has already been approved by the New Development Bank (NDB) for water-related infrastructure, encompassing projects from Indian irrigation systems to rural South African sanitation. The NDB is set to launch a Green Water Bond Framework in 2025, which will provide concessional loans to member states for water purification, storage, and climate-resilient infrastructure. What sets BRICS apart is its perspective on water. It is viewed not as a commodity for privatisation, but as a shared human right and ecological resource. This perspective emphasises solidarity over exploitation. Challenges Ahead, but a Clear Mandate The path forward, while challenging, presents an opportunity for BRICS to leverage its collective political will, scale, resources, and burgeoning sense of shared destiny. Obstacles such as slow coordination, uneven data, and simmering geopolitical tensions (for example, the Ethiopia-Egypt Nile dispute) persist, but these do not diminish the potential for progress. For the Global South to overcome the gravest environmental challenge of the 21st century, water sovereignty and sustainable management must be spearheaded by those with an intimate understanding of its implications. BRICS is not merely reacting to a crisis; it is actively redefining it. Through this process, BRICS has the potential to guide the world toward a water future that is more equitable, secure, and sustainable. In a world where future conflicts could be sparked by water scarcity, BRICS presents a path of cooperation rather than militarisation. This cooperative approach, in itself, sets a valuable precedent Written By: *Dr Iqbal Survé Past chairman of the BRICS Business Council and co-chairman of the BRICS Media Forum and the BRNN *Sesona Mdlokovana Associate at BRICS+ Consulting Group African Specialist ** MORE ARTICLES ON OUR WEBSITE ** Follow @brics_daily on X/Twitter & @brics_daily on Instagram for daily BRICS+ updates
TimesLIVE
8 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Strikes on Lebanon are 'clear message' to Hezbollah: Israeli defence minister
Israel's ongoing military strikes in Lebanon send a "clear message" to Hezbollah, defence minister Israel Katz said on Tuesday, accusing the Iran-backed Islamist group of seeking to rebuild its forces in violation of a ceasefire agreement. The Israeli military said earlier on Tuesday it had begun striking targets belonging to Hezbollah's elite unit, the Radwan Force, in the Bekaa region of eastern Lebanon. The Lebanese health ministry said at least six people were injured in the Israeli strikes. "The Israel Defence Forces' strikes currently under way in Lebanon are a clear message to the Hezbollah terrorist organisation, which is plotting to rebuild raid capabilities against Israel through the Radwan Force," Katz said in a statement. The strikes are also a message to the Lebanese government, which is responsible for upholding the ceasefire agreement, he added. There was no immediate public response from Hezbollah or from the Lebanese government to the latest Israeli strikes. Israel and Hezbollah reached a ceasefire deal in November ending more than a year of fighting that had spilled over from Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza. The agreement calls for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon and says that all "unauthorised arms" and military infrastructure should be dismantled, starting with southern Lebanon. However, Hezbollah says the agreement applies exclusively to southern Lebanon.
