Tech isn't neutral. We've been told for decades that code is just math and servers are just hardware, but the engineers at Google and Amazon are starting to say something very different. They’re basically drawing a line in the sand.
The No Tech For Apartheid movement didn't just appear out of thin air. It grew out of a specific, multi-billion-dollar contract known as Project Nimbus. This wasn't some small-scale cloud storage deal. We’re talking about a $1.2 billion agreement to provide cloud computing and artificial intelligence services to the Israeli government and military. When the details leaked, it sparked a firestorm that hasn't really died down since.
Honestly, it’s a bit of a mess for the PR departments in Mountain View and Seattle.
What Project Nimbus actually is
Most people don't spend their days thinking about cloud infrastructure. Project Nimbus is essentially the backbone for a massive digital transformation of the Israeli state. It’s split into four phases, covering everything from building local data centers to migrating massive amounts of data onto the cloud. But the sticking point for activists—and many employees—is the AI component.
🔗 Read more: Are They Gonna Ban TikTok? What’s Really Happening Right Now in 2026
We aren't just talking about better spreadsheets here.
The technical capabilities offered through the Google Cloud Platform (GCP) include facial recognition, automated image categorization, and object tracking. For the people behind No Tech For Apartheid, these tools aren't just "business solutions." They argue that when you hand these capabilities to a military power involved in a long-standing occupation, you’re essentially automating the surveillance of Palestinians.
Google has tried to push back on this. They've stated that the contract is for "commercial" workloads like finance, healthcare, and transportation. But the contract reportedly has a clause that prevents Google and Amazon from shutting down services due to boycott pressures or even if the tech is used in ways that violate their own internal AI principles. That’s a huge deal. It means the companies might have legally signed away their ability to pull the plug.
The human cost of a line of code
Think about what it feels like to work on a project for months, only to realize it might be used for something you find morally wrong. That’s the reality for hundreds of tech workers.
In 2024, the movement reached a boiling point. Dozens of Google employees were fired after staging sit-in protests at the company’s offices in New York and Sunnyvale. Some were arrested. This wasn't your typical "I want a better 401k" protest. These workers were literally risking their careers because they felt that No Tech For Apartheid was a necessary boundary.
One of the most famous cases involved Zelda Montes, a software engineer who was arrested during a protest. She, along with others, argued that the technology being built in California was directly impacting lives in Gaza and the West Bank. It's a heavy thought. You're sitting in a climate-controlled office with free kombucha, writing code that might eventually power an autonomous drone or a facial recognition checkpoint miles away.
👉 See also: Why Every Pro Uses a Frame by Frame Video Player (And How to Pick One)
The ripple effect across the industry
It’s not just Google. Amazon employees have been organizing under the "Internal Amazonians for Justice in Palestine" banner. They've been pushing for more transparency regarding how AWS (Amazon Web Services) is used.
The movement is part of a broader shift in Silicon Valley. For a long time, tech workers were seen as "the lucky ones"—high salaries, great perks, and a general sense of being on the "right side of history." But that veneer is cracking. From the 2018 protests against Project Maven (Google's AI work with the Pentagon) to today’s No Tech For Apartheid campaign, there is a growing realization that "Don't Be Evil" is a lot harder to maintain when billions of dollars are on the table.
Surprising facts about the movement’s reach
You might think this is just a fringe group of activists. It isn't.
- Over 1,000 Google and Amazon employees have signed open letters.
- The movement has gained support from major human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
- Shareholder resolutions have been filed at annual meetings, forcing executives to address the ethical implications of these contracts on the record.
Management’s response has been, well, predictable. They’ve cracked down. Hard. There have been reports of internal "chilling effects," where employees are afraid to discuss the topic on internal messaging systems like Slack for fear of retaliation. Google even changed its "Community Guidelines" to discourage political debates that are "disruptive to the workplace."
The debate over "Dual Use" technology
Here’s where it gets complicated. Tech companies love the term "dual-use."
It basically means that a hammer can be used to build a house or break a window. Google argues that their cloud services are a platform—a tool that can be used for good things like hospital management. But the No Tech For Apartheid activists say that’s a cop-out. They argue that when a tool is sold specifically to a military or a government with a documented history of human rights abuses, the "dual-use" argument falls apart. You can't ignore the context.
If you provide the cloud infrastructure that stores the data for a surveillance system, are you responsible for what that system does? Most of these companies say no. The activists say yes.
It’s a fundamental disagreement about the role of the corporation in modern society.
Why this isn't going away
Google and Amazon are in a tough spot. They want those government contracts. They're lucrative. They provide steady revenue that isn't dependent on consumer whims or advertising cycles. But they also need to attract the best talent in the world. And the best talent—young engineers coming out of top universities—increasingly cares about the ethics of their employer.
We are seeing a generational divide. Older executives often view these deals as "just business." Younger workers see them as a moral failure.
The No Tech For Apartheid movement is essentially a labor movement for the 21st century. It’s not about wages; it’s about the soul of the work itself.
Critical views and the "Both Sides" of the contract
To be fair, there are plenty of people who think the protesters are overstepping. Some employees believe that tech companies shouldn't be making foreign policy decisions. If the U.S. government (which is Israel's primary ally) allows the contract, why should a software engineer be able to veto it?
There's also the argument that if Google and Amazon don't provide the tech, someone else will. Probably a company with even fewer ethical safeguards. It’s the "if we don't do it, China will" argument that pops up in almost every defense of controversial tech deals.
But that doesn't really address the core concern of the No Tech For Apartheid campaign. Their point is that Google and Amazon are private entities that choose who to do business with. By choosing this contract, they are choosing a side.
👉 See also: How to Actually Score the Best T Mobile Thanksgiving Deals 2024 Without the Headache
How to stay informed and take action
If you're looking at this and wondering what actually happens next, it’s all about transparency. Most of these deals happen behind closed doors with very little public oversight.
- Look for the transparency reports. Many of these companies release annual reports, but they are often buried in legal jargon. Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) often break these down into plain English.
- Follow the worker-led organizations. The No Tech For Apartheid website and their social media channels are the primary source for updates on protests and internal company shifts.
- Support ethical tech initiatives. There are plenty of smaller tech firms and non-profits working on "Public Interest Technology." If you’re a developer, look into how your skills can be used for projects that have built-in ethical safeguards.
- Pressure for legislative change. Ultimately, corporations will do what is legal and profitable. If we want tech companies to stop providing surveillance tools to oppressive regimes, we probably need laws that prevent it, rather than just relying on the goodness of a CEO's heart.
The struggle over No Tech For Apartheid is a signal of what's to come. As AI becomes more powerful and more integrated into every facet of our lives, the question of who gets to control that power—and who it's used against—is going to be the defining fight of the decade. We’re way past the point where we can pretend that code doesn't have consequences. It does. And the people writing that code are finally starting to speak up about it.