He argues that protesting by physically disrupting the public or a private company's operations is ineffective and should not be tolerated.

“going rogue like this will only blow up in people's faces because the folks that are somewhat sympathetic will eventually get burned by this experience and turn against them so that's one set of issues I think that's just people going rogue and I think that you can't be tolerant of that kind of chao”

He believes the Google protests suggest a culture of entitlement among employees but also notes they reflect genuine passion for the issue.

“I mean yeah there's obviously a line crossed in in the the view of security but I think you could look at this two ways you could look at this as being a culture of entitlement that let folks feel that our employees that they have permission to stage stins and behaviors like this”

He suggests the protesters may eventually be viewed in a more favorable light if the Gaza conflict is perceived as an unwinnable quagmire similar to the Vietnam War.

“I think that how we view these protesters at Google can't just be judged now I think it's going to have to be judged in the fullness of time based on how we perceive this war in Gaza and I want to make two points about why I think this war will eventually be viewed as Israel's Vietnam”

He believes that by staging a sit-in, the employees effectively resigned and that they should accept the consequences of their actions.

“I think they're kind of resigning by sit in and I think yeah there could be nobility to that if you do not want to participate in supporting things in the world you do not have to work at Google and you can protest and you can get fired”