So far as I can tell, any civilians being killed in Gaza are, indeed, war crimes - committed by Hamas hiding behind them. IDF may well be doing some bad things, too, but the war crimes responsibility is entirely with Hamas. They hide behind civilians because it's a war crime, and they know that gullible fools - or collaborators - like you will ignore it, and try to get everyone to focus on Israel's actions - which are specifically allowed by those same treaties.

Don't want your civilians killed? Don't use them as meat shields.

I don't expect swarms to use the same form factor as a fighter. Really I expect them to be a cross between a fighter and a missile. No guns on board, and no missiles on board. Yes, fly like a plane, and land safely back home if you can, but also the attack mode is to crash into the target (or get close enough, and explode). Size will (and design details) will be dependent on desired range and speed.

As a result, each individual craft will be a LOT cheaper than current fighters. But a swarm may well be even more expensive. (Depending on swarm size and desired range and speed.)

I'm also 100% entitles to my correct and objectively true opinion.

I have no problem calling someone an idiot, and it's always directed at the person, not the action.

You're an idiot.

A useless idiot.

Pride won't pay the rent, though.

Is there a source for that other than the organizer?

If you want to talk about war crimes, let's start with the first war crimes: building military command bunkers under hospitals, clearly defined as a war crime by various treaties. Those same treaties also specifically allow Israel to attack those hospitals because Hamas has chosen to make them hard military targets.

But you don't, and won't - ever - talk about that, will you?

You abuse the word "think." Try "believe" instead.

Perhaps that's the only time the protests rose to the level of criminality.

Which side has upped the ante? You have no idea, and don't care. You're far too busy hating Google and supporting terrorists for things like facts.

By your definition, your reply is retaliation. As is my reply to you, and literally every post in this article.

Which is to say, your definition is completely, utterly useless.

As are you.

Legally, that's exactly what the word means. No other definition matters.

There's a specific legal definition, that these firings (apparently) do not meet.

It is the only definition that matters.

I'm not necessarily going to defend this protest, but criticism of Israel is hardly some "woke Commie" position (whatever the hell that even means). One can sincerely believe Israel's actions against Palestinians is unjust, without, say, wanting state control of the economy.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's been protected since 1791.

I expect that general anxiety about anti-Semitism is driving this. Like it or not, condemnation of Israel comes with certain baggage, and as can be seen on campuses throughout the Western world, criticism of Israel can turn into anti-Zionism which then turns into anti-Semitism very quickly. The lines are very thin. The business world is very risk averse, and coming down on the wrong side of this particular debate can have a whole lot of consequences. Beyond that, of course, Alphabet is a business, not a society for activists, and while it may tolerate certain kinds of activism that may not be perceived as threatening the bottom line, right now, criticism of Israel is just a step too far.