Microsoft’s involvement in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has put the tech giant under a glaring spotlight, as allegations mount over the role of its cloud and artificial intelligence platforms in military operations unfolding in Gaza. The company has now publicly stated that there is “no evidence to date” that its Azure and AI models have directly harmed Palestinians amid ongoing violence. Yet, the strength of this denial, the transparency of its review processes, and the broader ethical implications of Big Tech’s involvement in modern warfare remain fiercely contested topics within both the international community and Microsoft’s own workforce.
On May 15, Microsoft issued a blog post responding to intensifying scrutiny from inside and outside its walls, following allegations that its products aided the Israeli military’s operations in Gaza. The company asserted that after both “internal and external reviews”—which involved employee interviews and document assessments—it found “no evidence to date that Microsoft’s Azure and AI technologies have been used to target or harm people in the conflict in Gaza.” However, Microsoft was circumspect in the details, notably declining to specify which third-party organization it hired for the external review and offering only a vague outline of its investigation’s methodology.
Significantly, Microsoft conceded the limitations of its process. The blog acknowledged that “there are boundaries to what we can see” because Microsoft cannot monitor software running on private servers or systems not tethered to its cloud services. This caveat raises immediate questions about the thoroughness—and thus the ultimate reliability—of Microsoft’s assurance. If parts of the technology stack are out of its visibility, the claim of “no evidence” should be seen as provisional rather than definitive.
Microsoft’s reluctance to provide further specifics on the auditing process, coupled with its own admission of limited oversight into non-cloud infrastructure, highlights the complexity and opacity endemic to Big Tech’s international defense contracts. In essence, Microsoft can only affirm what it knows — and what it knows is, by design, incomplete.
These acts of dissent underscore a larger trend in the tech industry, where skilled knowledge workers are increasingly unwilling to separate their labor from ethical responsibility. Their concerns are not isolated to Microsoft: parallel movements have emerged at Amazon and Google, particularly around Project Nimbus, a joint $1.2 billion contract with Israel designed to bolster the country’s military cloud infrastructure. The No Tech for Apartheid coalition, comprising workers from several companies, continues to press for transparency and divestment from defense contracts perceived as enabling violations of human rights.
Israeli authorities reportedly use Microsoft’s AI-powered transcription and translation to analyze intercepted phone calls, texts, and electronic communications as part of their intelligence and targeting cycles. While this process is not unique to Microsoft—similar tools are available from Amazon, Google, and others—the combination of scale, speed, and automation provided by modern AI accelerates the pace and effectiveness of mass surveillance.
Financially, Microsoft’s contract with Israel’s Ministry of Defense, reportedly $133 million, mirrors a broader trend of public sector investment in commercial cloud and AI infrastructure worldwide. These business relationships are not unusual; what sets this case apart is the context—a prolonged and highly scrutinized military campaign in Gaza, characterized by large-scale civilian casualties and allegations of international law violations.
While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has so far refrained from making a final legal determination on genocide, South Africa has formally accused Israel of genocide at The Hague, pushing the issue into the highest echelons of international law. Legal scholars remain divided about whether Israel’s conduct satisfies the “intent to destroy” requirement for genocide—intent being one of the most difficult aspects to prove, even in high-profile cases—but the underlying facts of mass civilian suffering and systemic destruction are widely corroborated.
Microsoft, for its part, asserts that Israeli military customers are bound by its Responsible AI and Acceptable Use policies, which prohibit any use of Microsoft’s technology “in any manner that inflicts harm on individuals or organizations or affects individuals in any way that is prohibited by law.” Enforcement, however, is complicated by the reality of defense clients operating opaque, sovereign cloud and hybrid deployments—often with little or no external oversight.
Some argue that modern wars would proceed with or without Western commercial cloud infrastructure, as governments possess indigenous technical capacity. Yet the scale, efficiency, and sophistication of U.S.-based services undeniably accelerate intelligence collection, targeting, and data-driven operations, expanding the reach and impact of any military campaign.
For Microsoft, the challenge now is not just about compliance or public relations, but about grappling with the reality that infrastructure, data, and machine intelligence have become—inextricably and irrevocably—part of the machinery of war. To claim “no evidence” is to accept a world where corporate responsibility ends exactly at the boundary of willful ignorance. In the long run, the world will have to decide if this is a sufficient standard—or if we demand, from those who build the engines of our age, a responsibility that keeps pace with their power.
Source: Gizmodo Microsoft Says There's 'No Evidence' Its Azure and AI Models Have Harmed People in Gaza
Microsoft’s Statement: Scope and Claims
On May 15, Microsoft issued a blog post responding to intensifying scrutiny from inside and outside its walls, following allegations that its products aided the Israeli military’s operations in Gaza. The company asserted that after both “internal and external reviews”—which involved employee interviews and document assessments—it found “no evidence to date that Microsoft’s Azure and AI technologies have been used to target or harm people in the conflict in Gaza.” However, Microsoft was circumspect in the details, notably declining to specify which third-party organization it hired for the external review and offering only a vague outline of its investigation’s methodology.Significantly, Microsoft conceded the limitations of its process. The blog acknowledged that “there are boundaries to what we can see” because Microsoft cannot monitor software running on private servers or systems not tethered to its cloud services. This caveat raises immediate questions about the thoroughness—and thus the ultimate reliability—of Microsoft’s assurance. If parts of the technology stack are out of its visibility, the claim of “no evidence” should be seen as provisional rather than definitive.
Verification and the Scope of ‘Evidence’
Verifiable facts corroborate some elements of Microsoft’s public response. Various reputable outlets, including AP News and The Verge, confirm that Microsoft has conducted reviews into its contracts and maintains restrictive language in its terms of use—prohibiting the use of its cloud and AI services for harm, in line with the company’s Responsible AI principles. However, there is less clarity, and consequently more controversy, about how these policies are enforced in practice, especially when applied to military clients with highly sensitive, classified operations.Microsoft’s reluctance to provide further specifics on the auditing process, coupled with its own admission of limited oversight into non-cloud infrastructure, highlights the complexity and opacity endemic to Big Tech’s international defense contracts. In essence, Microsoft can only affirm what it knows — and what it knows is, by design, incomplete.
Worker Unrest and the Ethics Debate
The company’s statement comes against a backdrop of rising internal protest. Recent months have seen multiple actions from Microsoft employees, ranging from public statements to direct confrontations at company events. Notably, two employees were dismissed for holding a vigil commemorating Palestinians killed in Gaza, and several others were ejected from a town hall for vocal opposition to Israeli military contracts. Most prominently, software engineer Ibtihal Aboussad publicly confronted Microsoft’s Head of AI, accusing the company of enabling war crimes and issuing an impassioned call for engineers to refuse to “write code that kills.” According to The Verge and Gizmodo, Aboussad also circulated a mass email to Microsoft employees, advocating for the “No Azure for Apartheid” campaign and urging a boycott of work related to military applications.These acts of dissent underscore a larger trend in the tech industry, where skilled knowledge workers are increasingly unwilling to separate their labor from ethical responsibility. Their concerns are not isolated to Microsoft: parallel movements have emerged at Amazon and Google, particularly around Project Nimbus, a joint $1.2 billion contract with Israel designed to bolster the country’s military cloud infrastructure. The No Tech for Apartheid coalition, comprising workers from several companies, continues to press for transparency and divestment from defense contracts perceived as enabling violations of human rights.
Microsoft’s Israeli Contracts: Technical and Financial Scale
Central to the current controversy is the size and scope of Microsoft’s work with the Israeli government. In early 2024, AP News reported that Israel’s use of Microsoft and OpenAI technology spiked 200-fold following the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas, as Israel expanded its surveillance and intelligence operations. Most of these activities leverage Azure’s scalable cloud computing capabilities; the Israeli military now stores a reported 13.6 petabytes of data—roughly 350 times the full contents of the U.S. Library of Congress—on Microsoft servers.Israeli authorities reportedly use Microsoft’s AI-powered transcription and translation to analyze intercepted phone calls, texts, and electronic communications as part of their intelligence and targeting cycles. While this process is not unique to Microsoft—similar tools are available from Amazon, Google, and others—the combination of scale, speed, and automation provided by modern AI accelerates the pace and effectiveness of mass surveillance.
Financially, Microsoft’s contract with Israel’s Ministry of Defense, reportedly $133 million, mirrors a broader trend of public sector investment in commercial cloud and AI infrastructure worldwide. These business relationships are not unusual; what sets this case apart is the context—a prolonged and highly scrutinized military campaign in Gaza, characterized by large-scale civilian casualties and allegations of international law violations.
Legal and Ethical Controversies: Genocide, Surveillance, and Accountability
The ethical stakes of Microsoft’s involvement are sharply elevated by international reports on the situation in Gaza. Independent human rights experts and the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights have documented a litany of war crimes against the Palestinian population, including illegal targeting of civilians, forced displacement, destruction of medical institutions, and attacks against humanitarian workers. As of April 2024, the Gaza Health Ministry estimated that over 50,000 Palestinians had been killed, with an estimated 1,200 families completely eliminated—a level of violence described by some experts as meeting the definition of genocide under the Geneva Convention.While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has so far refrained from making a final legal determination on genocide, South Africa has formally accused Israel of genocide at The Hague, pushing the issue into the highest echelons of international law. Legal scholars remain divided about whether Israel’s conduct satisfies the “intent to destroy” requirement for genocide—intent being one of the most difficult aspects to prove, even in high-profile cases—but the underlying facts of mass civilian suffering and systemic destruction are widely corroborated.
Microsoft, for its part, asserts that Israeli military customers are bound by its Responsible AI and Acceptable Use policies, which prohibit any use of Microsoft’s technology “in any manner that inflicts harm on individuals or organizations or affects individuals in any way that is prohibited by law.” Enforcement, however, is complicated by the reality of defense clients operating opaque, sovereign cloud and hybrid deployments—often with little or no external oversight.
The Visibility Problem
By design, Microsoft cannot see what custom military applications are deployed on infrastructure outside its own managed cloud, nor can it monitor code running on on-premises or sovereign clouds when clients control data residency and access. This technical constraint severely complicates any attempt at independent, robust verification of whether its technologies are used to facilitate war crimes or human rights abuses. No system of technical enforcement, short of intrusive audits or “backdoors,” can guarantee compliance in this context—effectively reducing Microsoft’s assurances to an honor system, even where the stakes are life and death.Critical Analysis: Technology, Responsibility, and Plausible Deniability
Microsoft’s defense, that “no evidence” links its products to harm, is perhaps best understood as legal positioning rather than substantive exoneration. The company’s posture is not unique; across the tech industry, firms operating cloud or AI services typically emphasize a lack of control over downstream use—even as their products become embedded in the world’s most sensitive and consequential applications.Notable Strengths
- Transparency in Acknowledging Limitations: Microsoft did publicly admit the inherent boundaries of its oversight, rather than over-promising or feigning total visibility. This candor, rare among commercial cloud providers, lends the statement a measure of realism if not complete public trust.
- Codified Responsible AI Policies: The company has well-developed ethical guidelines for AI and cloud use, and it requires explicit compliance in customer contracts. The presence of such policies, if imperfectly enforced, is at least a foundation for debate and accountability.
- Openness to Review: Microsoft signaled a willingness (however limited) to engage with both internal and external investigators. While the independence and thoroughness of these reviews are open to question, the gesture itself sets a potential precedent for other vendors.
Risks and Weaknesses
- Limited Auditability: By admitting it cannot monitor on-premises or sovereign systems, Microsoft highlights the vast “dark territory” where intent and outcome cannot be traced—making its “no evidence” claim functionally unverifiable.
- Procedural Vagueness: Refusing to name external reviewers or provide meaningful detail about the auditing process undermines public and worker trust, fueling suspicion of whitewashing or insufficient scrutiny.
- Worker Morale and Reputational Harm: Persistent employee backlash jeopardizes Microsoft’s status as a destination for mission-driven technologists and increases the risk of long-term reputational damage.
- Moral Hazard in Dual-Use Deployments: Large-scale, dual-use technology (military and civilian) always risks “function creep”—tools designed for benign applications can be repurposed in lethal contexts with little or no warning to the vendor.
- Downstream Indirect Harm: While Microsoft can credibly deny direct targeting or harm, the broader question is whether its infrastructure enables, accelerates, or scales up the mechanisms of destruction, even unintentionally.
The Broader Landscape of Tech and War
Microsoft is not alone in facing these dilemmas. Amazon Web Services and Google, through the $1.2 billion Project Nimbus, have likewise drawn intense criticism for enabling Israeli defense intelligence and logistics operations. Activism within these companies has at times forced public reckonings and marginal policy adjustments, but the market for public sector and defense AI services continues to grow globally—now exceeding tens of billions of dollars annually, according to recent industry analyses.Some argue that modern wars would proceed with or without Western commercial cloud infrastructure, as governments possess indigenous technical capacity. Yet the scale, efficiency, and sophistication of U.S.-based services undeniably accelerate intelligence collection, targeting, and data-driven operations, expanding the reach and impact of any military campaign.
What Oversight Is Possible? Paths Forward
Given the limitations expressed by Microsoft and the global nature of AI and cloud solutions, the oversight of dual-use technologies has emerged as one of the most urgent and unsolved challenges in technology governance. Several proposals are now on the table:- Third-Party Audits and Transparency Reports: Requiring companies to partner with independently vetted entities, with powers to review sensitive defense-related deployments and periodically publish aggregated, anonymized findings for public scrutiny.
- Governmental or Intergovernmental Licensing: Expanding international oversight through treaties or bodies (such as the UN or ICJ), mandating licenses for large defense AI applications and introducing sanctions for violations—recognizing the limits of self-regulation in profit-driven firms.
- Worker-Led Ethical Oversight Bodies: Empowering employees, whose expertise is foundational to these products, to halt work or trigger third-party reviews when contracts pose salient risks to human rights.
- Stronger Export Controls and End-Use Verification: Adapting existing U.S. and EU export regimes—originally designed for nuclear and missile technology—to cover highly capable AI and cloud products with proven dual-use military applications.
- Technical “Kill Switches” and Audit Trails: Embedding technical mechanisms that allow vendors, at least in managed cloud deployments, to quickly cut off or investigate high-risk users or actions if credible evidence of misuse emerges.
Conclusion: Microsoft’s Dilemma and the Technological Fog of War
Microsoft’s recent statement that it has found “no evidence” of its products being used to harm people in Gaza is, at best, a conditional truth. It reflects the very real limits of visibility that pervade the tech industry’s relationship with modern state power—limits imposed by technical architecture, business contracts, and the evolving nature of hybrid warfare itself. Given mounting evidence of mass atrocities in Gaza, and the centrality of digital infrastructure to all aspects of modern combat, the bar for genuine accountability must rise far higher.For Microsoft, the challenge now is not just about compliance or public relations, but about grappling with the reality that infrastructure, data, and machine intelligence have become—inextricably and irrevocably—part of the machinery of war. To claim “no evidence” is to accept a world where corporate responsibility ends exactly at the boundary of willful ignorance. In the long run, the world will have to decide if this is a sufficient standard—or if we demand, from those who build the engines of our age, a responsibility that keeps pace with their power.
Source: Gizmodo Microsoft Says There's 'No Evidence' Its Azure and AI Models Have Harmed People in Gaza
