Microsoft has promised to strengthen its human rights oversight after a damaging inquiry revealed that the Israeli military had used the company’s cloud technology in ways that violated its own terms of service, raising uncomfortable questions about how powerful tech companies police the use of their tools in wartime.
The review, completed recently, was launched last year after investigative reporting by The Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Local Call exposed that Israel’s Ministry of Defense had used Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform and AI tools to collect, replay, and analyze millions of intercepted Palestinian phone calls every day across Gaza and the West Bank, according to Arab News. The scale of the surveillance shocked many observers and embarrassed one of the world’s most valuable companies.
Microsoft moved swiftly once the inquiry found violations. It cut off Israel’s secretive signals intelligence unit, Unit 8200, from the relevant services after early findings showed the unit had broken the company’s usage rules. The company maintains, however, that its overall relationship with the Israeli military remains a standard commercial arrangement.
Now Microsoft is trying to rebuild trust. Its new measures include tougher pre-contract reviews for national security clients, stronger oversight in conflict zones, and clearer guidance for employees who wish to raise ethical concerns internally. The company also pledged periodic check-ins on sensitive contracts when political circumstances shift on the ground.
The announcement has not quieted its critics. Human Rights Watch called on Microsoft to stop contributing to rights abuses, arguing that tighter scrutiny of its Israeli contracts was long overdue. Campaign group No Azure for Apartheid has staged repeated protests, and demonstrators this week held signs reading “Microsoft powers genocide” at a San Francisco product launch. Last August, protesters occupied the office of Microsoft’s president, Brad Smith, at the company’s Redmond headquarters.
The episode cuts to the heart of a growing tension in the tech industry: when a company sells powerful tools to governments, who bears responsibility for how those tools are used and whether they cause harm?
For Microsoft, that question is no longer theoretical.
