Microsoft Worker Pledge for Palestine: We Will Not Support Genocide

The Israeli military developed AI-based targeting systems, such as “The Gospel”, “Lavender”, and “Where’s Daddy” to identify which Palestinian to kill, in a genocide that has martyred an estimated 400,000 Palestinians.

Repression of Palestinians has become progressively automated, with tech companies providing dual-use^{[78 A, B]} infrastructure to integrate mass data collection and surveillance, while profiting from the unique testing ground for military technology offered by the occupied Palestinian territory.^{[79 A, B]} Fuelled by United States tech giants establishing subsidiaries and research and development centres in Israel,^{[80 A, B, C, D, Sub* 2.24]} claims by Israel of security needs have spurred unparalleled developments in carceral and surveillance services, from closed-circuit television (CCTV) networks, biometric surveillance, advanced tech checkpoint networks, “smart walls” and drone surveillance to cloud computing, artificial intelligence and data analytics supporting on-the-ground military personnel.^{[81 A, Sub* 2.24]}

With the previously mentioned vast collection of facial data on Palestinians, the Israeli military works with weapons manufacturers to add facial recognition data to drones and quadcopters to murder Palestinians.

The Geneva Convention

• Article 1: Respect for the Convention - The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
  • Respect for the convention in “all circumstances” is not applied when we abet crimes against humanity.
• Article 147: Penal sanctions II. Grave breaches - Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
  • “Involvement” in grave breaches of international law is enough to be prosecuted. One does not have to actually commit the grave breach of international law themselves to be held legally liable.
  • Israel has committed grave breaches of international law. The Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council press release in December, 2024, described Israel’s most egregious violations as “crimes against humanity including murder, torture, sexual violence, and repeated forced displacement amounting to forcible transfer, war crimes encompassing indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian objects, including objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population and educational institutions and cultural heritage, the use of starvation as a weapon of war, the targeting of healthcare workers and health facilities, attacks on humanitarian workers, arbitrary restrictions on access to humanitarian aid, and attacks on journalists, collective punishment and perfidy.”
  • Any involvement in the above crimes can render the involved legally liable.

The Genocide Convention

• Article III: The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide
  • Complicity in genocide, which the International Criminal Court (ICJ) has warned there is “plausible” and “real and imminent risk” of, is punishable under international law.
• Article IV: Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
  • Microsoft workers can be prosecuted as private individuals for complicity in genocide.

The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid

• Article I: 1. The States Parties to the present Convention declare that apartheid is a crime against humanity and that inhuman acts resulting from the policies and practices of apartheid and similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination, as defined in article II of the Convention, are crimes violating the principles of international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and constituting a serious threat to international peace and security. 2. The States Parties to the present Convention declare criminal those organizations, institutions and individuals committing the crime of apartheid.
  • Apartheid is a crime against humanity and a violation of international law.
  • Private individuals and institutions, such as Microsoft and its workers, can be prosecuted for the crime of apartheid.
• Article III: International criminal responsibility shall apply, irrespective of the motive involved, to individuals, members of organizations and institutions and representatives of the State, whether residing in the territory of the State in which the acts are perpetrated or in some other State, whenever they:.. (b) Directly abet, encourage or co-operate in the commission of the crime of apartheid.
  • Private individuals or members of institutions, such as Microsoft workers, can be prosecuted for abetting or cooperating with commissioning the crime of apartheid.
  • These individuals do not need to reside in Palestine to be prosecuted.
  • These individuals’ personal stance on apartheid in Palestine does not impact their legal liability.
• Article IV: The States Parties to the present Convention undertake… (b) To adopt legislative, judicial and administrative measures to prosecute, bring to trial and punish in accordance with their jurisdiction persons responsible for, or accused of, the acts defined in article II of the present Convention, whether or not such persons reside in the territory of the State in which the acts are committed or are nationals of that State or of some other State or are stateless persons.
  • An individual can be prosecuted for abetting apartheid by states or courts outside the State of which they are a national.

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

• Article 4: Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature
  • Complicity in torture is illegal under international law
  • Continuing to provide support for the Israeli prison service, which regularly tortures Palestinians as policy, can make Microsoft workers legally liable for complicity in torture.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

• Rome Statute, art. 259(3)(c): Individual criminal responsibility… In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person: … For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission
  • The International Criminal Court (ICC) can hold a private individual accountable and legally liable for “facilitating the commission of such a crime [within the jurisdiction of the Court], aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission”.
  • This means that, as Microsoft workers, we can be held to trial in the ICC for abetting crimes outlined in the relevant Conventions as a part of our employment and as private individuals.

The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)

• Principle 11: Business enterprises should respect human rights. This means that they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved.
  • Microsoft and its workers can be held accountable for abetting grave breaches of international law, even if they have complied with domestic local law.
  • “The responsibility of corporate entities for human rights violations and crimes under international law exists independently from that of States and irrespective of the action States do or do not take to ensure they respect human rights. Consequently, corporations must respect human rights even if a State where they operate does not, and they may be held accountable even if they have complied with the domestic laws where they operate. In other words, compliance with domestic laws does not preclude/is not a defense to responsibility or liability.” [A-HRC-59-23-AEV*]
• Principle 13: The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises: (a) Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur; (b) Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.
  • Microsoft and its workers can be held accountable for working with companies that provide substantial assistance to the Israeli crimes against humanity as a part of a “continuum of involvement”.
  • “Corporate entities are obliged both to avoid violating human rights law and to address human rights violations resulting from their own activities or their business relationships with others. To achieve this, the UNGPs establish a “continuum of involvement” and associated responsibilities. These reflect the complexity of corporate structures and economic value chains, and the fact that the nature of a company’s involvement in a particular human rights impact may shift over time, so that if it does not take appropriate action, it could move up that continuum. The activities of a corporate entity and its relationships can be seen as part of an ecosystem, which may altogether (by perpetrating, facilitating, enabling and/or profiting) adversely impact human rights, resulting in violations”
    [A-HRC-59-23-AEV*]
• Principle 19: In order to prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts, business enterprises should integrate the findings from their impact assessments across relevant internal functions and processes, and take appropriate action… (b) Appropriate action will vary according to: (i) Whether the business enterprise causes or contributes to an adverse impact, or whether it is involved solely because the impact is directly linked to its operations, products or services by a business relationship; (ii) The extent of its leverage in addressing the adverse impact.
  • Microsoft has a responsibility to utilize its leverage to mitigate adverse impact to human rights with its customers, such as its major Israeli customers.
  • “The Guiding Principles establish a continuum of responsibilities, depending on whether corporate entities cause, contribute to or are directly linked with adverse human rights impacts.^[24] In conflicts, businesses must observe heightened human rights due diligence to identify concerns and adjust their conduct.^[25] The liability of corporate entities will be determined by their actions and by the human rights impact: due diligence is not sufficient to absolve corporations of liability.^[26] At a minimum, corporate entities directly linked to human rights impacts must exercise leverage or consider termination of their activities or relationships. Failure to act accordingly may give rise to liability. Where violations constitute crimes, corporate executives and, increasingly, entities themselves, may be held accountable for their knowledge of and material contributions to crimes.^{[27 A, B]}“
    [A-HRC-59-23-AEV*]
• Principle 23: In all contexts, business enterprises should: (a) Comply with all applicable laws and respect internationally recognized human rights, wherever they operate; (b) Seek ways to honour the principles of internationally recognized human rights when faced with conflicting requirements; (c) Treat the risk of causing or contributing to gross human rights abuses as a legal compliance issue wherever they operate.
  • Re-enforces the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over corporate criminal responsibility, including employees, particularly in “conflict-affected areas”.
  • “Individual executives can be held criminally liable for the actions of their corporate entities, including before the International Criminal Court.^{[39 A, Sub* 1.3, B]} While, increasingly, corporate entities themselves, could also face criminal liability as a result of the emerging crystallization of customary international legal principles.^{[40 A, B, C, D, E]} This includes some domestic jurisdictions which attribute criminal liability to corporations,^{[41 A, B]} and a growing body of treaties enshrine criminal liability of legal persons, which means that under international law corporations can be criminally liable for specific crimes, including genocide,^{[42 A, B, C, D]} apartheid,^[43] financing terrorism,^[44] organized crime^[45] and corruption^[46]…The conduct of corporations and their executives may entail direct criminal liability but more commonly constitutes complicity or aiding and abetting liability. This may involve instigating, moral support,^[47] or abetting, furnishing aid or assistance for or procuring the means for the commission of a crime^{[48 A, B, C]} or the creation of conditions necessary for atrocity crimes to occur.”
    [A-HRC-59-23-AEV*]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/32/161: Permanent sovereignty over national resources in the occupied Arab territories

• Operative Clause 7: Calls upon all States, international organizations, specialized agencies, investment corporations and all other institutions not to recognize, or co-operate with or assist in any manner in, any measures undertaken by Israel to exploit the resources of the occupied territories or to affect any changes in the demographic composition or geographic character or institutional structure of those territories.
  • “Where corporate entities continue their activities and relationships with Israel – with its economy, military and public and private sectors connected to the occupied Palestinian territory – they may be found to have knowingly contributed to: (a) Violation of the Palestinian right to self-determination; (b) Annexation of Palestinian territory, maintenance of an unlawful occupation and therefore the crime of aggression and associated human rights violations;… Microsoft has been active in Israel^[93] since 1991, developing its largest centre outside the United States. Its technologies are embedded in the prison service, police, universities and schools – including in colonies.^{[94 A, B]}“
    [A-HRC-59-23-AEV*]
  • This UN resolution was cited in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion, 19 July 2024, LEGAL CONSEQUENCES ARISING FROM THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF ISRAEL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY, INCLUDING EAST JERUSALEM, which determined that Israel committed the crime of Apartheid in violation of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as well as the crime of illegal occupation and annexation of Palestine.
    • In line with the advisory opinion of the ICJ that Israel is committing the crimes of apartheid, occupation, and annexation, Microsoft has a legal responsibility to disengage with these crimes.

United Nations Security Council Resolution S/RES/2720 (2023)

• Operative Clause 1: … recalls that civilian and humanitarian facilities, including hospitals, medical facilities, schools, places of worship, and facilities of the UN, as well as humanitarian personnel, and medical personnel, and their means of transport, must be respected and protected, according to international humanitarian law, and affirms that nothing in this resolution absolves the parties of these obligations
  • The Israeli military has intentionally targeted hospitals and medical facilities, schools, places of worship, United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) facilities, humanitarian and medical personnel, as well as their means of transport.
  • To continue to provide support for the Israeli military, which is intentionally violating a UN Security Council resolution re-enforcing international law of protecting civilian and humanitarian facilities, increases our legal liability as complicit individuals.
• Operative Clause 2: Reaffirms the obligations of the parties to the conflict under international humanitarian law regarding the provision of humanitarian assistance, demands that they allow, facilitate and enable the immediate, safe and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance at scale directly to the Palestinian civilian population throughout the Gaza Strip, and in this regard calls for urgent steps to immediately allow safe, unhindered, and expanded humanitarian access and to create the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities
  • 100% of the population in Gaza is facing crisis levels of food insecurity.
  • Israel has intentionally blocked entry of humanitarian aid in a deliberate weaponization of aid.
  • The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) is beyond dangerously inadequate: it is deadly and humiliating by design.
  • To continue to provide support for the Israeli government and military, which is intentionally violating a UN Security Council resolution demanding adequate humanitarian assistance, increases our legal liability of involvement in the crime of mass starvation.
• Operative Clause 11: Reaffirms that civilian objects, including places of refuge, including within United Nations facilities and their surroundings, are protected under international humanitarian law, and rejects forced displacement of the civilian population, including children, in violation of international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law
  • The Israeli military has targeted places of refuge including UNRWA schools and tents in the designated “safe zone” in Al Mawasi.
  • In a clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Israel has announced its intention to forcibly displace the Palestinians in Gaza into a concentration camp in the south of Rafah. This would be a temporary measure before ethnically cleansing these Palestinians from Palestine in a systemic plan to depopulate Gaza of Palestinians.
  • To continue to provide support for the Israeli government and military, which is intentionally violating a UN Security Council resolution reaffirming international law preventing forced displacement and protecting places of refuge, increases our legal liability of involvement in the crime of mass forcible transfers.

The case of BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA v. SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO:

• Case Details:
  • The International Court of Justice (ICJ) above ruling outlines that responsibility in complicity if ‘organs were aware that genocide was about to be committed or was under way, and if the aid and assistance supplied, from the moment they became so aware onwards, to the perpetrators of the criminal acts or to those who were on the point of committing them, enabled or facilitated the commission of the acts.’
  • Further, the ruling defines awareness as information that there is a “serious risk” of genocide, not necessarily confirmation that genocide, or a future ruling of genocide, is inevitable.
• Relevance:
  • As described by legal expert Dr Irene Pietropaoli, “The ‘serious risk’ of the commission of genocide criteria is triggered by the ‘plausibility’ criteria of commission of genocide required for the indication of provisional measures in South Africa v Israel.” In other words, the ICJ finding of “plausible rights” and “imminent risk” trigger the legal obligations under the Genocide Convention because individuals now have warning and descriptors of the risk of genocide in Palestine.
  • This is further supported in Judge Yusuf’s declaration “The alarm has now been sounded by the Court. All the indicators of genocidal activities are flashing red in Gaza. An injunction has been served for ending the atrocities.”
• Applicability: With this notice out, no one can claim ignorance to the risk of genocide, “genocidal activities”, and the dire situation in Palestine. As individuals, we can be held legally liable for abetting genocide and other crimes against humanity with full knowledge of the risk.

The case of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991

• Case Details: para 50 ”…It is not necessary that the aider and abettor know the precise crime that was intended and which in the event was committed. If he is aware that one of a number of crimes will probably be committed, and one of those crimes is in fact committed, he has intended to facilitate the commission of that crime, and is guilty as an aider and abettor.”
• Relevance: Regardless of whether a person has complete visibility into all the ways that a dual-use technology could be used to commit grave breaches of international law, knowledge of a probability of one or more potential crimes, is enough to prosecute the person if a crime does take place using that dual-use technology.
• Applicability: A person does not need to have confirmation that a violation of international law will be committed to be prosecuted; knowledge of the probability is enough. The Israeli military is a major customer of Microsoft (S500 - top 500 customers globally) and uses Microsoft cloud and AI technology in atrocity crimes. Continuing to assist the Israeli military in using this technology, knowing that they might once again use this same technology to commit the same atrocity crimes again, is prosecutable.

The case of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

• Case Details: para 539. “Anyone who knowing of another’s criminal purpose, voluntarily aids him or her in it, can be convicted of complicity even though he regretted the outcome of the offence.”
• Relevance: Regardless of intention and personal beliefs, complicity in a grave breach of international law is prosecutable.
• Applicability: Whether we are personally against crimes that Israel is committing in Palestine is irrelevant. We can be prosecuted for complicity in grave breaches of international law, regardless of our personal stance on such crimes.

Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal

• Case Details:
  • Principle IV of The Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”
  • In these trials, private individuals were held accountable for Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, or Conspiracy (conspiring to engage in the other three counts).
  • “Drawn from the legacy of the Industrialists’ trials at Nuremberg, ^{[37 A, B]} corporate accountability for international crimes is based on a recognition of the critical role the economy plays in times of war and conflict,^{[38 Sub* 1.3, A, B, C, D]} and the fact that corporate entities may be involved in heinous violations of international law constituting international crimes.”
    [A-HRC-59-23-AEV*]
• Relevance: Hiding behind the excuse of not being a decision maker and simply carrying out orders is not enough to absolve a person of prosecution when there is a possibility of making the moral choice to refuse acting on harmful orders.
• Applicability: As Microsoft workers, we can be held legally liable for supporting customers committing war crimes with the support we provide, regardless of the fact that we may not be in any executive or decision-making role.

The case of VAN ANRAAT v. THE NETHERLANDS

• Case Details:
  • Van Anraat, a Dutch businessman, was prosecuted for complicity in war crimes by providing mustard gas to the Iraqi government.
  • Per the Proceedings in the Court of Appeal Conclusions: As results from the case file (in the period referred to in the charges), the Iraqi regime carried out multiple attacks with (among others) mustard gas during the war with Iran on places in that country, as well as on the border region between Iraq and Iran, where Kurdish population groups lived that were suspected of collaboration with the Iranian enemy. Those attacks caused the death of at least thousands of civilians (that did not participate in the conflict) and caused permanent and severe health problems to very many persons. It is beyond doubt that the regime in Bagdad by doing so committed extensive and extremely gross violations of the international humanitarian law by using a weapon that was already prohibited by the Geneva (Gas) Protocol of 17 June 1925… The defendant has made an essential contribution to these violations – at a time that many, if not all other suppliers ‘pulled out’ with regard to the increasing international pressure – by supplying many times in the course of several years (among other matters) very large quantities of a precursor for mustard gas; in doing so the defendant made significant profits. Those supplies enabled the Iraqi regime to (almost) continue their deadly (air) attacks in full force during a number of years. Apparently the defendant did not give his deliberate support to the afore mentioned gross violations out of sympathy for the targets of the regime, but – as it should be assumed – the defendant acted exclusively in pursuit of large gains and fully neglected the consequences of his actions.
• Relevance:
  • Mustard gas is considered to be a dual-use chemical.
  • Similarly, Microsoft Cloud and AI are dual-use technologies.
  • Even though Anraat did not personally commit the atrocity crimes being described and may not have personally endorsed the crimes committed using the gas, he was held accountable for aiding in supplying this dual-use technology based on his knowledge of the probability of the use of this provision in a grave breach of international law.
• Application: Prosecuting Anraat for providing dual-use chemicals to a government accused of war crimes with knowledge on how the chemicals were likely to be used was enough to prosecute him for “aiding and abetting violations of the laws and customs of war”. Similarly, as workers we can be prosecuted for continuing to provide the means and support for dual-use technology that has a high probability of being used in war crimes.

Universally Applicable International Law (Jus Cogens)

• Genocide, apartheid, and other crimes against humanity fall under the category of jus cogens, which means they are universally applicable. Even if an individual is unlikely to be prosecuted in their current country of residence in domestic court, they may be tried in a domestic court in a different country. Relevant examples include:
  • Spanish courts have used universal jurisdiction to take Tibet to trial for genocide.
  • Belgian courts have used universal jurisdiction to take Yerodia Ndombasi, the former Foreign Affairs Minister of the Republic of Congo, for crimes against humanity.
• Universal jurisdiction has also been codified in some country’s domestic laws, see:
  • Germany: End Impunity Through Universal Jurisdiction
  • Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWCA)

Hypothetical example: A tech support worker receives a support ticket from the Israeli military requesting assistance with accessing their Azure storage account. Even though the tech support worker is morally conflicted about providing support to the customer, they do so anyway.

• Given the provisional measures released by the ICJ in January 2024, this tech support worker is aware of the “serious risk” of genocide which increases their risk of being legally liable for abetting war crimes, regardless of the final outcome determined by the ICJ in the case of South Africa v. Israel. The provisional measures to prevent genocide are legally binding in addition to serving as a global warning to the dire crimes against humanity being committed.
• This tech support worker may be aware of how the Israeli military is using Microsoft Cloud technology, including Azure Storage, to commit crimes against humanity. With this knowledge, helping the Israeli military access Azure Storage, a dual-use technology, is comparable with helping provide access to dual-use chemicals, such as mustard gas. Even though the tech support worker does not have confirmation that the end customer who raised the ticket will use Azure Storage to commit such crimes, knowledge of the risk and precedent is enough to increase the risk of their legal liability.
• The tech support worker’s personal stance on the Israeli military is not enough to not withhold legal liability.
• The fact that the tech support worker is not in a decision-making role (manager, executive) is not enough to absolve them of international crimes.

Definitions from Microsoft’s Product Terms:

• Microsoft AI Services: an Online Service or feature thereof that uses artificial intelligence technologies, including any Microsoft Generative AI Service
• Microsoft Generative AI Service: an Online Service or feature thereof that uses generative artificial intelligence technologies to generate outputs
• Online Service: a Microsoft-hosted service to which Customer subscribes under a Microsoft volume licensing agreement, including any service identified in the Online Services section of the Product Terms. It does not include software and services provided under separate license terms (such as via gallery, marketplace, console, or dialog). 

According to Microsoft’s AI Shared Responsibility Model, “At the platform layer, there’s a need to build and safeguard the infrastructure that runs the AI model, training data, and specific configurations that change the behavior of the model, such as weights and biases.” Microsoft here asserts that infrastructure is a core layer of AI. When that infrastructure is an “Online Service” provided by Microsoft, such as Azure Storage or Azure Compute or other IaaS services, those cloud technologies would also fall under the definition of “Microsoft AI Services”. They are therefore governed by the Microsoft Enterprise AI Services Code of Conduct and the Acceptable Use Policy sections regarding “Microsoft AI Services” as well as “Online Services”.

Leaked data show a dramatic spike in Microsoft cloud storage used by the Israeli military, jumping more than 155 percent between June 2023 and April 2024, and peaking just before the Rafah offensive in May 2024. Storage use is an important indicator showing the extent of AI usage, since storage usually grows along with the usage of other cloud products.

Two sources in Unit 8200 confirmed that the Military Intelligence Directorate purchased storage and AI services from Microsoft Azure for intelligence-gathering activities

The Israeli military uses Microsoft Azure to compile information gathered through mass surveillance, which it transcribes and translates, including phone calls, texts and audio messages, according to an Israeli intelligence officer who works with the systems. That data can then be cross-checked with Israel’s in-house targeting systems and vice versa… He said he relies on Azure to quickly search for terms and patterns within massive text troves, such as finding conversations between two people within a 50-page document. Azure also can find people giving directions to one another in the text, which can then be cross-referenced with the military’s own AI systems to pinpoint locations.

Violated Usage Restriction - For social scoring or predictive profiling that would lead to discriminatory, unfair, biased, detrimental, unfavorable, or harmful treatment of certain persons or groups of persons.

Violated Usage Restriction - For the assessment of criminality risk of natural persons based solely on the profiling of a natural person or on assessing their personality traits and characteristics. This prohibition shall not apply to AI systems used to support the human assessment of the involvement of a person in a criminal activity, which is already based on objective and verifiable facts directly linked to a criminal activity.

The Israeli military use Microsoft cloud and AI technology to both directly and indirectly support predictive scoring to identify whether to kill a Palestinian using surveillance data obtained illegally. In addition to being illegally obtained, the data is irrelevant and cannot be assumed to be “based on objective and verifiable facts directly linked to a criminal activity”, such as being in a Whatsapp group with a suspected fighter, changing cell phones or addresses, or translations and mistranslations of intercepted phone calls and messages. The generated “target bank” populated by these aforementioned predictive scoring programs such as Lavender and Where’s Daddy is hosted on Azure. Surveillance data used for these predictive scoring programs is compiled, translated, and searched using Microsoft AI technologies and Microsoft Azure technology.

Violated Usage Restriction - To create or expand facial recognition databases through the untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet or CCTV footage.

Violated Usage Restriction - For unlawful tracking, surveillance, stalking, or harassment of a person.

Violated Usage Restriction - For ongoing surveillance or real-time or near real-time identification or persistent tracking of the individual using any of their personal data, including biometric data, without the individual’s valid consent.

Violated Usage Restriction - For any real-time facial recognition technology on mobile cameras used by any law enforcement globally to attempt to identify individuals in uncontrolled, “in the wild” environments, which includes (without limitation) police officers on patrol using body-worn or dash-mounted cameras using facial recognition technology to attempt to identify individuals present in a database of suspects or prior inmates.

Microsoft technology is used both directly and indirectly by the Israeli military to unlawfully surveil Palestinians, collect their data without their consent, and to manage lethal autonomous drones fit with facial recognition software.

The Mamram unit of the Israeli military, which is responsible for computing and data processing, uses Microsoft AI (Azure Video Analyzer) for facial recognition.

The Al Munasiq application is hosted on Azure. This application collects all user data, including biometric, location, camera, personal message and file data. Because Palestinians are not given reasonable alternatives to permit management due to movement restrictions enforced by the Israeli military and government on Palestinians, they cannot fully consent when installing this application.

Microsoft employees were on-site on Israeli army bases to develop surveillance systems. Such surveillance systems used by the Israeli military use facial recognition on CCTV footage.

Repression of Palestinians has become progressively automated, with tech companies providing dual-use^{[78 A, B]} infrastructure to integrate mass data collection and surveillance, while profiting from the unique testing ground for military technology offered by the occupied Palestinian territory.^{[79 A, B]} Fuelled by United States tech giants establishing subsidiaries and research and development centres in Israel,^{[80, A, B, C, D, Sub* 2.24]} claims by Israel of security needs have spurred unparalleled developments in carceral and surveillance services, from closed-circuit television (CCTV) networks, biometric surveillance, advanced tech checkpoint networks, “smart walls” and drone surveillance to cloud computing, artificial intelligence and data analytics supporting on-the-ground military personnel.^{[81 A, Sub* 2.24]} … Microsoft has been integrating its systems and civilian tech across the Israeli military^{[95 A, B]} since 2003, while acquiring Israeli cybersecurity and surveillance start-ups.^{[96 A, B]}

Microsoft technology provides the underlying infrastructure for third parties to provide the Israeli military with surveillance capabilities through startups. Cellebrite is used by “Israeli police and intelligence agencies” to “unlock the phones of thousands” of Palestinians. Cellebrite has also been used to hack into the phones of refugees. Cellebrite runs on Microsoft Azure, is integrated with Microsoft M365, and has even been interviewed by Microsoft for their blog. Cobwebs works with the Israeli Defense Ministry’s Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure on cyber espionage. Cobwebs activates counterfeit accounts for its clients that conduct surveillance online, including on social networks such as Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Twitter. For example, the clients can collect information on activists, politicians and government officials around the world. The counterfeit accounts also join communities and forums, tricking people to reveal personal data and later hacking the targets’ phones or computers. Cobwebs runs on Microsoft Azure and has an AI partnership with Microsoft.

Drones, hexacopters and quadcopters have also been omnipresent killing machines in the skies of Gaza.^{[68 A, B]} Drones largely developed and supplied by Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries have long flown alongside fighter jets, surveilling Palestinians and delivering target intelligence.^{[69 A,B, C, D]}

DJI and Microsoft partner on “advanced drone technology”. Euro-Med Monitor has highlighted war crimes committed by Israeli military using drones, quadcopters and autonomous weapons technology using Matrice 600 drones developed by DJI and operated using Microsoft Azure. Palantir, which gets cloud infrastructure and AI services from Microsoft, collaborates with Shield AI to produce drones for the Israeli military.

While some drones used by the Israeli military have killing capabilities, the ones that don’t have been customized by the Israeli military to do so. Note that a UNHCR resolution also “calls upon all States to cease the sale, transfer and diversion of arms, munitions and other military equipment to Israel… including “dual-use” items, when they assess that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that such goods, technologies or weapons might be used to violate or abuse human rights”

Microsoft has strong partnerships with Israeli weapons manufacturers which also contribute to crimes committed using lethal autonomous drones:

• Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI)

  • Microsoft Relationship: IAI partnered with Microsoft XBox to develop military tank controls, which have been sold to the Israeli military. Gyptol, a partner of IAI is a part of Microsoft’s Startup Hub, receiving investment from Microsoft. Microsoft has also provided IAI AI technology. Microsoft hosts IAI developed training on Azure.
  • Lethal Autonomous Drone War Crimes: Israel Aerospace Industries described the use of thir Heron drones, often fitted with Spike missiles, as “pivotal” in the “Iron Swords” war and have been confirmed to be used in war crimes.
    IAI showcased at Microsoft Israel

• Elbit Systems

  • Microsoft relationship: Microsoft and Elbit Systems have partnered in investments. Israeli military armored tank personnel take Elbit System built training, OneSim, which runs on Microsoft Azure. Microsoft announced a $3 billion investment in India to build new data centers for Microsoft cloud and AI. At least one of the companies Microsoft is working with to build these new data centers is Adani Group. Adani Group has a joint venture with Elbit Systems and partners with them in drone manufacturing.
  • Lethal Autonomous Drone War Crimes: Hermes drones, developed by Elbit Systems, are also used by the Israeli military. LANIUS (“Thor”) drones are developed by Elbit Systems and have been confirmed to be used in war crimes.

• Rafael Advanced Defense Systems

  • Microsoft relationship: Microsoft and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems have a long history of partnerships and aquisitions. Refael subsidiary, Airobotics, partnered with ShotSpotter and the “Israeli” police in 2021 to deploy a faulty, racist gunshot “detection” system.The true purpose of ShotSpotter is to surveil communities of color in the US and in Palestine. Microsoft has heavily invested in Airobotics. mPrest, a Microsoft certified partner whose software is available on Azure that is 50% owned by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, partners with the Israeli Air Force on different weaponry.
  • Lethal Autonomous Drone War Crimes: Provides lethal drones including the Spark drone and manufactures the Spike missiles that are often used by multiple drone types to commit war crimes.

Violated Usage Restriction - In any manner that can inflict harm on individuals, organizations, or society.

The immoral crimes against humanity that the Israeli military are committing undoubtedly inflict harm on Palestinian individuals, organizations, and society. The statistics of the harm on Palestinians in the July 2025, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Reported Impact Snapshot | Gaza Strip are harrowing yet inconclusive of the extent of the destruction caused.

The Associated Press found that Microsoft AI Services had been used in the targeting of children; the Israeli military subsequently killed them. Microsoft AI Services are embedded into every part of the Israeli military, providing direct capabilities to commit atrocities.

The Microsoft statement on the Issues Relating to Technology Services in Israel and Gaza reveals that Microsoft did indeed provide “emergency support to the Israeli government in the weeks following October 7, 2023, to help rescue hostages”. The few times the Israeli military released hostages through military means has been by killing Palestinians. In one instance, they massacred 274 Palestinians at once in Nuseirat refugee camp to release only 4 hostages. In this statement, Microsoft has admitted to providing its AI services to inflict harm on Palestinians.

Providing technological support to the Israeli military to continue to inflict undeniable harm on our people is against our policies.

Violated Usage Restriction - To affect individuals in any way that is otherwise prohibited by law or regulation.

Refer to previous section on illegality.

Violated Autonomous AI Systems Rules - Ensure adequate human user controls to monitor such system’s decisions and actions, detect anomalies, and intervene when appropriate, especially for decisions and actions that are sensitive or irreversible and may result in harm.

Investigations showed that predictive scoring systems, utilizing Microsoft AI Services, to generate a “target bank” did not have adequate human controls or oversight.

“A human being had to [verify the target] for just a few seconds,” B. said, explaining that this became the protocol after realizing the Lavender system was “getting it right” most of the time. “At first, we did checks to ensure that the machine didn’t get confused. But at some point we relied on the automatic system, and we only checked that [the target] was a man — that was enough. It doesn’t take a long time to tell if someone has a male or a female voice.”

To conduct the male/female check, B. claimed that in the current war, “I would invest 20 seconds for each target at this stage, and do dozens of them every day. I had zero added value as a human, apart from being a stamp of approval. It saved a lot of time. If [the operative] came up in the automated mechanism, and I checked that he was a man, there would be permission to bomb him, subject to an examination of collateral damage.”

One source stated that human personnel often served only as a “rubber stamp” for the machine’s decisions, adding that, normally, they would personally devote only about “20 seconds” to each target before authorizing a bombing — just to make sure the Lavender-marked target is male. This was despite knowing that the system makes what are regarded as “errors” in approximately 10 percent of cases, and is known to occasionally mark individuals who have merely a loose connection to militant groups, or no connection at all.’

Neither Customer, nor those that access an Online Service through Customer, may use an Online Service:

• in a way prohibited by law, regulation, governmental order or decree;

• to violate the rights of others

Israeli government, Israeli military, Israeli prison, and Israeli weapons manufacturing customers, as well as those that significantly support them, have violated the Microsoft Acceptable Use Policy by using Microsoft cloud and AI technology in crimes against humanity and grave human rights violations. Refer to previous section for details.

Iyad Mahmoud Al-Farra, 19 years old, he went to get aid to get a bag of flour for us to eat. He got shot with a bullet in the neck. It killed him and he spent 15 minutes reciting his Shehada and smiling. He asked for [martrydom] and he got it. My brother, my love and soul. He went to get us food. We want to eat! Food has become dipped in blood. He went there and a bullet struck his neck. There’s no flour. There’s nothing. What are we to do? There’s nothing! We’re being forced to go. Why would we go if we weren’t in need? If we didn’t need the flour and the aid, we wouldn’t go. Walk straight to death with our own feet? What did we do wrong?

The victims include four-month-old baby, Jinan Iskafi, who tragically died on 3 May 2025 due to severe malnutrition… Jinan was admitted to the Rantissi pediatric hospital due to severe dehydration and recurrent infections. She was diagnosed with Marasmus, a severe form of protein-energy malnutrition, chronic diarrhea, and a suspected case of immunodeficiency… She required a specific lactose-free formula, which was not available due to the blockade…The vast majority of children suffering from malnutrition, however, cannot reach any hospital due to access challenges posed by displacement orders and heavy bombardment and ongoing military operations.

They would place a detainee in a shroud connected to a hose with a small camera inside, bury him in a pit, and then monitor him through the camera… As soon as he was on the verge of complete suffocation, believing he was about to die, the guards would allow in a small amount of air to keep him alive.

Ofer Prison guards dragged Al-Bursh [Esteemed doctor and head of orthopaedics at Gaza’s Al-Shifa Hospital] and dumped him in the prison yard, naked from the waist down, bleeding and unable to stand… Recognising him, some of the other prisoners carried Al-Bursh to a nearby room, and he died moments later. One paramedic … told HRW of having encountered another detainee, bleeding from his anus, who described how three Israeli guards had taken it in turns to rape him with their M16 rifles.

One of the Israeli officers who came, approached me and kicked me on my left side, then jumped on my head with his two legs pushing my face further into the dirt and then continued kicking me as I was head down, into the dirt, with my hands tied behind my back. He then got a knife and tore all of my clothes off except for my underwear and used part of my torn clothes to blindfold me. The beating to the rest of my body did not stop, at one point he started jumping on my back – three or four times – while yelling ‘die, die you trash’ … in the end before this finally stopped, another officer urinated on my face and body while also yelling at us ‘to die’.

We [were] operating on children who would say: ‘I was lying on the ground after a bomb had dropped and this quadcopter came down and hovered over me and shot me’… The bullets that the drones fire are these small cuboid pellets and I fished a number of those out of the abdomen of small children. I think the youngest I operated on was a three-year-old… These pellets were in a way more destructive than bullets… With the drone pellets, what I found was they would go in and they would bounce around so they would cause multiple injuries… I had a seven-year-old boy… He had an injury to his liver, spleen, bowel, arteries, so quite extensive destruction from a single entry point.

On November 10, doctors, patients and hospital staff were forced to evacuate Al-Nasr Hospital as the Israeli military continued its ground invasion of northern Gaza. Staff concluded they could not safely evacuate five NICU babies, as they relied on oxygen machines. The Israeli army said they would allow the Red Cross to evacuate these babies after the army finished raiding the hospital. Two weeks later, during a four-day humanitarian pause, journalist Mohammed Baalousha discovered the babies abandoned in their incubators, decomposing and having been ravaged by stray animals. The journalist who reported this story was killed by Israel two weeks after he shared with the world the fate of these premature babies. Tiny babies, left to starve, freeze and suffocate. Where is humanity?

Israeli soldiers restrained the victim’s hands before they crushed him, and tramped on his body from the legs up, confirming that he was alive during the incident. To guarantee thorough and complete crushing, the victim was placed on asphalt rather than in an adjacent sandy area… The victim’s mutilated body and the surrounding area bear obvious signs that a military bulldozer or tank was present. It appears that the victim was purposefully stripped of his clothes, as he was seen wearing only his underpants at the time of his death.

My mom was on the ground, unconscious. There were two tanks on the right and left surrounding the roundabout. After the soldiers entered the tank, it started to move backward and ran over my mother… When I saw the scene, I thought I had gone insane and began to cry and scream… I fled, fearing for my life, as the tank on the right tried to run me over. However, the two tanks moved in another direction, and the tank on the left was trying to run my mother over once more, but that did not happen. Afterwards, the tanks pivoted and pointed their weapons towards me. Out of fear, I hid by taking cover. All I could hear as I started to scream was the sound of gunfire. Dogs were getting closer to my mother’s body and I shoved them away as they were going to eat her body. This was on Friday just after midnight, around 1 a.m. The soldier in the tank knew where he had placed her and was able to avoid her, but he deliberately ran over her. I could not bear the situation amid the heavy gunfire, and I could not carry my mother after the tank ran over her.

An Israeli tank fired from a close distance at the family car of six-year-old Palestinian girl Hind Rajab, and a tank shell directly hit the ambulance that was dispatched to help, according to an investigation. Rajab, who survived the initial shooting, had begged for help as she bled out among the bodies of her dead relatives while on the phone with paramedics and her mother for three hours.

In testimony to the Israeli parliament, he recounted that many soldiers had to run over people “in the hundreds” while in Gaza.