Google, the global tech giant, has recently found itself at the center of a heated international controversy following revelations of its $45 million contract with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office. The deal, first reported by Drop Site News on September 5, 2025, is designed to amplify Israeli government messaging through extensive advertising campaigns across Google’s platforms. The agreement has drawn sharp criticism for allegedly promoting propaganda, including denying the existence of famine in the Gaza Strip, despite United Nations declarations of widespread hunger in the region.
Google’s Role in Israeli Propaganda
The controversial contract, managed by Israel’s government advertising agency Lapam, outlines Google as a “key entity” in supporting Netanyahu’s communications strategy. Signed in late June 2025, the agreement allocates $45 million to fund campaigns on platforms such as YouTube and Google’s Display & Video 360. These campaigns, often described in government documents as “hasbara,” a Hebrew term for propaganda, aim to reshape global perceptions of the conflict in Gaza.
One of the most contentious aspects of the campaign involves advertisements explicitly denying the existence of famine in Gaza. This comes after the United Nations and other international agencies declared a humanitarian crisis in the region. The ads, which assert that “there is food in Gaza,” have sparked outrage among human rights organizations and critics worldwide. According to Türkiye Today, additional campaigns under the contract have targeted international institutions, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), accusing them of sabotaging aid delivery.
International Backlash and Accusations Against Google
The revelations have triggered widespread condemnation, with accusations that Google is complicit in spreading misinformation. U.N. Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese accused the company in June 2025 of profiting from what she described as “the Gaza genocide.” Internal leaks revealed that Google co-founder Sergey Brin responded to these allegations by dismissing the U.N. as “a transparently antisemitic organization.”
Criticism has also extended to Google’s role in facilitating Israeli military operations. As reported by The Guardian, the Israeli military has been using Microsoft’s cloud servers to store vast amounts of intercepted Palestinian phone calls. This data has reportedly been instrumental in planning airstrikes and other military actions in Gaza and the West Bank.
The Broader Implications of Tech and Conflict
Google’s involvement in the Israeli government’s propaganda efforts raises broader ethical questions about the role of technology companies in geopolitical conflicts. Critics argue that such partnerships not only compromise the neutrality of these platforms but also exacerbate existing humanitarian crises. The use of digital technologies to manipulate public opinion and aid military strategies has drawn parallels to similar controversies involving other tech giants in recent years.
Moreover, the campaign to delegitimize international organizations like the UNRWA undermines efforts to address the humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees. By casting doubt on the credibility of aid agencies, these advertisements contribute to a narrative that hampers international intervention and relief efforts.
What’s Next for Google?
As the controversy continues to unfold, Google faces mounting pressure from human rights groups, international organizations, and its own employees to reconsider its partnership with Netanyahu’s office. Activists have called for greater transparency and accountability in the company’s advertising practices, particularly in conflict zones. Meanwhile, the global community watches closely to see how this debate will influence the broader relationship between technology and governance.
Ultimately, Google’s $45 million deal with Netanyahu’s office highlights the complex and often contentious intersection of technology, politics, and human rights. As calls for accountability grow louder, the company must navigate an increasingly fraught landscape while addressing the ethical implications of its actions.