Russia Rejects Netanyahu’s Allegations of an AI-Driven Antisemitic Campaign

14:45

Russia has rejected allegations by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Moscow is involved in an online campaign spreading antisemitic content against Israel and Jewish communities worldwide. The dispute has added a new point of friction to relations between the two countries, already complicated by their diverging interests over Iran and regional security.

In a statement released on October 22, 2026, Russia’s Foreign Ministry described Netanyahu’s accusations as unfounded and expressed surprise that they had been made publicly. The ministry also questioned the timing of the remarks, which came as Russia and Israel marked the 35th anniversary of the restoration of full diplomatic relations.

The exchange follows comments Netanyahu made on October 18, when he accused Russia of cooperating with Iran and linked Moscow to networks of automated online accounts allegedly using artificial intelligence to spread antisemitic messages.

Moscow Denies Involvement in Online Campaigns

The Russian Foreign Ministry strongly disputed the Israeli leader’s claims, arguing that the allegations were not supported by evidence. It also rejected the suggestion that Russia was directing an antisemitic campaign, defending the Russian government’s stated approach to relations between different ethnic and religious communities.

The ministry’s response did not provide independent technical evidence addressing the alleged bot networks. The central disagreement therefore remains unresolved in the public statements available: Netanyahu has attributed the activity to Russian involvement, while Moscow denies responsibility.

The dispute highlights the difficulty of establishing the origins and coordination of online influence operations, particularly when artificial intelligence and automated accounts are alleged to be involved. Determining responsibility would require evidence identifying the operators, their methods and any links to state institutions.

Netanyahu Points to Russia’s Relationship With Iran

Netanyahu’s criticism extended beyond the alleged online activity. He argued that Moscow’s cooperation with Tehran runs counter to Israeli security interests, particularly given Israel’s opposition to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

The Israeli prime minister also suggested that a nuclear-armed Iran could pose risks to Russia itself. He raised the possibility that Tehran could seek to mobilise groups within Russia to advance its interests.

Despite the sharpness of his remarks, Netanyahu acknowledged that the two countries retain certain shared interests. He said he continued to communicate with Russian President Vladimir Putin when necessary, indicating that diplomatic channels remained open despite their disagreements.

Disagreement Over Cybersecurity Cooperation

In its response, Moscow recalled that it had proposed a bilateral agreement on information security to Israel in 2018. According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, the initiative did not receive a response from the Israeli side.

The ministry argued that cooperation between cybersecurity specialists could have helped address concerns about online manipulation through technical discussions rather than public accusations.

Russia also suggested that Netanyahu’s statements were influenced by Israel’s approaching parliamentary elections, scheduled for October 27. This interpretation reflects Moscow’s position and has not been independently established as the reason for the Israeli leader’s remarks.

A Strain on an Already Complex Relationship

The latest exchange underscores the challenges facing relations between Moscow and Jerusalem. Although the two governments have maintained communication, their interests increasingly diverge over Iran and wider Middle Eastern security issues.

The allegations concerning antisemitic online activity add another dimension to those tensions, bringing questions about digital influence operations and the use of artificial intelligence into an already sensitive diplomatic relationship.

Neither side’s public statements resolve the underlying question of responsibility for the alleged online campaign. Establishing the facts would require verifiable evidence about the networks involved and any connection to Russian state actors.

For now, the dispute remains a war of competing diplomatic claims, with cybersecurity, antisemitism and regional security at its centre.