How Global Companies Support Israel in the Gaza War

Amazon, Alphabet, Airbnb, Axa, Allianz, BNP Paribas, Booking.com, BP, Caterpillar, Hyundai, IBM, Palantir, Lockheed Martin, Leonardo, Microsoft, and Volvo are just a few examples of the multinational corporations mentioned in the report "From the Economics of Occupation to the Economics of Genocide," prepared by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese. The report is 38 pages long and contains 440 references. It calls for sanctions and accountability for global corporations. It emphasizes that Israel's actions contradict the ruling of the International Court of Justice, which in 2024 found the Israeli occupation illegal under international law. The UN General Assembly has submitted a request for a review of the case.

Poland recognizes the Palestinian people's right to self-determination and their aspirations for an independent state. We asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs what our country's position is regarding the activities of the companies mentioned in the report.

"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs assesses this state of affairs unequivocally negatively," reads the response. At the same time, the ministry emphasizes that any sanctions adopted by the EU in response to these actions would require the unanimous consent of all member states.

– A possible means of influence, reflected in the formation of the market value of the enterprise, is the pressure of consumers and public opinion – emphasizes the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

We asked the European Commission whether the EU was considering sanctioning the companies mentioned in the UN report, but had not received a response by the time this article was published.

"Rzeczpospolita" sent questions to global corporate headquarters, requesting their response to the report. We also asked them whether, in light of the increasingly dire situation in the Gaza Strip , they were considering changing their business policies and the scope of their cooperation with Israel. We received a wide range of responses.

Some companies have washed their hands of the responsibility, shifting it to others and redirecting us, for example, to the American government.

"Foreign military equipment sales are government-to-government transactions. Discussions about these sales are best conducted with the participation of the US government," a Lockheed Martin spokesman said. Another defense company mentioned in the UN publication, Italy's Leonardo, did not respond to questions. Neither did global IT companies, which, according to the UN rapporteur's report, also indirectly support the Israeli offensive through IT services they provide, helping to monitor Palestinians, identify targets, and gather and store intelligence.

Of this group of companies, only Palantir Technologies responded to our questions. "Palantir openly supported and expressed solidarity with Israel in response to the barbaric attacks of October 7th (2023 – ed.), particularly in light of the horrific abuse and torture of Israeli civilians that occurred that day. Our work in Israel predates the terrorist attack and is consistent with our global support for U.S. allies and liberal democracies," said Ben Mascall, a Palantir spokesman.

A large group mentioned in the report are suppliers of vehicles and heavy equipment, such as the aforementioned Caterpillar, Hyundai, and the Volvo Group. According to the UN, Caterpillar has been supplying Israel with equipment used to demolish Palestinian homes and infrastructure for many years.

"Since October 2023, Caterpillar equipment has been documented as being used for mass demolitions—including those of homes, mosques, and hospitals. In 2025, the company signed another multimillion-dollar contract with Israel," the report reads. Caterpillar did not respond to our questions. Hyundai also remained mum.

We did, however, receive a comment from Volvo questioning the information contained in the UN report.

"First and foremost, we wish to express our regret for the catastrophic humanitarian situation we are witnessing as a result of the conflict. We do not share the criticism expressed by the UN Special Rapporteur. As far as we know, this criticism is based on an insufficient and partly erroneous database. We have contacted the rapporteur to clarify the facts," Volvo states. It emphasizes that it does not want and does not agree with its products being used in a way that violates human rights. "However, because our products have a long lifespan and change hands frequently, there are unfortunately limits to the amount of control and influence we can have over how and where they are used during their lifespan," Volvo emphasizes.

The UN report also lists financial institutions: banks investing in Israeli state bonds, insurers, and investment funds. Among the latter is Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec, a large Canadian pension fund that professes ethical investment policies and respects human rights. This is difficult to reconcile with the fact that, according to the UN, the fund's investments in the defense company Lockheed Martin nearly tripled between 2023 and 2024.

Controversial examples can also be found in Europe. The report mentions, among others, the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global. It claims to have very strict ethical principles when it comes to selecting assets for its portfolio. Meanwhile, UN data shows that by the end of 2024, GPFG had invested $121.5 billion—6.9% of its total value—in the companies mentioned in the report.

We asked the Norwegians for comment. The responses we received suggest that changes are imminent. "The Ministry of Finance (of Norway – ed.) has requested a re-evaluation of the fund's investments in Israeli companies and cooperation with the management. We will immediately begin a detailed analysis and provide an update. Unfortunately, we have no further comment on this matter at this time," replied Line Aaltvedt, Head of Communications at Norges Bank Investment Management.

Contemporary conflicts demonstrate the complexity of business ethics. It must function in a world of tensions, conflicting interests, and difficult choices.

"In such circumstances, declarations are no longer enough. Consistency between words and actual business decisions, often made under intense political, social, or market pressure, becomes crucial. So is ESG just a nicely packaged fiction? No. As long as it is accompanied by real, external scrutiny and pressure," says Piotr Rybicki, an expert in corporate governance. He adds that the example of Russia after the invasion of Ukraine and the so-called list of shame (created by Yale University and including companies that have not withdrawn from Russia) show that international public opinion can effectively force ethical decisions, even if they are financially costly. Many companies decided to withdraw from the Russian market not because of legal requirements, but because the reputational risk became too great to ignore. Since the war began, over a thousand companies have withdrawn from Russia.

"In today's world, ESG cannot exist in a vacuum. It's not just an element of corporate strategy, but part of a broader system of accountability, supported by investors, the media, civil society, and public institutions. In an era of global crises and rising social expectations, companies must understand that declarations alone are not enough. What matters is how they respond in moments of trial," Rybicki concludes.

The Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip, which has been ongoing since the fall of 2023, has killed at least 60,000 people. There is no end in sight to the conflict. A few days ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government, despite growing opposition from the international community, declared that Israel intends to take full control of the Gaza Strip. Netanyahu's government argues that Israel's enemy is not Palestine and its citizens, but the Islamist organization Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and the European Union, among others.