On July 1, 2025, the United Nations made headlines worldwide with the release of a detailed report by its Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese. The report listed more than 60 multinational companies accused of enabling or profiting from what Albanese described as Israel’s “genocidal campaign” in Gaza. The explosive findings have reignited the debate over the role of international business in conflict zones, the ethical responsibilities of corporations, and the wider consequences for Palestinian civilians under siege.
Background: The Context of the Report
The conflict in Gaza has drawn global scrutiny, especially after the events following October 2023. Humanitarian agencies, journalists, and legal experts have documented widespread destruction, mass displacement, and the mounting civilian death toll. Amid growing calls for accountability, the United Nations tasked its human rights experts with investigating not only states but also the private sector actors supporting or benefiting from the ongoing violence and occupation.
Albanese’s report, presented to the UN Human Rights Council, asserts that a complex network of companies across sectors—including defense, technology, construction, finance, and agriculture—have contributed to, or benefited from, the conflict and the occupation of Palestinian territories.
Who Are the Companies Named?
1. Arms and Defense Giants
Some of the world’s most powerful defense contractors were at the top of the list. According to the report:
- Lockheed Martin (US): Supplier of F-35 fighter jets used by the Israeli Air Force.
- Leonardo (Italy): Manufacturer of military helicopters and other systems used in air and ground operations.
- BAE Systems (UK), Boeing (US), Rheinmetall (Germany), General Dynamics (US), Oshkosh (US), and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) were all named for providing aircraft, drones, armored vehicles, and munitions.
- Palantir Technologies (US): Notably provides advanced artificial intelligence and data analysis platforms to the Israeli military, allegedly facilitating intelligence gathering and targeting.
These companies are accused of supplying the hardware and digital infrastructure critical to Israel’s military operations, including the recent airstrikes and ground campaigns in Gaza.
2. Construction, Heavy Machinery, and Demolition
The report highlights how the destruction of Palestinian homes and infrastructure is made possible with the aid of global heavy machinery manufacturers:
- Caterpillar (US), HD Hyundai (South Korea), Volvo Group (Sweden), JCB (UK), and FANUC (Japan): Their equipment, including bulldozers and excavators, have reportedly been used in demolishing Palestinian homes, clearing land, and constructing settlements in the occupied territories.
3. Big Tech and Surveillance
Modern warfare and occupation are increasingly driven by digital technologies. The UN report accuses several tech giants of facilitating Israel’s surveillance and intelligence operations:
- Alphabet (Google), Microsoft (Azure), Amazon (AWS), IBM: These companies provide the cloud computing, biometric analysis, and artificial intelligence tools allegedly used for monitoring, identifying, and targeting Palestinians. The UN notes that digital infrastructure has enabled Israel to maintain its system of control over the occupied territories.
4. Agriculture, Water, and Resource Exploitation
Some companies were cited for their roles in supporting the economic infrastructure of the occupation:
- Bright Dairy & Food (China): Majority owner of the Israeli dairy giant Tnuva, accused of benefiting from agricultural production in settlements built on seized Palestinian land.
- Netafim (subsidiary of Mexico’s Orbia): Known for advanced drip irrigation technology, its products are widely used in Israeli settlements, which the UN argues contributes to the exploitation of Palestinian water resources.
5. Finance, Logistics, and Other Sectors
The report also shines a light on the indirect but significant role played by financial institutions, real estate firms, and logistics companies:
- BlackRock (US): The world’s largest asset manager, cited for its investments in Israeli defense and tech firms.
- Barclays (UK): Flagged for financing arms manufacturers supplying the Israeli military.
- Keller Williams (US) and other real estate firms: Linked to sales and development of property in settlements.
- Atlas Air (US): Air cargo carrier, implicated for transport of military goods.
Other companies were named for logistical or operational support, underlining the vast and interconnected “economy of occupation.”
What Does Complicity Mean?
The UN report doesn’t just point fingers; it builds a legal and moral case. The term “complicity,” as used by Albanese and her team, goes beyond direct weapons sales. It encompasses providing infrastructure, logistical support, surveillance technology, financial backing, or even simply facilitating the daily operations of the occupation.
The report stresses that companies have a responsibility under international law—not just to avoid direct involvement in war crimes, but also to ensure their products, services, or investments are not used to facilitate human rights abuses. The “economy of occupation,” as Albanese describes it, is a system that allows Israel to sustain and expand its military operations and settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, often at immense human cost.
Responses and Repercussions
Israeli and Corporate Reactions
The Israeli government has rejected the report’s findings outright, labeling it “biased, one-sided, and legally groundless.” Many companies, when approached by journalists, either defended their compliance with applicable laws or declined to comment. Some, especially those in the tech and defense sectors, asserted that their technologies are designed for security and not intended for human rights abuses.
Global Impact: Boycotts, Divestment, and Legal Action
The implications of the report extend beyond the court of public opinion. While the report itself is not legally binding, it could influence real-world decisions by:
- Investors and pension funds, who may now face pressure to divest from implicated companies.
- Governments and international organizations, which might consider new regulations or restrictions.
- The BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions), which is already citing the UN report as further justification for global boycotts of the listed companies.
Legal experts note that in some jurisdictions, companies could be vulnerable to lawsuits or regulatory action under “duty of care” and human rights statutes.
The Larger Debate: Ethics and the Economy of Conflict
This latest UN report is not the first time companies have been scrutinized for their involvement in conflict zones. Past UN lists (such as the 2020 database of companies operating in West Bank settlements) have set precedents, prompting some companies to withdraw or rethink their operations. The current report, however, is more comprehensive—reflecting the deep integration of global business in the machinery of modern conflict.
The ethical debate is far from settled. Proponents argue that holding companies accountable is necessary to end impunity and uphold international law. Critics, meanwhile, warn that such measures could politicize business and threaten jobs or innovation. For many Palestinians and their advocates, however, the core issue remains: the urgent need for justice, accountability, and the protection of civilian lives.
What’s Next?
The UN Human Rights Council is scheduled to debate the report in July 2025. Advocacy groups are expected to intensify their campaigns for boycotts and divestment. Governments and international organizations will face growing pressure to take action—or at least clarify their positions.
As the world watches, the names on the list may become flashpoints for a wider reckoning: about the relationship between business and human rights, the limits of corporate neutrality, and the cost of doing business in an age of perpetual conflict.
The UN report’s naming of more than 60 companies marks a turning point in the international debate over corporate responsibility in war zones. While the road ahead is fraught with political, legal, and ethical challenges, the conversation is now impossible to ignore. The fate of Palestinians in Gaza, and the accountability of global business, may depend on what the world does with this information.
About The Author
