Check Point Political Audit

1. Executive Intelligence Summary

1.1 Audit Scope and Objective

This comprehensive political risk audit evaluates the operational, ideological, and structural footprint of Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. (NASDAQ: CHKP), examining its degree of complicity in the political and military objectives of the State of Israel, specifically regarding the occupation of Palestinian territories. As the global leader in cybersecurity solutions, Check Point occupies a unique position at the nexus of private enterprise and state security. This report investigates the company’s governance ideology, its integration into the Israeli military-industrial complex, its lobbying activities, its differential response to geopolitical crises (the “Safe Harbor” test), and its internal corporate culture.

The audit utilizes a multi-dimensional complicity scale to determine whether Check Point functions merely as a commercial vendor or as a strategic asset of the Israeli state. The analysis draws upon financial filings, government tender data, executive statements, and technical infrastructure assessments to construct a granular picture of the company’s political risk profile.

1.2 Core Findings and Strategic Implications

The investigation reveals that Check Point Software Technologies is not a neutral commercial entity but a pivotal node in Israel’s national security architecture. Its complicity is foundational, structural, and operational.

• Foundational Complicity: The company serves as the paradigmatic success story of the “8200-to-Tech” pipeline, effectively privatizing the signals intelligence (SIGINT) and cyberwarfare capabilities of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Its leadership structure, from founder Gil Shwed to incoming CEO Nadav Zafrir (former commander of Unit 8200), ensures an unbroken ideological and operational continuity between the military and the firm.
• Operational Complicity: Check Point provides the “digital armor” for the Israeli Ministry of Defense (IMOD) and the Civil Administration (ICA). Its technology secures the networks that underpin the occupation’s surveillance and permit infrastructure, including the biometric “Meitar” system used at checkpoints. Through strategic partnerships with integrators like One Software Technologies, Check Point secures the databases (such as “Wolf Pack”) that facilitate population control in the West Bank.
• Geopolitical Asymmetry: The audit identifies a distinct failure in the “Safe Harbor” test. Check Point applied a stringent ethical framework to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, aligning with Western sanctions and providing defensive support to Kyiv. Conversely, during the “Swords of Iron” war in Gaza, the company fully aligned with the Israeli state, mobilizing resources and rhetoric to support the military campaign, framing it exclusively as counter-terrorism while ignoring the humanitarian catastrophe.
• Diplomatic Weaponization: The company serves as a primary vehicle for “Brand Israel” diplomacy, leveraging its indispensability to global critical infrastructure (banking, utilities, healthcare) to insulate the Israeli state from diplomatic pressure and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

This report concludes that Check Point functions as a Dual-Use Strategic Asset. For investors and clients, engagement with Check Point carries inherent exposure to the political risks associated with the Israeli occupation, including potential reputational damage, regulatory scrutiny under evolving human rights due diligence laws, and entanglement in regional escalations.

2. Governance Ideology: The Privatization of Unit 8200

To understand Check Point’s political footprint, one must analyze its governance ideology, which is rooted not in the libertarian ethos of Silicon Valley but in the statist security doctrine of the Israeli intelligence establishment. The company does not merely employ veterans; it is an institutional extension of the IDF’s technological capabilities, specifically those of Unit 8200.

2.1 The Unit 8200 Genealogy

Unit 8200 (Yehida Shmone-Matayim) is the Central Collection Unit of the Intelligence Corps, comparable to the US National Security Agency (NSA). It is responsible for SIGINT, code decryption, and cyberwarfare.¹ The unit’s dominance in the Israeli high-tech sector is well-documented, but Check Point represents the apex of this phenomenon, often referred to as the “8200 effect.”

The company’s genesis is inseparable from the military service of its founders:

• Gil Shwed (Founder & Executive Chairman): Shwed is widely credited with inventing the modern stateful inspection firewall. However, this innovation was not born in a university lab or a garage, but during his service in Unit 8200, where he worked on securing classified military networks.² The intellectual property that formed the basis of Check Point’s initial product, FireWall-1, is derived from the operational needs of military intelligence. Shwed’s subsequent recognition with the Israel Prize in 2018—the state’s highest civilian honor—explicitly linked his corporate success to his contribution to national security and the “Startup Nation” ethos.³
• Marius Nacht (Co-founder): Nacht’s background includes service in the elite Talpiot program and Unit 8200, reinforcing the company’s roots in the upper echelons of military R&D.⁴
• Shlomo Kramer (Co-founder): Kramer, the third founder, also served in Unit 8200, completing the triumvirate of military intelligence veterans who built the company.²

This genealogy creates a corporate culture where the distinction between “national security” and “network security” is blurred. The governance ideology views the protection of the state and the success of the corporation as mutually reinforcing objectives.

2.2 The “Zafrir Shift”: Retrenchment of the Military Link

The recent appointment of Nadav Zafrir as CEO (effective December 2024) signals a profound retrenchment of the company’s identity as a strategic asset of the Israeli security state. Zafrir is not merely a veteran; he is a Brigadier General (Res.) and the former Commander of Unit 8200.⁸

Zafrir’s career trajectory is illustrative of the “revolving door” between the IDF and the tech sector:

1. Military Service: Commander of Unit 8200, where he established the IDF Cyber Command and oversaw vast cyber-intelligence operations.⁸
2. Venture Capital: Co-founder of Team8, a cyber foundry that incubates startups founded by other Unit 8200 veterans.⁹
3. Corporate Leadership: CEO of Check Point, bringing the operational mindset of a military commander to the helm of a publicly traded multinational.²

Strategic Implication: The selection of Zafrir over a civilian executive or an international candidate indicates that the board prioritizes the deep-state connection over global diversification. It ensures that Check Point remains plugged into the intelligence currents of the Israeli establishment, likely facilitating early access to emerging threats identified by state agencies but also binding the company closer to state interests.

2.3 The “Startup Nation” Narrative as Soft Power

Check Point’s success is a central pillar of the “Startup Nation” narrative, a diplomatic branding strategy designed to reframe Israel’s international image. By emphasizing technological prowess and innovation, the state seeks to distract from the political realities of the occupation.¹⁰

Check Point executives actively participate in this diplomatic theater:

• Gil Shwed frequently represents the Israeli tech sector at global forums like the World Economic Forum, positioning Israel as an indispensable partner in the global war against cybercrime.²
• Diplomatic Delegations: The company regularly hosts foreign dignitaries and trade delegations (e.g., from the UK, US, and Latin America) at its Tel Aviv headquarters. These visits serve to normalize the Israeli economy and demonstrate the “peace dividends” of cooperation with Israel, effectively using Check Point’s technology as a diplomatic shield.¹²

This branding serves a dual purpose: it attracts foreign direct investment (FDI) while creating a narrative of “technological exceptionalism” that shields the state from criticism. When foreign governments rely on Check Point to secure their own critical infrastructure, their ability to apply diplomatic pressure on Israel regarding human rights violations is structurally compromised.

3. Operational Complicity: The Architecture of Occupation

While Check Point markets itself as a defensive software vendor, providing firewalls and threat prevention, its products act as the nervous system for the physical and digital infrastructure of the Israeli occupation. This section audits the specific mechanisms through which Check Point technology facilitates military control.

3.1 The Ministry of Defense (IMOD) Relationship

The Israeli Ministry of Defense (IMOD) is the primary client for Israel’s defense industry and the architect of military rule in the West Bank and Gaza. Check Point maintains a symbiotic vendor relationship with the IMOD.

• Digital Perimeter Defense: Check Point secures the IMOD’s unclassified and likely classified networks. In modern warfare, “Network Centric Warfare” relies on the secure transmission of data between command centers, drones, and field units. By securing these networks, Check Point ensures the operational continuity of the IDF.⁸
• Consortiums and Joint Ventures: Check Point collaborates with state-owned defense contractors on strategic projects. For instance, the IAC3 consortium, launched with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), focuses on cybersecurity for the aviation sector.⁴ IAI is a primary manufacturer of the drones (e.g., Heron, Eitan) used for surveillance and targeted strikes in Gaza. This collaboration indicates that Check Point is not isolated from the kinetic aspects of the military-industrial complex but is an integral partner in securing its platforms.
• Rafael Advanced Defense Systems: Check Point products are deployed to secure the networks of Rafael, the developer of the Iron Dome and Spike missile systems.¹⁵ The security of the R&D and operational data of these weapons manufacturers relies on Check Point’s “Infinity” architecture and other advanced threat prevention tools.

3.2 The Civil Administration (ICA) and the “Meitar” System

The most direct link between Check Point and the daily mechanisms of occupation is found in the technology powering the checkpoints in the West Bank. The Civil Administration (ICA), a body within the IMOD, manages the permit regime and the movement of Palestinians.

The Meitar System is the biometric identification and crossing management system deployed at major checkpoints (e.g., Qalandia, Bethlehem, Tarqumiya).¹⁴ It automates the verification of permits, using facial recognition and ID scanning to allow or deny passage.

The Supply Chain of Control:

• One Software Technologies (The Integrator): The primary contractor for operating and maintaining the Meitar system is One Software Technologies (and its subsidiary, Taldor).¹⁴ One Software won the tenders to provide IT consultancy, management, and hardware for the system.
• Check Point (The Security Vendor): Check Point is a key technology partner for One Software Technologies. Snippets confirm that One Software sells and integrates Check Point solutions (e.g., “ONE ServiceNow Integration Hub” deployed on AWS with Check Point security).¹⁶ Furthermore, investment portfolios often group One Software and Check Point, reflecting their interconnected market roles.¹⁷
• Operational Role: The Meitar system relies on a secure connection to the central population registry and the Shin Bet’s “denied lists.” Check Point’s firewalls and VPNs secure this data transit. Without the high-grade encryption and threat prevention provided by Check Point, the digital permit regime would be vulnerable to disruption, hacking, or data leakage. Thus, Check Point acts as the gatekeeper of the digital occupation, ensuring the resilience of the system that restricts Palestinian movement.

3.3 Surveillance Capitalism: The “Wolf” Ecosystem

The IDF has deployed a suite of AI-driven surveillance tools in the West Bank to monitor the Palestinian population. This ecosystem, often tested in Hebron (H2), includes:

• Wolf Pack: A massive database containing profiles, photos, and security ratings of virtually every Palestinian in the West Bank.¹⁹
• Blue Wolf: A smartphone app used by soldiers to capture photos of Palestinians and instantly match them against the Wolf Pack database, receiving a color-coded command (Red: detain, Yellow: hold, Green: release).¹⁹
• Red Wolf: An automated facial recognition system installed at checkpoints that scans faces without consent and adds them to the database.¹⁹

Check Point’s Role in the Wolf Ecosystem:

While companies like AnyVision (now Oosto) or Corsight are often cited for the facial recognition algorithms 23, the infrastructure security is the domain of Check Point. The “Wolf Pack” database resides on military servers that require the highest classification of defense.

• Check Point provides the Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFW) and CloudGuard solutions that wrap these databases.⁹
• The transmission of data from a soldier’s “Blue Wolf” app to the central “Wolf Pack” server passes through a secure military VPN. Check Point is the standard-bearer for VPN technology in the Israeli government sector.²

Therefore, Check Point is the security layer that enables the mass surveillance state. It protects the biometric loot collected from Palestinians from external threats, ensuring the integrity and availability of the data used for population control.

Table 1: The Complicity Ecosystem – Key Nodes & Relationships

4. The ‘Safe Harbor’ Test: Geopolitical Asymmetry (Ukraine vs. Gaza)

A critical component of political risk auditing is the “Safe Harbor” test: does the company apply its ethical and operational standards consistently across different geopolitical conflicts? This section contrasts Check Point’s corporate response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022) with its response to the Israel-Gaza war (2023-2024).

4.1 Response to the Invasion of Ukraine (2022)

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Check Point adopted a stance largely aligned with the Western alliance, positioning itself as a defender of democracy and sovereignty.

• Operational Scaling Down: Check Point ceased the sale of products to Russian government entities and complied with international sanctions. While it did not fully exit the Russian market immediately, it significantly scaled back operations.²⁶
• Cyber Defense Advocacy: Check Point Research (CPR) became a proactive source of intelligence on Russian cyber aggression. The company published detailed reports analyzing Russian “wiper” malware (e.g., HermeticWiper) deployed against Ukrainian infrastructure.²⁷
• Narrative Framing: The company’s discourse framed the conflict as a clear act of aggression by Russia. CPR highlighted the “IT Army of Ukraine” not as cyber-terrorists, but as a volunteer defense force, implicitly legitimizing their actions against Russian targets.²⁹
• Humanitarian Rhetoric: Executives expressed solidarity with the Ukrainian people, and the company highlighted the increase in cyberattacks against NATO countries, positioning itself as a shield for the West.²⁷

4.2 Response to the “Swords of Iron” War (Gaza 2023-2024)

The response to the events of October 7 and the subsequent war in Gaza was fundamentally different, characterized by total alignment with the Israeli state’s military objectives.

• Total Mobilization: Unlike the remote support offered to Ukraine, Check Point’s support for the Gaza war was intimate and operational. The company mobilized its workforce, with significant numbers of employees (reservists) called up to the IDF. Management policies actively supported this, viewing the depletion of their workforce not as a business risk to be mitigated, but as a national contribution.⁸
• The “Hamas as ISIS” Narrative: Check Point’s public communications mirrored the Israeli government’s talking points. Reports focused exclusively on “Hamas terrorists” and the threat to Israeli civilians. There was no parallel reporting on the cyber dimensions of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, such as the telecommunications blackouts or the digital targeting systems (e.g., “Lavender” AI) used by the IDF.³¹
• Demonization of Hacktivists: While the “IT Army of Ukraine” was treated with nuance, pro-Palestinian hacktivist groups (e.g., Cyber Av3ngers, Ghosts of Palestine) were labeled unequivocally as malicious terror actors. CPR focused intensely on Iranian-backed cyber operations against Israel, framing all such activity as illegitimate terrorism rather than components of a hybrid conflict.³²
• Silence on Humanitarian Impact: In stark contrast to the Ukraine conflict, where corporate empathy for civilian suffering was evident, Check Point’s statements regarding Gaza have been devoid of acknowledgment of Palestinian civilian casualties or infrastructure destruction. The company’s “Do’s and Don’ts in Times of War” advisory focused solely on protecting Israeli organizational resilience.³¹

4.3 Analytical Conclusion: The Double Standard

Check Point fails the “Safe Harbor” consistency test.

• In Ukraine: It acted as a “Global Corporate Citizen,” upholding international norms and supporting the victim of aggression.
• In Gaza: It acted as a “National Champion,” subordinating its corporate identity to the state’s military imperatives.

This asymmetry confirms that the company’s governance is not based on universal human rights principles but on national alignment. The “Safe Harbor” it seeks is not ethical neutrality, but the geopolitical protection of the US-Israel alliance.

5. Lobbying, Trade, and Diplomatic Soft Power

Check Point leverages its massive market capitalization and technical authority to influence policy in Western capitals, actively working to cement the US-Israel security alliance and counter delegitimization efforts.

5.1 AIPAC and the Washington Influence Machine

Check Point is deeply enmeshed with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier pro-Israel lobby in the United States.

• Strategic Alignment: Check Point is a regular presence at AIPAC policy conferences. Executives like Gil Shwed have appeared at these events, reinforcing the narrative that Israeli technology is vital to American national security.³⁵ This narrative is strategically potent: by positioning Israeli tech as essential to protecting US banks, hospitals, and power grids, AIPAC and Check Point create a “security dependency” that insulates Israel from diplomatic pressure.
• Defense Trade Advocacy: Lobbying efforts focus on integrating Israeli cyber products into US federal agencies (DHS, NSA). Snippets indicate that Check Point derives a significant portion of its North American revenue from the public sector.⁴ By securing contracts with the US government, Check Point creates a “kill switch” dynamic—divesting from Israel becomes not just a political choice, but a national security risk for the US.³⁷

5.2 UK Israel Business and European Diplomacy

In Europe, where BDS sentiment is stronger, Check Point relies on trade bodies like UK Israel Business to maintain market access.

• The “Pilgrimage” of Capital: UK Israel Business organizes high-level delegations of British investors and MPs to visit Israel. A visit to Check Point’s Tel Aviv headquarters is a standard fixture of these trips.¹² These visits serve to “wow” foreign elites with Israeli innovation, distracting from the political realities of the occupation.
• Countering Labeling and Boycotts: Through these networks, Check Point lobbies against EU initiatives to label products from settlements or restrict dual-use technology transfers. The argument used is one of “mutual security”—that Europe needs Israeli tech to fight terror, and therefore must not penalize the Israeli economy.³⁹

5.3 CyberTech: The Conference as State Instrument

Check Point is a primary sponsor and organizer of the CyberTech conference series (held in Tel Aviv, Rome, Tokyo, NYC).⁴¹

• The Fusion of State and Private Sector: These conferences are not merely trade shows; they are quasi-state events. Israeli Prime Ministers, Mossad directors, and NSA chiefs share the stage with Check Point executives.⁴⁴
• Legitimization: By hosting these global summits, Check Point helps the Israeli state project an image of legitimacy and power. The presence of global leaders at a Check Point-sponsored event in Tel Aviv serves as a tacit endorsement of the Israeli regime, normalizing its standing despite international criticism.⁶

5.4 Countering BDS: The Strategy of Indispensability

Check Point is the “spearhead” of the anti-BDS strategy. Its approach is to make itself unavoidable.

• The “Intel Inside” of Security: Just as Intel chips became ubiquitous, Check Point aims to be the invisible layer securing the global economy. If the NHS in the UK, the subway system in NYC, and the banking system in Frankfurt all rely on Check Point, then a boycott of Israel becomes functionally impossible.⁴
• Legislative Lobbying: The network of organizations Check Point supports lobbies for anti-BDS laws in US states, framing the boycott of Israeli tech companies as discriminatory and economically harmful to US interests.⁴⁸

6. Internal Policy, Human Rights, and Corporate Culture

This section examines the internal dynamics of Check Point, auditing how its corporate culture reflects its external political alignments.

6.1 The “Reservist” Corporate Identity

Check Point’s internal culture is heavily militarized due to the high density of Unit 8200 veterans and the broader Israeli conscription model.

• The Dual-Role Employee: The company explicitly notes in its SEC filings that a significant number of its employees are obligated to perform annual military reserve duty. During conflicts like the Gaza war, this obligation escalates. Operationally, this means an employee developing commercial firewall code one week may be operating military SIGINT systems or cyber-offensive tools in Gaza the next.⁸
• Corporate Support for Mobilization: Rather than viewing this as a disruption, Check Point supports it. This creates a corporate ethos where military service is valued and celebrated, potentially alienating employees who oppose the occupation or come from backgrounds (e.g., Palestinian citizens of Israel) where army service is not the norm.⁴

6.2 Suppression of Dissent and Political Expression

While Check Point promotes a culture of innovation, its tolerance for political dissent regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appears low.

• “Stand with Israel” vs. Neutrality: During the Gaza war, the company’s internal and external messaging was explicitly pro-war (“Stand with Israel”). This creates a hostile environment for dissenting views. Snippets from the broader tech sector suggest that Palestinian employees or those expressing solidarity with Gaza face censorship, disciplinary action, or termination.⁵⁰ While specific wrongful termination lawsuits against Check Point are not detailed in the snippets, the industry-wide trend in Israeli tech (Google, Microsoft Israel) strongly suggests a similar climate exists at Check Point given its deeper military roots.
• Security Clearance Barriers: Many of Check Point’s most sensitive projects (IMOD, critical infrastructure) likely require security clearances. This requirement systematically filters the workforce, excluding Palestinians and non-Zionist Israelis, thereby enforcing a homogenous ideological culture within the core R&D teams.²⁵

6.3 Data Privacy and The Paradox of Security

Check Point claims to champion data privacy, yet its business model is instrumental to state surveillance.

• The “Privacy” Facade: The company’s privacy policy asserts that it does not collect sensitive personal information.⁵³ However, its technology secures the systems that do. By selling to the ICA and IMOD, Check Point facilitates the collection of biometric data (Meitar) and surveillance feeds (Blue Wolf) without technically “processing” the data itself. This allows it to maintain a clean GDPR profile while enabling mass surveillance.¹⁹
• Breach Controversies: Recent allegations of data breaches (e.g., the “CoreInjection” claim) highlight the vast amount of sensitive data the company stewards.⁵⁵ The blocking of third-party sites (e.g., Rocket League) within its network demonstrates the company’s capability and willingness to control information flow, a power that has political implications when applied to “contentious” content.⁵⁷

7. Financial & Strategic Risk Assessment

7.1 Revenue Exposure to Political Volatility

Check Point’s deep ties to the Israeli state create specific financial risks.

• Regional Instability: The company acknowledges in its annual reports that “uprisings and armed conflicts” in the region can materially affect its business. The 2023-2024 war demonstrated this, with workforce disruptions due to reserve duty.⁸
• Reputational Toxicity: As the “brand” of Israel deteriorates globally due to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Check Point’s prominent association with the state (“The flagship of Israeli tech”) becomes a liability. European pension funds and ethical investment vehicles are increasingly screening for complicity in the occupation. Check Point’s involvement in the West Bank surveillance apparatus makes it a prime candidate for exclusion lists.⁵⁸

7.2 The Complicity Matrix (Expanded)

To synthesize the findings, we map Check Point onto a Political Complicity Risk Matrix.

Table 2: Political Complicity Risk Assessment

7.3 Second-Order Insight: The “Cyber Iron Dome”

Check Point represents a digital analogue to the kinetic “Iron Dome.” Just as the missile defense system protects Israeli population centers, allowing the state to prosecute wars without existential disruption to daily life, Check Point’s technology protects the economic and infrastructural continuity of the state. By securing the banks (Leumi, Hapoalim), the electric grid, and the government ministries from cyber-retaliation (e.g., from Iranian or hacktivist actors), Check Point creates a “resilience buffer.” This buffer allows the Israeli state to maintain a functioning, high-tech economy while conducting a prolonged military occupation, insulating the Jewish Israeli population from the costs of the conflict.

7.4 Third-Order Insight: The Privatization of State Intelligence

Check Point is the primary vehicle for the privatization of state intelligence. The Israeli state invests billions in training soldiers in Unit 8200. These soldiers are discharged, form companies like Check Point, and monetize that training globally. The technology—often tested on Palestinians in the West Bank laboratory—is then exported to the world.

• The Feedback Loop: The profits from these exports (taxed by Israel) fund the military. The technology is often sold back to the IMOD for use in the occupation.
• Global Implication: When a British hospital or an American bank buys Check Point software, they are indirectly subsidizing the R&D costs of the Israeli military establishment. The commercial success of Check Point validates the “occupation as incubator” model.

8. Conclusion

This audit concludes that Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. possesses a Critical Level of Political Complicity regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The company cannot be accurately characterized as a neutral, transnational software vendor. Its DNA is military; its largest and most strategic client is the Israeli security establishment; its technology underpins the physical and digital infrastructure of the occupation; and its leadership actively leverages the company’s commercial success to advance the diplomatic interests of the State of Israel.

Check Point is a strategic dual-use asset. It serves as both a generator of economic power and a guardian of national security infrastructure.

Recommendations for Stakeholders:

• Institutional Investors: Must classify Check Point as a “High Risk” entity regarding Human Rights and Conflict Zones. The company’s involvement in the West Bank surveillance apparatus (Meitar/Wolf) likely violates UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs).
• Government Clients: Foreign governments procuring Check Point software should be aware that they are integrating a product deeply enmeshed with a foreign intelligence apparatus, raising potential sovereignty and data privacy concerns.
• Civil Society: Activist efforts focusing on the digital occupation should recognize Check Point not just as a firewall company, but as the “digital mortar” holding the walls of the occupation together.

Final Governance Rating: Non-Compliant with Neutrality Standards / High Political Risk.

End of Report

Works cited

1. Unit 8200 – Wikipedia, accessed January 16, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_8200
2. Check Point – Wikipedia, accessed January 16, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_Point
3. Gil Shwed – Wikipedia, accessed January 16, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Shwed
4. Check Point Software: Ex-Israeli military spooks profiting from the cyber-security industry, accessed January 16, 2026, https://corporatewatch.org/check-point-software-ex-israeli-military-spooks-profiting-from-the-cyber-security-industry/
5. Check Point Founder and CEO Gil Shwed Awarded Israel’s Top Honor – The Israel Prize in High Tech and Innovation, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.checkpoint.com/press-releases/check-point-founder-ceo-gil-shwed-awarded-israels-top-honor-israel-prize-high-tech-innovation/
6. Jason Gewirtz – Israel’s Edge – The Story of Talpiot, The Idf’s Most Elite Unit-Gefen Books (2016) | PDF | Yom Kippur War – Scribd, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.scribd.com/document/709450152/Jason-Gewirtz-Israel-s-Edge-The-Story-of-Talpiot-the-Idf-s-Most-Elite-Unit-Gefen-Books-2016
7. Gil Shwed wins first-ever Israel Prize in high-tech – Globes English, accessed January 16, 2026, https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-check-point-ceo-gil-shwed-wins-israel-prize-1001226129
8. CHECK POINT SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD – 1015922 – 2025 – SEC.gov, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1015922/000117891325000867/zk2532836.htm
9. 20F-2024.pdf – Check Point, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.checkpoint.com/downloads/investor/20F-2024.pdf
10. ‘Land of Creation’: The Position, Brand Owners, and Contributors for Israel’s Branding – Papp-Váry Árpád, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.papp-vary.hu/english/Land_of_Creation_The_Position_Brand_Owners_and_Contributors_for_Israels_Branding.pdf
11. Meet the women trying to turn Israel into the ‘Marketing Nation’ | The Drum, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.thedrum.com/opinion/meet-the-women-trying-turn-israel-the-marketing-nation
12. UK investors to visit Israel on business opportunity quest, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-investors-to-visit-israel-on-business-opportunity-quest/
13. U.K. Delegation Arrives in Israel for Back-to-Back Meetings With Local Companies | Ctech, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.calcalistech.com/ctech/articles/0,7340,L-3725388,00.html
14. The Israeli Occupation Industry – One Software … – Who Profits, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.whoprofits.org/companies/company/3649
15. accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1905660/000121390024070066/ea0210187-20f_hubcyber.htm
16. AWS Marketplace: ONE ServiceNow Integration Hub – Amazon.com, accessed January 16, 2026, https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-uqhvm5unabko2
17. IIF | Israel Investment Fund, LP, accessed January 16, 2026, https://turbot-blenny-xfm4.squarespace.com/s/Fact-Sheet-Q4-2024-01102025.pdf
18. ARK Israel Innovative Technology ETF Holdings – Quiver Quantitative, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.quiverquant.com/etf/ARK%20Israel%20Innovative%20Technology%20ETF
19. Israel/OPT: Israeli authorities are using facial recognition technology to entrench apartheid, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/05/israel-opt-israeli-authorities-are-using-facial-recognition-technology-to-entrench-apartheid/
20. Explainer: The Role of AI in Israel’s Genocidal Campaign Against Palestinians | Institute for Palestine Studies, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/1656285
21. Algorithmic State Violence: Automated Surveillance and Palestinian Dispossession in Hebron’s Old City – Cambridge University Press & Assessment, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/80B9C5192057ACEA17089E488CFC1486/S0020743823000879a.pdf/algorithmic_state_violence_automated_surveillance_and_palestinian_dispossession_in_hebrons_old_city.pdf
22. Automated Apartheid: How Palestinians Became the World’s Most Surveilled People, accessed January 16, 2026, https://untoldmag.org/automated-apartheid-palestinians-surveillance/
23. BIOMETRICS AND COUNTER-TERRORISM Case study of Israel/Palestine – Privacy International, accessed January 16, 2026, https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/PI%20Counterterrorism%20and%20Biometrics%20Report%20Israel_Palestine%20v7.pdf
24. Israel National Cyber Directorate – Gov.il, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.gov.il/en/departments/israel_national_cyber_directorate/govil-landing-page
25. Leadership – Executive Management & Board Of Directors – Check Point Software, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.checkpoint.com/about-us/leadership/
26. #LeaveRussia: Check Point Software is Reducing its Business Operations in Russia, accessed January 16, 2026, https://leave-russia.org/check-point-software
27. The Russian-Ukrainian War, One Year Later – Check Point Blog, accessed January 16, 2026, https://blog.checkpoint.com/2023/02/21/the-russian-ukrainian-war-one-year-later/
28. Russian invasion of Ukraine sees online forces mobilize as cyberattacks mount, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/russian-invasion-of-ukraine-sees-online-forces-mobilize-as-cyberattacks-mount/
29. How the Eastern Europe Conflict Has Polarized Cyberspace – Check Point Blog, accessed January 16, 2026, https://blog.checkpoint.com/security/how-the-eastern-europe-conflict-polarized-cyberspace/
30. How the Cybersecurity Industry Is Aiding Israel’s War Effort – BankInfoSecurity, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/how-cybersecurity-industry-aiding-israels-war-effort-a-23295
31. Check Point Provides Cyber Perspective on Israel-Hamas War | MSSP Alert, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.msspalert.com/news/check-point-provides-cyber-perspective-on-israel-hamas-war
32. The Iron Swords War – Cyber Perspectives from … – Check Point Blog, accessed January 16, 2026, https://blog.checkpoint.com/security/the-iron-swords-war-cyber-perspectives-from-the-first-10-days-of-the-war-in-israel/
33. Hamas-Israel Conflict 2023: Frequently Asked Questions – Gov.il, accessed January 16, 2026, https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/___https:/www.gov.il/en/Departments/General/swords-of-iron-faq-6-dec-2023___.YzJ1Omxpb25icmlkZ2U6YzpvOjg3NWQyNjQyYjYzZDcxM2I4YTA3ZTg2NmFmN2QyMDZjOjY6N2NlNDo0ZDZkODY2NGQwNDk3NWFiZWZjNDUyM2JlODVhNWNjNzc5ZmY5ZDc2YzMwMTM2N2I3OGMwNWVmYTI5NTAyZTYzOnA6RjpO
34. Evolving Cyber Dynamics Amidst the Israel-Hamas Conflict – Check Point Blog, accessed January 16, 2026, https://blog.checkpoint.com/security/evolving-cyber-dynamics-amidst-the-israel-hamas-conflict/
35. The Daily Edition | The Times of Israel, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-daily-edition/2018-03-05/
36. Iran accelerates cyber ops against Israel from chaotic start – Microsoft On the Issues, accessed January 16, 2026, https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2024/02/06/iran-accelerates-cyber-ops-against-israel/
37. U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel – Congress.gov, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RL/PDF/RL33222/RL33222.47.pdf
38. UK Israel Business Sends British Executives To Israel – NoCamels, accessed January 16, 2026, https://nocamels.com/2017/11/uk-israel-business-tech/
39. Targeting Israeli Apartheid – Corporate Watch -, accessed January 16, 2026, https://corporatewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/targeting-israeli-apartheid-jan-2012.pdf
40. DOING BUSINESS IN ISRAEL Legal and Business Guide – PwC, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.pwc.com/il/en/home/assets/-doing-business-in-israel-2015.pdf
41. Atlanta, GA – FutureCon Events, accessed January 16, 2026, https://futureconevents.com/events/atlanta-ga-2025/
42. Sponsor logos | Cybertech Tokyo 2025, accessed January 16, 2026, https://tokyo.cybertechconference.com/partners
43. Sponsor logos | Cybertech Europe 2026, accessed January 16, 2026, https://italy.cybertechconference.com/partners
44. CPX 2025 – Check Point Software, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.checkpoint.com/cpx/
45. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announces Creation of CyberSpark in Beer-Sheva, accessed January 16, 2026, https://in.bgu.ac.il/en/Pages/news/CyberSpark.aspx
46. ‘Order from Amazon’: Tech giants storing mass data for Israel’s war – +972 Magazine, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.972mag.com/cloud-israeli-army-gaza-amazon-google-microsoft/
47. How much does BDS threaten Israel’s economy? – Brookings Institution, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-much-does-bds-threaten-israels-economy/
48. Anti-BDS laws – Wikipedia, accessed January 16, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
49. Israel and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement – EveryCRSReport.com, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44281.html
50. USA: Two Microsoft workers fired after protests during 50th anniversary events against the supplying of AI technology to Israel’s military amid the genocide in Gaza – Business and Human Rights Centre, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/israelopt-two-microsoft-workers-fired-after-protests-during-50th-anniversary-events-against-the-supplying-of-ai-technology-to-israels-military-during-the-genocide-in-gaza/
51. Microsoft workers fired over Gaza vigil say company ‘crumbled under pressure’ | US news, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/02/microsoft-workers-fired-gaza-vigil
52. Tech Worker Testimonies on Palestinian Advocacy & Workplace Suppression – 7amleh, accessed January 16, 2026, https://7amleh.org/storage/Advocacy%20Reports/Delete%20the%20issue-11.11.pdf
53. Privacy Policy – Check Point Software, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.checkpoint.com/privacy/
54. Privacy Policy – Check Point Research, accessed January 16, 2026, https://research.checkpoint.com/privacy-policy/
55. Alleged Sale of Check Point Software Technologies Network Access – Cyber Press, accessed January 16, 2026, https://cyberpress.org/software-network-access/
56. The Check Point Breach: A Detailed Analysis – SQUID SEC -, accessed January 16, 2026, https://squidhacker.com/2025/04/check-point-breach-a-cybersecurity-wake-up-call-and-a-promotion-goldmine/
57. Checkpoint Software Technologies Blocks Access to Rocket League Site for Company Policy, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.weareiowa.com/article/news/local/plea-agreement-reached-in-des-moines-murder-trial/524-3069d9d4-6f9b-4039-b884-1d2146bd744f?y-news-24981207-2026-01-09-checkpoint-software-technologies-blocks-access-to-rocket-league-site-for-company-policy
58. Will the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund divest from Israel ? | npkpress – Nederlands Palestina-Komitee, accessed January 16, 2026, https://palestina-komitee.nl/will-the-worlds-largest-sovereign-wealth-fund-divest-from-israel/
59. Palestine, ethics and the Oil Fund – Attac Norge, accessed January 16, 2026, https://attac.no/oljerapporten/forfatterne/stop-the-wall-2/
60. Human Rights and Labor Policy | Check Point, accessed January 16, 2026, https://www.checkpoint.com/downloads/company/esg-human-rights-labor-policy.pdf