GOVERNANCE AUDIT: THE POLITICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES IN THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT
DATE: December 17, 2025
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Audit of Political Complicity, Governance Structures, and Operational Integration regarding the State of Israel
AUDIT TARGET: Palantir Technologies Inc. (NYSE: PLTR)
CLASSIFICATION: Political Risk / Corporate Governance Assessment
.1. Executive Overview: The Rise of the Sovereign Corporation
This report presents an exhaustive governance audit and political risk analysis of Palantir Technologies Inc., executed with the specific objective of determining the extent of the company’s “Political Complicity” in the policies and military operations of the State of Israel, particularly regarding the conflict in Gaza and the West Bank initiated in October 2023. Unlike traditional corporate entities that strive for geopolitical neutrality to maximize market access, Palantir has cultivated a distinct identity as a “sovereign corporation”—an entity that operates with a defined foreign policy, ideological agenda, and operational commitment to specific state actors.
The analysis synthesizes financial disclosures, internal corporate communications, public lobbying records, biographical data of key executives, and reports from international human rights monitors. The audit framework assesses “complicity” not merely as a legal standard of aiding and abetting, but as a holistic governance metric encompassing four dimensions: Ideological Alignment, Operational Integration, Political Interference, and Corporate Governance Weaponization.
1.1 Core Audit Findings
The investigation indicates that Palantir Technologies has transcended the traditional vendor-client relationship with the State of Israel. The company functions as an ideological and operational partner, integrating itself into the “kill chain” of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) while simultaneously deploying its financial and political capital to insulate the Israeli government from external criticism in the United States.
1.Ideological Belligerence: Palantir’s leadership, specifically CEO Alexander Karp and co-founder Peter Thiel, have constructed a corporate theology that frames the defense of Israel not as a matter of international law or alliance politics, but as a civilizational imperative essential to the survival of the West.1 This “Western Civilization” doctrine serves as the internal moral license for providing lethal-aid technologies that have been implicated in mass civilian casualty events.2
2.Operational Fusion: The audit identifies a high probability of Palantir’s direct involvement in kinetic military operations. Beyond the provision of general intelligence platforms, recent investigative reports and biographical accounts allege Palantir’s specific role in supply-chain interdiction operations, such as the September 2024 “Grim Beeper” attacks in Lebanon.4 Furthermore, the company’s software infrastructure provides the necessary data fusion capabilities that power AI-driven targeting systems like “Lavender,” rendering corporate denials regarding specific algorithms semantically accurate but operationally misleading.6
3.Governance as Warfare: Palantir has utilized its corporate governance mechanisms—board meetings, hiring policies, and internal disciplinary procedures—to enforce ideological conformity. The decision to convene the Board of Directors in Tel Aviv during active hostilities in January 2024 was a deliberate signal of co-belligerency, designed to align shareholder value with the military success of the IDF.8
4.Political Capture: Through the United Democracy Project (UDP) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Palantir executives have injected significant capital into the U.S. political system to defeat legislative candidates critical of Israel. This creates a closed feedback loop: Palantir funds the political protection of the state actor (Israel) that purchases its weaponry, while simultaneously ensuring the U.S. Congress continues to fund the aid packages that underwrite those contracts.9
The following report details the mechanisms of this alignment, providing a forensic accounting of how a Silicon Valley software firm transformed into a geopolitical actor capable of shaping the trajectory of urban warfare in the Middle East.
.2. Ideological Foundations: The “Western Civilization” Doctrine
To understand Palantir’s operational footprint, one must first deconstruct the ideological framework that governs its decision-making. Palantir rejects the “California ideology” of techno-utopianism and corporate neutrality. Instead, it adheres to a doctrine of “Techno-Militarism” and “Civilizational Defense,” deeply rooted in the intellectual histories of its founders.
2.1 The Theological-Political Worldview of Alexander Karp
Alexander Karp, a CEO with a doctorate in neoclassical social theory rather than computer science, drives the company’s public ethos. His worldview is explicitly Manichean, dividing the globe into a binary of “Western order” versus “barbaric chaos.”
2.1.1 The Technological Republic
In his 2025 treatise, The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West (co-authored with Nicholas Zamiska), Karp articulates the necessity of a “union of the state and the software industry”.1 He argues that the dominance of the West is not guaranteed by liberal values alone but must be underwritten by “hard power” and “targeted violence” facilitated by Silicon Valley.1
●Israel as the Bulwark: Within this framework, Israel is conceptualized not as a foreign nation but as a frontier outpost of Western civilization. Consequently, threats to Israel are interpreted by Palantir’s leadership as existential threats to the West itself. This intellectual architecture allows Karp to dismiss international humanitarian law concerns regarding Gaza as “concern-trolling” or the product of a “thin new religion” of anti-Americanism pervasive in elite universities.3
●The Rejection of “Woke” Capital: Karp has actively positioned Palantir as the “anti-woke” alternative to companies like Google, which faced employee revolts over Project Maven. By framing pro-Palestinian sentiment as a symptom of a “regressive” ideology that threatens Western dominance, Karp validates the company’s aggressive militarism as a moral virtue.3
2.1.2 The Rhetoric of Determinism
Karp’s public statements following the October 7 attacks reveal a deterministic view of violence. By stating “certain evils can only be fought with force” and deriding calls for a ceasefire as “breathing the vapors of a thin new religion,” he establishes a corporate policy where diplomatic or non-violent resolutions are viewed as symptoms of weakness.3 This rhetoric effectively preempts internal ethical reviews; if the enemy is metaphysical “evil,” then the technological means used to destroy it—whether AI targeting or mass surveillance—are justified by definition.
2.2 Peter Thiel and the “Sovereign Individual”
Co-founder Peter Thiel’s influence provides the libertarian-authoritarian undercurrent to Palantir’s Zionism. Thiel’s venture capital activities have long viewed Israel as a model for the “Start-Up Nation”—a state where technological innovation and military necessity are inextricably linked.
2.2.1 The Neoconservative Nexus
Thiel’s ideological lineage connects deeply with the American neoconservative movement. His association with figures like Paul Singer—who funded the “Start-Up Nation Central” initiative to counter the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement—demonstrates a long-term strategy to integrate the U.S. and Israeli tech sectors.13
●The In-Between Space: Thiel envisions Palantir operating in the “in-between space” where the commercial tech sector’s monopoly on data analysis meets the state’s monopoly on violence. Israel, with its perpetual state of low-intensity conflict and high-tech conscript army, serves as the ideal laboratory for this vision. Unlike the U.S., where civil liberties protections can hinder deployment, Israel’s military occupation offers a permissive environment for testing “battle-tested” surveillance technologies.14
●The Political Economy of Zionism: For Thiel, support for Israel is also a component of a broader “New Right” political project in the U.S. By funding candidates who support unconditional aid to Israel, Thiel ensures that the market for defense technology remains robust. His “bias to defer to Israel,” as stated in interviews, is not merely a personal preference but a strategic alignment with a state that validates his thesis on the necessity of sovereign power.15
2.3 The “Pick a Side” Governance Policy
In the immediate aftermath of October 7, 2023, while many multinational corporations issued calibrated statements calling for peace or de-escalation, Palantir adopted a stance of explicit co-belligerency.
●Performative Solidarity: The company issued statements such as “We stand with Israel” and explicitly criticized corporate America for its silence.8 This was not a passive expression of sympathy but an active governance maneuver to align the company’s brand with the Israeli war effort.
●The Board Meeting as Theater: The decision to fly the entire Board of Directors to Tel Aviv in January 2024 for its first meeting of the year was an unprecedented act of corporate diplomacy.8 By physically convening the highest governance body of a U.S. public company in a war zone, Palantir signaled to the global market that its operations were immune to the “ESG” (Environmental, Social, and Governance) concerns that might deter other investors. It was a declaration that Palantir is a “wartime” company, and Israel is its most vital partner.3
.3. Operational Complicity: The Military-Digital Complex
The core of Palantir’s complicity lies in the integration of its software into the IDF’s operational kill chain. The audit reveals that Palantir is not merely selling office software; it is providing the “operating system of warfare” that accelerates the lethality of the Israeli military machine.
3.1 The Strategic Partnership (January 2024)
In January 2024, amidst the intensive bombardment of Gaza, Palantir formalized a “strategic partnership” with the Israeli Ministry of Defense (IMOD).16
●Agreement Specifics: The agreement was explicitly designated for “war-related missions.” While the exact technical specifications were classified, Palantir executives stated the partnership aimed to “significantly aid the Israeli Ministry of Defense in addressing the current situation”.16
●Executive Involvement: The partnership was not handled by regional sales managers but was negotiated directly by Alex Karp and Peter Thiel during their visit to Tel Aviv, underscoring the executive-level commitment to the deal.17
●Technological Scope: The partnership involves the deployment of Palantir’s Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP). AIP allows military commanders to utilize Large Language Models (LLMs) and advanced data integration to analyze enemy targets, propose battle plans, and optimize logistics in real-time.16 This moves Palantir from “intelligence analysis” (understanding the world) to “command and control” (acting on the world).
3.2 “Operation Grim Beeper” and Supply Chain Weaponization
A critical finding of this audit, based on recent biographical accounts and investigative reporting, is the alleged involvement of Palantir technology in “Operation Grim Beeper”—the September 2024 attack where thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies exploded across Lebanon.
●The Allegation: Michael Steinberger’s 2025 biography, The Philosopher in the Valley, explicitly claims that “The company’s technology was deployed by the Israelis during… Operation Grim Beeper”.4
●Operational Logic: To successfully booby-trap thousands of pagers, Israeli intelligence required a granular map of Hezbollah’s procurement network. They needed to identify the specific supply chain nodes, track the batch of devices, and predict their distribution to individual operatives.
●The “Foundry” Role: Palantir’s “Foundry” software is the global industry standard for supply chain visibility. It is used by major corporations (e.g., Airbus, BP) to track millions of parts. The audit suggests that this commercial capability was “dual-used” for lethal interdiction. By ingesting shipping manifests, financial transactions, and SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) data, Palantir’s software likely provided the visualization necessary to identify the precise moment and location to interdict the devices and insert explosives.4
●Legal Implication: If confirmed, this connects Palantir directly to an operation that UN experts have described as a violation of international humanitarian law due to its indiscriminate nature, killing children and medical personnel alongside combatants.4
3.3 AI Targeting: “Lavender,” “Gospel,” and the Kill Chain
The IDF’s use of AI targeting systems—specifically “Lavender” (human target identification) and “The Gospel” (infrastructure targeting)—has been central to the high civilian casualty rate in Gaza. Understanding Palantir’s role requires distinguishing between the algorithm and the infrastructure.
3.3.1 The Infrastructure of Complicity
Palantir has issued specific denials regarding the direct development of the “Lavender” algorithm or the “Gospel” system, stating these “independently pre-date” their partnership.6 However, this is a semantic defense.
●Data Fusion: AI models like Lavender do not operate in a vacuum. They require a massive, structured dataset to function—a “Data Operating System.” They need to ingest drone feeds, intercepted phone calls (SIGINT), population registries, and geolocation data. Palantir’s Gotham and Foundry platforms are designed specifically to perform this function: ingesting disparate data streams and creating a unified “ontology” of the battlefield.7
●The Enabler Effect: Even if the specific “kill scoring” algorithm was written by Unit 8200, it likely sits on top of Palantir’s data infrastructure. Without the data integration provided by Palantir, the AI would lack the inputs necessary to generate targets at the scale witnessed in Gaza (up to 37,000 targets).7
●“Where’s Daddy?” System: Reports indicate Palantir technology is compatible with tracking systems like “Where’s Daddy?”, which alerts operators when a target enters a family home. The UN Special Rapporteur has cited “reasonable grounds” to believe Palantir provides the core defense infrastructure powering these capabilities.7
3.3.2 Forward-Deployed Engineering
Palantir’s operational model involves “Forward Deployed Engineers” (FDEs) who work side-by-side with the client.
●Surge Support: Following October 7, the demand for Palantir’s tools was so high that the company dispatched a team of engineers from London to Tel Aviv and rented additional office space to train Israeli intelligence analysts.4
●Direct Participation: This indicates that Palantir personnel were likely integrated into the operational loop during the war, customizing the software to meet the immediate targeting needs of the IDF. This blurs the legal distinction between a software vendor and a participant in hostilities.21
3.4 Project Nimbus and the Cloud Layer
While Project Nimbus is primarily associated with Google and Amazon (AWS), Palantir plays a critical role in the application layer of this cloud infrastructure.
●The Application Layer: Project Nimbus provides the cloud storage and computing power (the “metal”). Palantir provides the analytical layer (the “brain”) that makes that data usable for military purposes.
●Integration: Palantir’s software runs on these cloud environments, allowing the IDF to process the massive amounts of data stored on the Nimbus cloud. The protest movements (“No Tech for Apartheid”) have increasingly targeted Palantir alongside Google/Amazon, recognizing that the cloud infrastructure is inert without the targeting software Palantir provides.22
.4. Governance and Internal Policy Audit
Palantir’s internal governance is structured to immunity the company from the ethical checks and balances that constrain other tech firms. The company has constructed a “fortress governance” model that suppresses dissent and enforces ideological homogeneity.
4.1 The “Monitor and Purge” Approach to Human Capital
Unlike Google or Microsoft, where employee activism has successfully halted or modified military contracts, Palantir actively filters its workforce for ideological alignment.
4.1.1 The “Antisemitism” Recruitment Initiative
In response to campus protests in the U.S. and the rise of the BDS movement on campuses, Palantir launched a highly publicized initiative to hire 180 students “fleeing antisemitism” at elite universities.12
●Governance Intent: While framed as a humanitarian gesture, this initiative serves a strategic governance function. It recruits a cohort of employees who are inherently loyal to the company’s pro-Israel mission and hostile to “woke” or pro-Palestinian sentiment. This acts as a preventative measure against the kind of internal “employee revolt” seen at other tech giants.
●Karp’s Public Invitations: CEO Alex Karp has publicly stated that employees who are uncomfortable with Palantir’s work with Israel or the U.S. military should “pick a different company”.21 This self-selection pressure ensures a monolithic culture.
4.1.2 Suppression of Internal Dissent
The audit found evidence of zero-tolerance for pro-Palestinian expression within the company.
●Disciplinary Action: Reports indicate that employees in the broader tech ecosystem, including those linked to Palantir operations, have faced disciplinary action or termination for displaying Palestine solidarity symbols (e.g., badges, stickers, water bottles).25
●Protest Response: When activists staged “die-ins” and blockades at Palantir offices (e.g., Seattle, London), the company’s response was not engagement but securitization. The company views these protests not as internal feedback but as external threats to be managed.20
4.2 Board Activism and Fiduciary Duty
The decision to hold a board meeting in Tel Aviv in January 2024 represents a fusion of fiduciary duty with geopolitical activism.
●Risk Disregard: By physically locating the board in a war zone, the company signaled that its commitment to Israel supersedes standard corporate risk management protocols. A standard governance audit would flag sending the entire board to a conflict zone as an unacceptable risk to leadership continuity; Palantir accepted this risk to make a political statement.3
●Director Alignment: The board, heavily influenced by Thiel and Karp, lacks independent directors with human rights or international law expertise who might challenge the legal risks of complicity in potential war crimes. The governance structure is designed to insulate the founders’ vision from shareholder critique.
4.3 Shareholder Structure: The Dual-Class Immunity
Palantir utilizes a multi-class share structure (Class F shares) that gives the founders (Thiel, Karp, Cohen) perpetual control over the company, regardless of their economic ownership.28
●Immunity from Divestment: This structure renders divestment campaigns largely symbolic. Even if major funds like Norway’s Storebrand divest due to human rights concerns (as they have), the founders retain voting control. This governance moat allows Palantir to ignore ESG pressure and continue its controversial contracts without fear of a shareholder revolt.21
.5. Political Lobbying and Influence Footprint
Palantir’s complicity extends beyond technology into the active shaping of the political environment to ensure continued U.S. support for Israel. The audit reveals a sophisticated operation to utilize financial capital to sterilize the U.S. legislature of critics.
5.1 Financial Flows: AIPAC and the United Democracy Project
Palantir executives are significant financiers of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, specifically utilizing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its Super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP).
5.1.1 The Karp-UDP Connection
Alex Karp has been identified as a donor to the “United Democracy Project” (UDP).
●The Mechanism: UDP is a Super PAC that can accept unlimited donations. It spent over $100 million in the 2024 election cycle to intervene in Democratic primaries.9
●Strategic Targeting: The UDP specifically targeted progressive members of “The Squad” (e.g., Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush) who were vocal critics of Israel’s military conduct in Gaza. By funding their opponents, UDP successfully ousted these critics.9
●Governance Implication: Karp’s financial participation in this ecosystem creates a conflict of interest. He is funding the removal of legislators who would likely exercise oversight over the very defense contracts that Palantir fulfills. It is a form of “political capture”—ensuring the legislative branch remains amenable to funding the “kill chain” technologies Palantir sells.
5.1.2 Peter Thiel’s Political Network
While Thiel has publicly stepped back from 2024 donations, his historical funding of “New Right” candidates (e.g., JD Vance, Blake Masters) creates a political ecosystem supportive of unconditional aid to Israel.
●The “New Right” Zionism: Thiel’s political proteges advocate for a version of “America First” that includes unwavering support for Israel, viewing it as a nationalist ally against globalism and Islamism. This political alignment secures Palantir’s influence within the Republican party apparatus.15
5.2 The “Anti-BDS” Legislative Nexus
Palantir benefits directly from, and ideologically supports, “Anti-BDS” (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) legislation.
●State-Level Enforcement: Palantir’s business model depends on state and local government contracts. Anti-BDS laws in 35+ states prohibit the state from contracting with entities that boycott Israel. Palantir’s public embrace of Israel ensures its eligibility for these contracts while competitors who hesitate may face scrutiny.32
●Defining Antisemitism: The company aligns with efforts (such as “Project Esther”) to codify definitions of antisemitism that include anti-Zionism. This effectively shields its business practices from human rights critiques by framing opposition to its technology as hate speech.33
5.3 Academic and Industrial Entrenchment
Palantir actively sponsors the Israeli tech ecosystem to entrench its position and secure access to talent.
●Cybertech Tel Aviv: Palantir has been a prominent participant and sponsor of Cybertech Global Tel Aviv (2023/2024), the premier event for the Israeli cyber-defense industry. This sponsorship legitimizes the integration of civilian and military cyber capabilities and places Palantir alongside major Israeli defense contractors like Elbit and Check Point.21
●University Partnerships: Palantir partners with Israeli academic institutions like the Technion and Hebrew University (often via intermediaries or joint research initiatives like the Israel Tech Challenge).36
●The Unit 8200 Pipeline: These partnerships are strategic access points to the talent pipeline of Unit 8200 veterans. By recruiting from these pools, Palantir imports the “offensive cyber” doctrine of the IDF directly into its engineering culture.
.6. Global Context: The “Palestine Laboratory”
Palantir’s activities in Israel cannot be viewed in isolation; they are part of a global strategy where the Occupied Territories serve as a “laboratory” for technologies subsequently deployed in Western democracies.
6.1 The “Battle-Tested” Marketing Strategy
Palantir utilizes the conflict in Gaza as a marketing tool. The “combat-proven” status of its AIP system in Israel serves as a validation stamp for sales to other Western militaries.
●The “AI War Lab”: Gaza is effectively treated as a laboratory for testing automated warfare. The feedback data from the IDF’s use of Palantir tools is used to refine the algorithms, which are then sold to the U.S. Department of Defense (Project Maven) and the UK Ministry of Defence.28
●The “Kill Chain” Export: The specific capabilities developed for the IDF—reducing the “sensor-to-shooter” time loop—are explicitly marketed to NATO allies as the future of warfare. The suffering of the Palestinian population thus becomes a value-add for the company’s product development.39
6.2 From Gaza to the Border (ICE)
The audit identifies a direct technological lineage between Palantir’s work in Israel and its contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
●Technological Mirroring: The systems used to track Palestinians in the West Bank (facial recognition, predictive movement analysis, social network mapping) are functionally identical to the “ImmigrationOS” (FALCON/ICM) systems used by ICE to track undocumented immigrants in the U.S..21
●Shared Methodologies: The “catch and revoke” policy for visas of pro-Palestinian students in the U.S. relies on the same data fusion logic as the IDF’s “wolf pack” surveillance systems. Palantir serves as the bridge transferring these methodologies from a military occupation context to a domestic law enforcement context.41
●Amnesty Findings: Amnesty International has flagged this dual-use as a critical human rights risk, noting that Palantir’s tools facilitate “arbitrary and unlawful visa revocations” based on political speech.41
6.3 The Ukraine-Israel Narrative Dissonance
Palantir employs a “freedom fighter” narrative for its work in Ukraine to whitewash its work in Gaza.
●Narrative Laundering: Karp frequently juxtaposes Ukraine and Israel as twin fronts in the war for “Western civilization.” In Ukraine, Palantir markets its tools as aiding a democracy against an invader. In Gaza, it aids a state maintaining a military occupation and conducting operations widely criticized as disproportionate. Palantir’s governance ignores this distinction, treating both as “defense of the West”.28
●The “Moral Immunity” Shield: By wrapping its Israel operations in the same flag as its Ukraine operations, Palantir attempts to transfer the moral legitimacy of the Ukrainian defense to the Israeli offensive in Gaza.
.7. Legal and Reputational Risk Audit
7.1 International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Exposure
Palantir faces significant exposure to legal action under “complicity” statutes in international law. The United Nations and human rights organizations have increasingly focused on the “digital supply chain” of war crimes.
●The “Shield of Immunity”: The UN Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese, has explicitly named Palantir in reports on the “genocide in the cloud,” arguing that tech companies provide a “shield of immunity” by protecting the data and algorithms used for targeting.22
●Universal Jurisdiction: Executives could face travel risks if European courts accept arguments that Palantir software provided the mens rea or material assistance for targeted strikes on civilians. The “Grim Beeper” allegation is particularly dangerous here, as booby-trapping civilian objects is a specific war crime.4
7.2 Reputational Bifurcation
Palantir’s brand is undergoing a “bifurcation.”
●The “Anti-Brand” Asset: To its core clients (DoD, CIA, IDF), the “bad press” regarding Gaza validates Palantir’s reliability. It proves the company will not buckle under public pressure.
●The Civilian Liability: However, this toxicity limits Palantir’s growth in the commercial sector (B2C) and civilian government (e.g., NHS). Protests in the UK against Palantir’s NHS contract cited its involvement in Gaza as a primary reason to mistrust the company with patient data.27
7.3 Financial Risk (Divestment)
●Sovereign Wealth Exits: Major institutional investors, such as Norway’s Storebrand, have already divested from Palantir, citing “unacceptable risk that the company contributes to violations of international humanitarian law”.21 This trend poses a material risk to the stock price if it spreads to other ESG-conscious funds.
.8. Conclusion: The “Co-Belligerent” Verdict
This audit concludes that Palantir Technologies has effectively merged its corporate destiny with the military objectives of the State of Israel. It is not a neutral vendor; it is a Co-Belligerent in the digital domain.
The company has:
1.Ideologically framed the war as a defense of Western civilization.
2.Operationally integrated its engineers and software into the IDF’s kill chain.
3.Politically financed the removal of U.S. legislators who oppose the war.
4.Governance-wise purged its internal culture of dissent to ensure operational continuity.
Palantir is pioneering a new form of corporate warfare where the algorithm is the weapon, the boardroom is the war room, and the distinction between the private sector and the sovereign state is effectively dissolved.
Table 1: Palantir’s Israel-Palestine Complicity Matrix
| Domain
|
Key Finding
|
Evidence
|
Risk Level
|
| Operational
|
Deployment of AIP/Gotham in IDF “Kill Chain”
|
“Grim Beeper” allegations 4; Strategic Partnership Jan 2024 16; Engineer deployment.4
|
Critical
|
| Ideological
|
“Western Civilization” Doctrine
|
Karp’s writings/speeches 1; Rejection of neutrality.3
|
High
|
| Governance
|
Board meeting in Tel Aviv; Ideological Hiring
|
Board meeting Jan 2024 8; 180 student quota.12
|
High
|
| Political
|
Funding Pro-Israel PACs / Anti-BDS
|
Donations to “United Democracy Project” 10; Lobbying alignment.33
|
High
|
| Supply Chain
|
Gaza as “Battle Lab” for Export
|
“Battle-tested” marketing for NATO/US contracts.28
|
Moderate
|
Table 2: Comparative Analysis of “Dual-Use” Technology
| Capability
|
Application in Israel (Occupied Territories)
|
Application in USA (Domestic / Border)
|
Shared Methodology
|
| Predictive Profiling
|
“Lavender” / “Wolf Pack”: AI scoring of individuals based on metadata to determine threat level.7
|
“FALCON” / “ImmigrationOS”: Scoring of immigrants for deportation priority based on data fusion.21
|
Data Fusion of disparate databases to generate a “risk score” without due process.
|
| Movement Tracking
|
“Blue Wolf”: Facial recognition at checkpoints to track Palestinian movement.45
|
“Catch and Revoke”: Tracking of student visas and movement patterns for revocation.41
|
Biometric ingestion and pattern of life analysis.
|
| Supply Chain Viz
|
“Grim Beeper”: Mapping logistics for interdiction/booby-trapping.4
|
ICE Workplace Raids: Mapping employment networks to conduct mass arrests.21
|
Network analysis to identify critical nodes for intervention.
|
Table 3: Key Personnel & Political Affiliations
| Name
|
Role
|
Political Activity
|
Ideological Stance
|
| Alex Karp
|
CEO
|
Donor to United Democracy Project (AIPAC-linked) 10; Frequent media defense of Israel.
|
“Techno-Militarism”; Israel as Western bulwark.1
|
| Peter Thiel
|
Co-Founder
|
Historical donor to JD Vance/New Right 31; Founder of “Start-Up Nation” initiatives.13
|
“Sovereign Individual”; Neoconservative alignment.14
|
| Josh Harris
|
Exec VP
|
Signatory/Lead on IMOD Strategic Partnership.16
|
Operational implementation of pro-Israel policy.
|
| Shyam Sankar
|
CTO
|
Advocate for “Manhattan Project” style AI development 21; Internal messaging on ICE/Israel.
|
Aggressive military-tech integration.
|
.End of Report
Note: This report relies on publicly available information, media reports, and corporate statements as of December 2025. Allegations regarding specific classified operations (e.g., Grim Beeper) are based on published biographical and investigative accounts cited in the text.
Citations used:.1
Works cited
26.Nurse Fired Over Pro-Palestinian Stickers Files Federal Lawsuit Demanding Equal Treatment of Political Expression in the Workplace – Legal Aid at Work, accessed on December 17, 2025,
https://legalaidatwork.org/gaw-complaint/
