rAUDIT REPORT: POLITICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF HEWLETT-PACKARD (HP INC. & HPE)
1. PREAMBLE: SCOPE, METHODOLOGY, AND CORPORATE ARCHITECTURE
1.1. Audit Objectives and Operational Scope
This Political Risk and Governance Audit has been commissioned to rigorously evaluate the political and ideological footprint of the corporate entities operating under the “HP” brand—specifically HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE). The primary objective is to document, evidence, and analyze the extent to which these entities’ leadership, ownership structures, and operational activities materially or ideologically support the State of Israel, the occupation of Palestinian territories, and the associated systems of surveillance, militarisation, and incarceration.
The audit is structured to address four Core Intelligence Requirements (CIRs):
1.Governance Ideology: An examination of the Board of Directors and executive leadership for affiliations with Zionist advocacy groups and political posturing.
2.Lobbying & Trade: An analysis of membership in bilateral trade chambers and sponsorship of “Brand Israel” initiatives.
3.The “Safe Harbor” Test: A comparative analysis of corporate responses to the Ukraine-Russia conflict versus the Israel-Gaza conflict to determine the existence of a “Double Standard.”
4.Internal Policy: An investigation into internal corporate governance regarding neutrality, dissent, and the disciplining of staff related to Palestine solidarity.
The findings presented herein are designed to facilitate a subsequent ranking of the target entities on a Political Complicity Scale ranging from “Strict Neutrality” (0.0) to “The Political Project” (10.0). This report provides the raw evidentiary data and analytical context required for that determination.
1.2. Corporate Architecture and the “Split” Defense
A critical component of this audit is the deconstruction of the corporate restructuring that occurred in November 2015, which separated the original Hewlett-Packard Company into two distinct publicly traded entities:
●HP Inc.: Retained the personal systems (PCs) and printing businesses.
●Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE): Retained the enterprise technology infrastructure, software, and services businesses.
Further complicating the chain of accountability, HPE spun off its “Enterprise Services” business in 2017, merging it with Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) to form DXC Technology.1
Despite these legal separations, this audit treats the “HP” brand as a unified ideological and reputational vector for the following reasons:
1.Shared Legacy: Both companies profit from the brand equity and technological infrastructure established during the pre-2015 era, during which the unified company was the primary technology contractor for the Israeli Ministry of Defense (IMOD).1
2.Operational Continuity: Contracts and technologies (such as the Basel System and Aviv System) were transferred between entities (HP to HPE, HPE to DXC) without a cessation of the underlying complicity in human rights violations.3
3.Shared Supply Chains: Post-split, the entities continue to share supply chains and utilize similar rhetoric regarding “social responsibility” while maintaining operations in the same geopolitical theater.2
Therefore, while legal liability may be compartmentalized, the political footprint and ideological complicity are audited across the spectrum of HP-branded operations.
.2. GOVERNANCE IDEOLOGY: LEADERSHIP, BOARD AFFILIATIONS, AND THE “MORAL GAP”
This section scrutinizes the individuals at the helm of HP Inc. and HPE. It seeks to determine if the governance structure is merely profit-driven or if it exhibits an ideological bias that favors the Zionist political project through direct advocacy or “moral leadership” that selectively ignores Palestinian rights.
2.1. HP Inc. Governance and Board Analysis
The Board of Directors of HP Inc. is comprised of high-profile executives from the global consumer goods, finance, and technology sectors. The audit screened these individuals for membership in organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Jewish National Fund (JNF), or Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI).
2.1.1. Chip Bergh: The “Moral Leader” Paradox
Chip Bergh, the Chairman of the Board for HP Inc. (and former CEO of Levi Strauss & Co.), represents a focal point for this analysis. Bergh has cultivated a reputation as a “moral leader” in the corporate world, explicitly advocating for corporate activism on social issues.
●Advocacy Profile: Bergh is a founding board member of The HOW Institute for Society, an organization dedicated to nurturing “moral leadership” and values-based behavior.4 He has publicly stated that companies have a “responsibility to fight hatred in all its forms” and has issued strong statements denouncing anti-Semitism.5 He also actively campaigned against gun violence, positioning himself as a CEO willing to take controversial stands for the greater good.6
●The Ideological Gap: Despite this high profile on social justice, there is no evidence in the audited material that Bergh has applied this “moral leadership” framework to the context of the Israeli occupation. While he has not been identified as a board member of AIPAC or JNF in the provided snippets, his silence on HP’s involvement in the Israeli military complex—while simultaneously championing “moral” causes elsewhere—suggests a form of “Selective Silence” (Band 2.1–3.0). The audit finds a dissonance between his leadership on domestic US social issues and his oversight of a company deeply embedded in the administration of the West Bank occupation.
2.1.2. Enrique Lores and the World Economic Forum
Enrique Lores, President and CEO of HP Inc., is deeply integrated into the globalist corporate architecture.
●Affiliations: Lores is an active contributor to the World Economic Forum (WEF) and serves on its International Business Council.7 The WEF often serves as a normalization vehicle for Israeli technological integration into global markets, framing the “Start-Up Nation” narrative as a model for development.
●Crisis Management: Lores led the Separation Management Office during the 2015 split 7, meaning he possesses intimate institutional knowledge of the legacy contracts with the Israeli Ministry of Defense that were partitioned during the restructure. He cannot claim ignorance of the company’s historical and ongoing entanglement with the Israeli military apparatus.
2.2. Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) Governance
HPE’s leadership structure is similarly aligned with global technocratic elites, with a specific focus on “sovereign” technologies that align well with national security states like Israel.
2.2.1. Antonio Neri: The Technocratic Enabler
Antonio Neri, President and CEO of HPE, is also a member of the WEF International Business Council.8
●Strategic Focus: Neri has championed the concept of “Sovereign AI” and national technological independence, aiming to help governments “control the destiny” of their technology.9 This strategic rhetoric perfectly mirrors the Israeli state’s doctrine of technological superiority and independence in the defense sector.
●Operational Oversight: Neri oversees the deployment of “GreenLake” cloud services and high-performance computing. Under his tenure, HPE has maintained the critical server infrastructure for the Israel Prison Service and the Population Registry, directly facilitating the state’s “sovereign” capability to surveil and incarcerate the Palestinian population.10
2.2.2. Patricia Russo and Board Composition
Patricia Russo, Chairwoman of HPE, brings extensive experience from the defense-adjacent telecommunications sector (Lucent/Alcatel-Lucent).12 While the specific screening for “Friends of Israel” memberships for Russo yielded no direct hits in the provided dataset, the board’s composition includes individuals with backgrounds in major US defense contractors and financial institutions that heavily invest in Israel.
●Board Interlocks: The presence of directors like Frank A. D’Amelio (former VP of Engineering at Facebook/Meta) and Regina E. Dugan (former Director of DARPA) 13 suggests a governance culture deeply comfortable with the intersection of technology, surveillance, and state military power. This environment is conducive to maintaining the “Business-as-Usual” relationship with the Israeli defense establishment.
2.3. Missing Ideological Links: The “Start-Up Nation” Proxy
While the audit did not find “smoking gun” membership cards for AIPAC or CFI among the current CEOs in the snippets, the structural ideology is evident. The leadership of both companies actively participates in the “Start-Up Nation” narrative.
●Benny Landa and HP Indigo: The acquisition of Indigo (founded by Benny Landa) integrated a fiercely Zionist entrepreneurial DNA into HP. Landa is cited by UK politicians as a pioneer of Israeli innovation.14 By maintaining and expanding HP Indigo’s manufacturing base in Israel (Kiryat Gat), HP’s leadership implicitly endorses the economic normalization of the state, prioritizing access to Israeli R&D over human rights due diligence.15
.3. THE “SAFE HARBOR” TEST: A COMPARATIVE CRISIS RESPONSE AUDIT
The “Safe Harbor” test evaluates whether a company applies a consistent ethical standard to geopolitical conflicts or if it exhibits a “Double Standard” that privileges the Israeli state. This section compares HP’s corporate response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022) against its response to the Israeli military campaigns in Gaza (2023-2024).
3.1. The Ukraine Standard: Active Condemnation and Divestment
Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, HP Inc. moved with speed and moral clarity to sever ties with the aggressor state.
●Official Statement: On March 3, 2022, HP Inc. issued a statement declaring they were “deeply disturbed by the escalating images of war in Ukraine and the unfolding humanitarian crisis”.16
●Operational Cessation: The company immediately suspended shipments to Russia and Belarus and “paused all marketing and advertising activities”.16
●Humanitarian Aid: The HP Foundation provided grants to UNICEF, UNHCR, and the Polish Red Cross to support Ukrainian relief efforts.16
●Policy Rationale: The decision was explicitly framed in moral terms, citing the “violence” and the need for the “restoration of peace.”
3.2. The Gaza Standard: “Strict Neutrality” and Complicity
In stark contrast, HP’s response to the devastation in Gaza (post-October 2023) and the decades-long occupation of the West Bank has been characterized by defensive neutrality and operational continuity.
●Official Statement: In response to BDS campaigns, HP Inc. issued a statement asserting: “As a matter of policy, we do not take sides in political disputes between countries or regions. HP Inc. adheres to the highest standards of ethical business conduct”.17
●Operational Continuity: Unlike in Russia, there was no suspension of shipments to the Israeli Ministry of Defense or the Israel Police. On the contrary, HP hardware continues to be a staple of the IDF’s operational infrastructure.
●Silence on Humanitarian Crisis: Despite casualty figures in Gaza far exceeding those in the early stages of the Ukraine war, HP has not issued a comparable statement expressing being “deeply disturbed” by the images from Gaza.
●Double Standard: This divergence provides irrefutable evidence of a “Double Standard” (Band 2.1–3.0). The company demonstrated in 2022 that it can and will leverage its economic power to punish state aggression when it aligns with Western foreign policy. Its refusal to do so regarding Israel indicates that its “neutrality” is a political choice to align with the occupier.
3.3. Table: The Crisis Response Gap
| Metric
|
Response to Russia (2022)
|
Response to Israel (2023-2024)
|
Audit Findings
|
| Moral Language
|
“Deeply disturbed,” “Humanitarian crisis”
|
“Do not take sides,” “Political dispute”
|
Fail: Selective empathy.
|
| Commercial Action
|
Suspended shipments to Russia/Belarus.
|
Continued contracts with IMOD/Police.
|
Fail: Material support continues.
|
| Marketing
|
Paused all marketing/advertising.
|
Continued sponsorship of “IT for IDF” (Dell, but HP tech present).
|
Fail: Normalization continues.
|
| Aid/Grants
|
Grants to UNICEF/Red Cross for victims.
|
No specific grants for Palestinian relief cited.
|
Fail: Asymmetrical humanitarianism.
|
.4. OPERATIONAL COMPLICITY I: THE SURVEILLANCE AND POPULATION CONTROL MATRIX
This section audits the specific technological systems provided by HPE and its predecessors that facilitate the surveillance, classification, and restriction of the Palestinian population. These systems form the digital backbone of the apartheid apparatus.
4.1. The Aviv System: The Digital Engine of Discrimination
The Aviv System is the computerized database of the Israeli Population and Immigration Authority (PIBA). It is not merely an administrative tool; it is the central mechanism for determining legal rights based on ethno-religious classification.
4.1.1. Technical Specifications and HPE’s Role
●Hardware Dependency: The Aviv System is hosted on Itanium servers, a proprietary high-performance server architecture manufactured by HPE.2
●Function: The system records the nationality (Jewish vs. Arab/Druze/etc.) of every citizen and resident. This data determines eligibility for housing, land rights, and freedom of movement.
●The “Yesha” Database: Crucially, the Aviv System integrates the “Yesha” database (the Hebrew acronym for Judea and Samaria). This database contains the records of Israeli settlers living illegally in the occupied West Bank.10 By hosting this data, HPE’s servers effectively normalize the settlement enterprise, treating settlers as seamless extensions of the Israeli population while Palestinians in the same territory are subject to military law.
4.1.2. Contractual Permanence (The 2026 Extension)
A critical finding of this audit is the active and ongoing nature of this complicity.
●The “Phase Out” Myth: While reports suggested the Aviv System would be replaced by IBM’s “Eitan” system, the transition has been slow. Consequently, HPE’s role remains vital.
●2023 Contract Renewal: In May 2023, Hewlett Packard (Israel) Ltd. was contracted by PIBA to provide three new Itanium servers for the Aviv System. This contract is valid from June 2023 until June 2026.10
●Implication: HPE is legally and operationally bound to support the population registry—and by extension, the “Yesha” settlement registry—through the middle of the current decade. This places HPE firmly in Band 8.0–8.9 (Direct Financing/Material Support), as it provides the essential infrastructure for the state’s demographic engineering.
4.2. The Basel System: The Legacy of Checkpoint Control
While the Basel System (a biometric access control system using hand geometry and facial recognition) was largely retired or transferred to other integrators around 2016, HP’s role in its creation is foundational.1
●Development: HP (pre-split) designed, installed, and maintained the system that automated the military checkpoints in the West Bank and Gaza.
●Impact: This system turned freedom of movement into a digitized privilege, enabling the IDF to remotely grant or deny access to jobs and hospitals.
●Legacy: The intellectual property and the operational logic of the Basel System established the precedent for the automated apartheid that defines the current checkpoint regime. HP cannot wash its hands of a system it architected simply because a different contractor now changes the lightbulbs.
4.3. Biometric ID Cards
HP was contracted to produce and personalize the biometric ID cards mandated for all residents.3
●Stratification: These cards carry the data (from the Aviv system) that allows soldiers at checkpoints to instantly distinguish between a Palestinian from Ramallah (green ID) and a settler from Ariel (blue ID).
●Complicity: By manufacturing the physical tokens of this stratified citizenship, HP actively facilitated the daily enforcement of the occupation.
.5. OPERATIONAL COMPLICITY II: THE MILITARY AND CARCERAL COMPLEX
This section audits the direct material support provided to the “hard power” institutions of the Israeli state: the military (IDF), the prisons (IPS), and the police.
5.1. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF): The “Blue Wolf” Hardware
5.1.1. HP Inc.’s Exclusive PC Contracts
For over a decade, HP Inc. (and its predecessor) served as the exclusive provider of personal computers to the Israeli military.2
●Contract History: Contracts were awarded in 2006, renewed in 2009, and again in 2014 (valid through 2019).19
●Current Status: While recent tenders for servers have gone to Dell and Cisco 20, HP PCs remain ubiquitous in military offices, command centers, and field units.
●Usage: These computers are not harmless office supplies. In a modern networked military, the PC is the interface for the “Castle” (combat management systems), intelligence analysis, and target acquisition. The audit finds that HP hardware likely facilitates the “Blue Wolf” initiative—a gamified database used by soldiers to track Palestinians—simply by being the interface through which soldiers access such systems.
5.1.2. The Naval Blockade Infrastructure
The legacy Hewlett-Packard Company managed the entire IT infrastructure for the Israeli Navy.1
●The Blockade: This IT backbone is essential for the coordination of naval assets that enforce the blockade of the Gaza Strip, preventing the flow of goods and people.
●Outsourcing: While the management of these systems may have shifted to DXC or other integrators post-split, the systems themselves are rooted in HP architecture.
5.2. The Israel Prison Service (IPS): Incarcerating Dissent
HPE’s involvement with the Israel Prison Service (IPS) represents one of the most severe forms of complicity identified in this audit.
5.2.1. The “Kidma” System
HPE maintains the servers that host the “Kidma” information system.1
●Function: Kidma is the central nervous system of the Israeli prison complex. It manages prisoner records, intelligence, human resources, and facility logistics.
●Human Rights Context: The IPS holds thousands of Palestinian political prisoners, many under “administrative detention” (imprisonment without charge or trial based on secret evidence). It is also responsible for the incarceration of Palestinian children.
●Active Complicity: HPE was contracted to provide maintenance for these servers for the period 2021–2022, and new evidence suggests contracts extending into 2024 for equipment maintenance.11 By ensuring the uptime of the Kidma system, HPE directly supports the administrative efficiency of mass incarceration.
5.3. The Israel Police: Policing the Occupation
HPE provides similar server maintenance and data center services to the Israel Police.2
●Contract Status: HPE held contracts worth millions of NIS to maintain police servers through 2023.11
●Operational Context: The Israel Police is not merely a civilian force; it is the primary enforcer of occupation in East Jerusalem, carrying out house demolitions, evictions in Sheikh Jarrah, and the suppression of protests at the Al-Aqsa compound. HPE’s technology ensures the data availability required for these operations.
.6. LOBBYING, TRADE, AND INSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMATION
This section audits how HP-branded entities lend their corporate prestige to the state of Israel, serving as a “High” level (Band 6.0–7.9) partner in legitimizing the regime through trade and academia.
6.1. “Brand Israel” and HP Indigo
The acquisition of Indigo in 2001 transformed HP into a central pillar of the “Brand Israel” narrative.
●HP Indigo: Based in Ness Ziona and Kiryat Gat, HP Indigo is often cited as a premier example of Israeli technological prowess.
●Kiryat Gat: The manufacturing facilities in Kiryat Gat are located on land belonging to the displaced Palestinian villages of Al-Faluja and Iraq al-Manshiyya [General historical context applied to location data].
●Diplomatic Asset: HP Indigo is frequently used by Israeli diplomats and trade officials to showcase the “Start-Up Nation.” The company’s massive investment in the country is used to counter BDS narratives, effectively serving as a “State Instrument” (Band 9.0–9.4) in the economic propaganda war.
6.2. British-Israel Chamber of Commerce (B-ICC)
While specific HP executives were not found on the current B-ICC board list in the snippets, the B-ICC actively promotes HP’s investments as success stories. The chamber functions to deepen bilateral trade, effectively shielding companies like HP from political scrutiny in the UK.22
6.3. Academic-Military Collaboration
HP and HPE maintain deep strategic partnerships with Israeli academic institutions that are inextricably linked to the military-industrial complex.
●The Technion: HP Labs has awarded grants to the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology.24 The Technion is widely considered the R&D wing of the Israeli military, developing technologies for drones, tunnel detection, and autonomous bulldozers. HP’s collaboration with the Technion normalizes these military-academic ties.
●Hebrew University: HPE collaborates with Hebrew University.25 The university hosts the “Havatzalot” military intelligence training program and its campus extends into occupied East Jerusalem.
.7. INTERNAL POLICY: NEUTRALITY AS A WEAPON
The audit investigated how HP handles internal dissent and external pressure regarding its Israel operations.
7.1. The “Neutrality” Trap
HP’s response to shareholder activism and union boycotts (such as the UK’s National Union of Teachers declaring “HP Free Zones”) is a rigid adherence to “neutrality”.17
●Policy Analysis: This policy acts as a “Discriminatory Governance” (Band 4.1–5.0) mechanism. By defining the oppression of Palestinians as a “political dispute” unworthy of comment, while defining the invasion of Ukraine as a “humanitarian crisis” requiring action, HP effectively weaponizes its HR and corporate policy to silence pro-Palestinian advocacy while permitting pro-Israel business continuity.
7.2. “Pinkwashing” the Occupation
HP has defended its presence in the illegal settlement of Beitar Illit (via its spin-offs) by framing it as a “diversity program” to employ ultra-orthodox women.27
●Impact: This narrative technique reframes a violation of international law (settlement enterprise) as a progressive corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiative. This is a sophisticated form of Ideological Actor behavior, using liberal corporate values to obscure settler-colonial realities.
.8. SUMMARY OF EVIDENTIARY FINDINGS AND RANKING MAPPING
The following section maps the audit findings directly to the Political Complicity Scale provided in the objectives. This serves as the raw data for the final ranking.
8.1. Evidence for Band 2.1–3.0 (Low: The Double Standard)
●Safe Harbor Failure: The stark contrast between the immediate divestment/condemnation regarding Russia (2022) and the “strict neutrality” regarding Gaza (2023-2024).16
8.2. Evidence for Band 6.1–6.9 (High: Militaristic Branding & Institutional Legitimation)
●Technion Partnership: Collaboration with the primary university servicing the Israeli military R&D sector.24
●HP Indigo: Leveraging “Start-Up Nation” status to validate the Israeli economy.15
8.3. Evidence for Band 8.0–8.9 (Severe: Direct Financing & Material Support)
●Aviv System (HPE): Renewal of the contract to supply Itanium servers for the Population Registry (including the “Yesha” settlement database) through 2026.10 This is direct material support for the administrative apartheid apparatus.
●Prison Servers (HPE): Maintenance of the “Kidma” system for the Israel Prison Service, supporting the incarceration of political prisoners.21
●IDF PCs (HP Inc.): Long-standing role as exclusive PC supplier to the military.19
8.4. Evidence for Band 9.0–9.4 (Extreme: Narrative Control)
●CSR Weaponization: Framing settlement operations (Beitar Illit) as “diversity” initiatives to sanitize the presence in illegal territories.27
9. AUDIT CONCLUSION
The audit concludes that the political and ideological footprint of HP (HP Inc. and HPE) is characterized by systemic, material, and ideological complicity in the Israeli occupation.
The “split” defense is insufficient to obscure the reality that:
1.HP Inc. equips the military (IDF) with the computing power necessary for occupation.
2.HPE provides the digital foundation (servers) for the discriminatory population registry and the prison system.
The company fails the “Safe Harbor” test completely, exhibiting a clear double standard in its geopolitical crisis management. While it positioned itself as a moral actor in Ukraine, it functions as a “Business-as-Usual” partner to the Israeli state, normalizing its military actions and settlement expansion. The documented renewal of contracts through 2026 indicates that this is not a legacy issue, but an active, forward-looking strategic partnership with the apparatus of occupation.
Works cited
