Table of Contents
Company: HP (Brand Ecosystem: HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise)
Jurisdiction: United States (Global HQ: Palo Alto, CA / Spring, TX); Israel (Regional HQ: Ra’anana / Ness Ziona)
Sector: Technology Hardware, Enterprise Infrastructure, Defense Electronics, Digital Printing, Surveillance Architecture
Leadership: Enrique Lores (President & CEO, HP Inc.); Antonio Neri (President & CEO, HPE)
Intelligence Conclusions:
The Bifurcation Fallacy and Shared Operational Liability: The forensic intelligence assessment of the Hewlett-Packard (HP) brand ecosystem—encompassing both the consumer-facing HP Inc. and the enterprise-focused Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE)—reveals a unified functional entity regarding its entanglement with the Israeli state apparatus. While the November 2015 corporate split was presented to global markets as a divergence of business interests to unlock shareholder value, in the context of the Israeli occupation, it served as a mechanism of liability obfuscation rather than divestment. The audit concludes with high confidence that the operational liability is shared: HPE functions as the “Architect of Control,” maintaining the mission-critical backend infrastructure (servers, storage, virtualization, and hybrid cloud) that powers the Ministry of Defense (IMOD), the Israel Prison Service (IPS), and the Population and Immigration Authority (PIBA). Simultaneously, HP Inc. acts as the “Industrial Anchor” and “Endpoint Provider,” supplying the ubiquity of personal computing devices to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and operating the massive HP Indigo manufacturing base. The intelligence confirms that the “HP” brand remains a singular, integrated support system for the occupation’s technological needs, creating a seamless “sensor-to-shooter” and “bureaucrat-to-prisoner” data pipeline.1
Structural Integration into Apartheid Infrastructure (Vendor Lock-In): The investigation identifies a critical condition of “Vendor Lock-In” regarding the administration of the Palestinian population. The Population Registry, known as the Aviv System, which manages the permit regime, the stratified ID card system, and the “Yesha” settler database, relies on proprietary HPE Itanium server architecture. This is not a commodity relationship but a structural dependency. Despite public announcements regarding a migration to IBM’s “Eitan” system, procurement data from May 2023 confirms the purchase of new HPE Itanium servers to sustain the legacy Aviv system through June 2026. This creates a condition where the state’s bureaucratic ability to classify, restrict, and track Palestinian movement is technically dependent on HPE hardware. Furthermore, the “sole supplier” status of HPE for the Israel Prison Service’s server farms (housing the “Kidma” inmate management system) directly links the company to the mass incarceration apparatus, ensuring the uptime of systems that track administrative detainees and political prisoners.1
Ideological Dissonance and the “Safe Harbor” Failure: A rigorous comparative political audit reveals a systemic “Double Standard” in corporate crisis response and governance. Following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, HP Inc. immediately suspended shipments to Russia and Belarus, paused marketing, and engaged in moral condemnation of the aggressor state, citing “humanitarian” concerns. In stark contrast, during the 2023-2024 bombardment of Gaza and the ongoing occupation, both HP entities maintained “strict neutrality” and operational continuity, continuing to service IMOD and Police contracts without interruption. This divergence indicates that the company’s “neutrality” is a selective political shield used to protect its strategic manufacturing assets in Israel (HP Indigo) and its defense market share, effectively normalizing the military occupation while creating a “moral exception” for the Israeli state. The audit finds that “ethics” are applied only when they align with US foreign policy interests.5
Economic Normalization via Settlement Integration: The investigation uncovered deep supply chain integration with illegal West Bank settlements, utilizing a sophisticated “intermediary laundering” mechanism. Through “Platinum” and “Gold” partners like Matrix IT, HP technologies are funneled into settlement municipalities (e.g., Modi’in Illit) and utilized in settlement-based outsourcing centers like “Talpiot.” This intermediary layer allows HP to profit from the “settlement economy” while maintaining plausible deniability in its direct contracting records. Furthermore, the presence of the HP Indigo manufacturing facility in Kiryat Gat, located on the lands of the depopulated Palestinian village of Al-Faluja, cements the company’s physical entrenchment in the geography of displacement, engaging in what international legal scholars define as the monetization of proceeds from an internationally wrongful act.1
The Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) was founded in 1939 by Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard in a Palo Alto garage, originating as a test and measurement equipment manufacturer before evolving into a global computing giant. While the founders established a culture known as the “HP Way,” emphasizing corporate social responsibility, the modern iteration of the company has diverged significantly from these roots regarding human rights due diligence in conflict zones. Founding Capital & Zionism: While the original founders were not explicitly linked to the Zionist movement, the company’s entry into Israel was aggressive and early compared to other tech giants, establishing a sales presence in 1957. However, the pivotal moment in its evolution regarding Israel was the 2001 acquisition of Indigo NV, founded by Benny Landa, for approximately $830 million (in stock and cash).7 Landa, often called the “father of digital commercial printing,” established Indigo in 1977. This acquisition did not merely buy technology; it imported a deeply Zionist corporate DNA into HP. The Indigo division, headquartered in Ness Ziona, became the “crown jewel” of HP’s graphic arts business. This created a strategic dependency on Israeli R&D and manufacturing that persists to this day, distinguishing HP from other tech giants that merely have R&D outposts; HP became a manufacturer embedded in the land.7
Assessment:
The acquisition of Indigo fundamentally altered HP’s geopolitical calculus. Unlike other multinationals that essentially treat Israel as a sales office or a software development hub, HP Inc. became an Israeli industrialist. The massive fixed capital investment in the Kiryat Gat facilities (built on Al-Faluja land) created a “hostage asset” scenario: HP cannot divest from Israel without crippling one of its most profitable global divisions. This structural reality forces the company to maintain favorable relations with the Israeli government to secure tax benefits, grants, and regulatory stability for its printing operations, effectively trapping the board in a position of necessary complicity.
HP Inc. Structure:
Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) Structure:
Analytical Assessment:
The leadership structures of both entities demonstrate a sophisticated “bifurcation of responsibility.” HPE leadership focuses on the “sovereignty” and “security” narrative, selling the essential infrastructure of control (servers/cloud) as neutral technology necessary for state function. HP Inc. leadership focuses on the “innovation” and “creativity” narrative, using HP Indigo to whitewash the company’s presence as purely industrial and artistic.
Assessment: The recurring engagement of both leadership teams with Israeli state officials and the continued operation of strategic assets in the region indicates a sustained economic dependency. The leadership has effectively “laundered” the legacy of the Basel System (checkpoints) by passing the direct operation to integrators (DXC/Ness) while retaining the profitable hardware monopolies (HPE servers/HP PCs). This allows them to claim they “left the checkpoint business” while still powering the checkpoint’s brain. This is a deliberate strategy of “Plausible Deniability via Intermediary.”
| Date | Event | Significance |
| 1998 | HP begins evaluation of Indigo | Hewlett-Packard begins assessing Benny Landa’s digital printing technology, setting the stage for deep economic integration with the Israeli industrial sector.7 |
| 2001 | HP acquires Indigo NV | Marked HP’s strategic entry into Israeli manufacturing. The ~$830M deal established the HP Indigo Division, anchoring the company’s industrial base in Ness Ziona and Kiryat Gat, creating a “sticky” asset that prevents easy divestment.7 |
| 2005 | “Smart City” Pilot in Ariel | Legacy HP contracted to implement a storage system for the illegal settlement of Ariel (West Bank), directly facilitating the normalization of settlement infrastructure and violating international law regarding settlement expansion.11 |
| 2006 | EDS establishes Beitar Illit Center | Electronic Data Systems (EDS), later acquired by HP, establishes a development center in the illegal settlement of Beitar Illit, employing settler labor.11 |
| Aug 2008 | HP acquires EDS | HP completes the acquisition of EDS for $13.9 billion. This acquisition brought the Basel System (biometric checkpoints) and the Beitar Illit facility directly under the HP brand, deepening its complicity in the physical restriction of Palestinian movement.12 |
| 2008 | Biometric ID Contract Award | HP won the tender to manufacture 5 million biometric ID cards (Telem/Arbel projects). This integrated HP into the core of Israel’s population control and stratification apparatus, creating the physical tokens of the permit regime.3 |
| 2009 | IDF PC Exclusivity Contract | HP Global won the tender to supply “all needed computer equipment” to the IDF. This established the ubiquity of HP endpoints in military operations, from the Kirya HQ to field command posts.3 |
| Dec 2011 | The “Mega-Tender” (Servers) | HP Israel won “Israel’s largest ever servers tender” (valued at approximately NIS 500 million/$140 million) to manage IMOD and IDF server farms, including the virtualization of Navy systems used to enforce the Gaza blockade.3 |
| 2012 | Kiryat Gat Expansion | HP Indigo inaugurates a second ink plant in Kiryat Gat (11,000 sqm), further entrenching its presence on the land of the depopulated village of Al-Faluja.7 |
| Nov 2015 | The Corporate Split | Hewlett-Packard Company split into HP Inc. and HPE. Defense liabilities were technically divided, but operational complicity remained shared across the ecosystem. This allowed the companies to deflect criticism by pointing to the “other” HP.15 |
| 2017 | HPE Spin-off to DXC | HPE merged its Enterprise Services with CSC to form DXC Technology. This shifted the personnel managing the Basel/Aviv systems to DXC, but HPE retained the hardware dependency (Itanium servers), creating a layered obfuscation.1 |
| 2019 | Aviv System Contract Extension | HPE received a $320,000 extension for services related to the biometric database, confirming continued involvement post-split and refuting claims of exit.3 |
| Feb 2022 | Ukraine Response | HP Inc. suspended shipments to Russia immediately following the invasion, citing humanitarian concerns. This established a clear precedent that the company can divest for political/moral reasons when it chooses.5 |
| Apr 2022 | DXC Divestment to Ness | DXC sold its Israeli arm to Ness Technologies (Hilan Group). While DXC exited, the underlying HPE Itanium architecture remained the backbone of the systems transferred to Ness.1 |
| Feb 2023 | IPS Maintenance Renewal | HPE contracted (exemption from tender) to maintain Israel Prison Service server farms (SAP HANA/SAN) for one year, valued at NIS 371,856. This directly links HPE to the administration of the prison system.18 |
| May 2023 | Aviv System Hardware Refresh | HPE contracted to provide three new Itanium servers for the Population Registry, extending the system’s lifespan—and HPE’s complicity—through June 2026. This proves the “Vendor Lock-In” prevents the state from easily switching vendors.4 |
| Oct 2023 | Gaza Response | Following Oct 7, HP entities maintained “strict neutrality” and continued servicing IMOD contracts, contrasting sharply with the 2022 Ukraine response and highlighting the “Double Standard”.5 |
| Jan 2024 | Police Data Center Renewal | Israel Police announced intent to contract HPE as “sole supplier” for Data Center Care through Dec 2026 (NIS 4 million). This ensures the police surveillance infrastructure remains operational.20 |
| Jan 2024 | Layoffs & Entrenchment | HP Indigo executed layoffs (approx. 100 staff) due to market shifts but reaffirmed commitment to the Kiryat Gat facility, demonstrating the “trap” of massive fixed assets preventing easy exit.21 |
| Apr 2024 | IPS Sole Supplier Award | HPE confirmed as sole supplier for IPS server maintenance for another year, cementing the “Vendor Lock-In” with the carceral system during a period of mass arrests.20 |
| 2025 | HPE DISA Contract (US) | HPE awarded $931M by US DISA for sovereign cloud. This validates the “GreenLake” model likely being deployed for the Israeli IMOD’s private cloud needs to complement Project Nimbus.10 |
| Dec 2025 | Itanium Support End Date | HPE’s official support for Itanium servers is scheduled to end, forcing a critical decision point for the Population Registry (Aviv System) and a potential window for divestment leverage.9 |
| Dec 2026 | Contract Expiry Horizon | Current contracts for Police Data Centers and Aviv System support are set to expire, marking the next critical window for divestment pressure and shareholder activism.20 |
Goal:
To establish the extent to which HP Inc. and HPE provide the “Logistical Sustainment,” “Tactical Support Components,” and “Militarized Infrastructure” that enable the lethal and coercive operations of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Israeli security establishment. The goal is to prove that these are not merely commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) sales, but mission-critical dependencies that enhance the lethality and efficiency of the occupation forces.
Evidence & Analysis:
Counter-Arguments & Assessment:
Analytical Assessment: High Confidence.
HPE provides the digital backbone for the IMOD’s logistical and naval operations. HP Inc. provides the ubiquitous interface for the soldier. The relationship is structural, long-term, and deeply integrated via local partners like Malam and Bynet.
Named Entities / Evidence Map:
Goal:
To analyze the role of HP-branded entities in the “Technographic Stack” of the occupation, specifically regarding the Population Registry (Aviv), the Prison Service (IPS), and the surveillance of Palestinians. This domain examines how HP technology enables “Digital Apartheid.”
Evidence & Analysis:
Counter-Arguments & Assessment:
Analytical Assessment: High Confidence.
HPE is the “Architect of Control.” Its vendor lock-in with PIBA and the IPS is definitive. The company profits directly from the maintenance of the databases that enforce apartheid and incarceration.
Named Entities / Evidence Map:
Goal:
To analyze the deep economic integration of HP Inc. into the Israeli economy, specifically through HP Indigo, and the use of settlement-based supply chains. This domain examines the “normalization” of the occupation through industrial entrenchment.
Evidence & Analysis:
Counter-Arguments & Assessment:
Analytical Assessment: High Confidence.
HP Inc. is structurally integrated into the Israeli economy to a degree that makes it a “quasi-domestic” actor. It is not just a foreign investor; it is a major industrial pillar.
Named Entities / Evidence Map:
Goal:
To evaluate the corporate governance, ideological positioning, and political consistency of HP entities regarding the occupation. This domain applies the “Safe Harbor” test to identify double standards.
Evidence & Analysis:
Counter-Arguments & Assessment:
Analytical Assessment: High Confidence.
The political complicity is characterized by a distinct double standard and the weaponization of “neutrality” to protect complicit revenue streams.
Named Entities / Evidence Map:
Final Score: 741 / 1000
Tier: Tier B (Severe Complicity)
Justification summary:
The forensic audit of the HP brand ecosystem reveals a deep, structural entanglement with the Israeli state apparatus. The score is driven by the Economic (V-ECON) domain (7.9), where HP Inc.’s ownership of HP Indigo constitutes an “Acquired Identity,” functioning as a strategic industrial pillar. In the Digital (V-DIG) and Military (V-MIL) domains, HPE serves as the “Architect of Control,” maintaining the Aviv population registry and IPS server farms via “Vendor Lock-In” contracts renewed through 2026. The Political (V-POL) audit confirms a “Double Standard” in crisis response, privileging Israeli state alignment.
The BDS-1000 model requires a separate evaluation of the target’s complicity across four domains: Military (V-MIL), Digital (V-DIG), Economic (V-ECON), and Political (V-POL).
BDS-1000 Scoring Matrix – HP
| Domain | I | M | P | V-Domain Score |
| Military (V-MIL) | 6.4 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 6.4 |
| Digital (V-DIG) | 6.9 | 8.5 | 9.0 | 6.9 |
| Economic (V-ECON) | 7.9 | 9.5 | 10.0 | 7.9 |
| Political (V-POL) | 6.5 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 6.5 |
V- {domain} Calculation
(Impact: Militarized Infrastructure; Magnitude: Critical Volume; Proximity: Direct Operator)
(Impact: Surveillance Enablement; Magnitude: Systemic Importance; Proximity: Direct Operator)
(Impact: Acquired Identity; Magnitude: Massive; Proximity: Wholly Owned)
(Impact: Institutional Legitimation; Magnitude: Major Scale; Proximity: Controller)Using the OR-dominant formula with a side boost:
Let:
(V-ECON)
BRS Score Formula
Then:
Grade Classification:
Based on the score of 741, the company falls within:
Tier: Tier B
Strategic Divestment & Exclusion:
Given the “Severe Complicity” (Tier B) classification and the high “Vendor Lock-In” identified in the Digital and Military domains, institutional investors and public bodies should place HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) on exclusion lists. The specific trigger for this action is the 2023-2026 contract renewals for the Aviv System and the Israel Prison Service. These renewals negate any defense that the companies are “exiting” or “phasing out” their involvement. Investors must demand immediate cessation of these maintenance contracts as a condition for re-investment.
Focused Consumer Boycott (HP Inc.):
A targeted consumer boycott of HP Inc. products (laptops, printers, ink) remains a highly effective lever. HP Inc. relies heavily on consumer brand equity. The audit highlights the “PC for the IDF” exclusivity and the Indigo ID card production as direct links to the occupation. Activists should highlight the “Double Standard” regarding Ukraine to shame the brand’s “social responsibility” marketing. The message is simple: “HP stopped shipping to Russia to support human rights; why are they still shipping to the IDF?”
Public Exposure of “Hidden” Infrastructure (HPE):
Campaigns should pivot to expose the less visible but more critical role of HPE. The narrative must shift from “checkpoints” (which are now operated by others) to “The Server Room of Apartheid.” Public pressure should focus on the Itanium dependency of the Population Registry. Activists should demand that HPE refuse to renew the support contracts for the Aviv System in 2026, effectively forcing the Israeli government to accelerate the system’s retirement or face a critical infrastructure crisis.
Supply Chain Accountability (Matrix IT):
Pressure should be applied to HP to decertify Matrix IT as a partner due to its operations in the illegal settlement of Modi’in Illit. This targets the “soft underbelly” of their compliance regime. By demanding HP enforce its own supplier code of conduct, activists can disrupt the “laundering” mechanism that allows HP technology to flow into settlements.
