Target: SodaStream (SodaStream International Ltd.; post-December 2018: wholly owned subsidiary of PepsiCo, Inc.)
Audit Phase: V-POL (Political Forensics)
Data Currency: Training-knowledge synthesis through April 2026; live web search unavailable. All pre-2020 findings flagged accordingly.
SodaStream’s dominant public communications posture during its most politically exposed period centered on a self-described “coexistence” narrative tied directly to its Mishor Adumim manufacturing facility in the occupied West Bank. CEO Daniel Birnbaum made this framing the company’s primary response to sustained activist pressure, characterizing the facility as a working model of Israeli-Palestinian cooperation and consistently referring to Palestinian employees as “our brothers.”12 Birnbaum’s statement — “We are proof that coexistence works” — appeared in multiple outlets and became the company’s de facto official position during 2013–2016.3
This framing was deployed both proactively (investor relations, Israeli business press) and defensively (response to BDS campaigners and international media). It was articulated through CEO media interviews rather than formal advertising campaigns, creating a tight identification between Birnbaum’s personal voice and SodaStream’s institutional stance.124
The high-profile flashpoint of the Scarlett Johansson/Oxfam affair crystallized SodaStream’s public posture. When Oxfam publicly stated that SodaStream’s settlement operations were incompatible with its values, SodaStream issued press statements defending its operations and characterizing critics as acting against the economic interests of Palestinian workers.56 The company declined to modify its settlement operations in response to Oxfam’s position. Johansson resigned as Oxfam ambassador while retaining the SodaStream contract, and SodaStream used her continued endorsement as a public signal of confidence in its position.67 The episode generated extensive international coverage and made SodaStream’s West Bank operations a globally recognized controversy.8
When SodaStream announced the closure of the Mishor Adumim plant in October 2014 and completed the relocation to the Idan HaNegev facility near Beer-Sheba by September–October 2015, the company framed the move as commercially driven expansion rather than a concession to BDS pressure.91011 Birnbaum separately acknowledged ongoing activist pressure in contemporaneous interviews while maintaining the official line that commercial logic governed the decision.911
As an independent entity (2010–2018), SodaStream issued no documented public statements on comparable geopolitical situations — Syria, Ukraine (pre-2022), Myanmar, or similar — in training data.1213 Its political communications were entirely reactive and narrowly scoped to defending its own West Bank operations. The company did not position itself as a human rights actor beyond the specific “coexistence employment” narrative it constructed around Mishor Adumim.
Following the December 2018 close of the PepsiCo acquisition, SodaStream ceased independent public communications on political matters.14 SodaStream-specific political or geopolitical statements are not separately attributable under PepsiCo’s consolidated communications framework. PepsiCo’s ESG/sustainability reporting references general human rights principles without specificity to SodaStream’s historical settlement operations.15 No public evidence identified of SodaStream-branded statements addressing the post-October 2023 conflict escalation.3435
No SodaStream-branded public statement on the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack or the subsequent Israeli military operation in Gaza has been identified in training data. As a wholly owned PepsiCo subsidiary since December 2018, SodaStream no longer issues independent corporate communications on political matters. SodaStream’s social media and PR channels are product-focused. No public evidence identified of SodaStream making any statement on the conflict in any direction as a discrete brand entity — status confirmed through training data to April 2026.3435
PepsiCo, as SodaStream’s parent, issued no specific corporate statement addressing either the October 7 attacks or the Gaza military operation beyond generic references to employee safety and humanitarian concern in standard ESG communications. PepsiCo’s human rights policy references the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) but does not address SodaStream’s historic settlement operations or their legacy in post-2023 communications.343546 Status: No specific statement confirmed.
PepsiCo has been subject to BDS-adjacent consumer boycott campaigns in the post-October 2023 period as part of broader boycotts of US multinationals perceived as linked to Israel. SodaStream’s Israeli origins and manufacturing are cited in these campaigns. This is documented as a campaign against PepsiCo as a whole in which SodaStream is a named sub-target, not as a discrete SodaStream-branded campaign.45 Status: Ongoing through training data to April 2026.
No evidence of SodaStream or PepsiCo issuing any statement, policy change, or supply-chain review specifically in response to the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 — which found Israel’s continued presence in the OPT unlawful and imposed obligations on third states and corporations — has been identified in training data.38
No evidence of SodaStream or PepsiCo issuing any statement in response to the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I’s issuance of arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant on 21 November 2024 has been identified in training data.39
Constructive notice status: Both the ICJ Advisory Opinion (19 July 2024) and ICC warrants (21 November 2024) are post-factory-closure milestones. SodaStream’s primary territorial exposure (Mishor Adumim) was discontinued in 2015. Any post-ICJ AO continuation of conduct would need to relate to ongoing operations, executive conduct, or financing activity rather than the already-closed settlement facility. No such ongoing conduct has been identified in training data.
PepsiCo, as SodaStream’s parent, issued public statements in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (February 2022), announcing a suspension of capital investment and advertising in Russia, though it continued to sell essential food products citing humanitarian grounds. This represents a documented instance of public geopolitical positioning by the parent entity.34
No comparable public statement from PepsiCo or SodaStream addressing Israeli military conduct in Gaza, Palestinian civilian casualties, or the humanitarian situation has been identified in training data through April 2026.3435 This asymmetry — public statement and operational response on Ukraine; silence on Gaza — exists at the PepsiCo parent level and is attributable to SodaStream within the consolidated group for double-standard analysis purposes.
In SodaStream’s 20-F annual filings with the SEC (2011–2017), the Mishor Adumim facility’s West Bank location was disclosed in risk factor sections addressing geopolitical risk; the operational narrative sections described it in standard commercial terms.12 Investor relations materials framed Palestinian employment at the facility as a corporate social responsibility positive, embedding the “coexistence” narrative within formal securities disclosures.12 Following the 2015 relocation, the Idan HaNegev facility was listed without geopolitical framing.13
SodaStream operated its primary manufacturing facility at the Mishor Adumim Industrial Zone, located in the occupied West Bank adjacent to the Ma’ale Adumim settlement bloc, from the company’s earlier history through approximately October 2015.91011 Ma’ale Adumim is internationally recognized as an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank under international law, including by the UN and the EU.1617
The facility employed an estimated 500–900 Palestinian workers — figures vary by source and year — alongside Israeli and Israeli-Arab workers.1218 Palestinian workers operated under Israeli Civil Administration work permits, a structural feature that created dependency relationships and constrained labor rights relative to Israeli co-workers.19
Status: Discontinued. Facility formally closed/relocated by October 2015.
SodaStream consolidated manufacturing at the Idan HaNegev facility in the Negev desert, within Israel’s internationally recognized pre-1967 borders, by September–October 2015.11 This facility was the primary manufacturing site at the time of PepsiCo’s December 2018 acquisition.14 Status: Ongoing as primary production site under PepsiCo ownership.
Following the relocation, SodaStream and CEO Birnbaum promoted a new “coexistence” employment narrative centered on Bedouin Arab citizens of Israel employed at the Idan HaNegev facility alongside Jewish Israeli workers. This was presented as a continuation and evolution of the Mishor Adumim employment model, now operating within Israel’s pre-1967 borders.48 [pre-2020] The Bedouin employment narrative was used in Israeli and international media contexts from approximately 2015–2018 to reframe SodaStream’s CSR positioning away from the settlement controversy. Status: Birnbaum departed in 2019; facility continues under PepsiCo.
The UN Special Rapporteur reports A/HRC/55/73 (Albanese, March 2024)36 and A/HRC/56/26 (“Anatomy of a Genocide,” March 2024)37 focus on the structural economy of occupation and specific sectors (technology, finance, arms). SodaStream is not identified as a named subject in either report in training data, consistent with its discontinued settlement operations and consumer goods sector.
Based on training data, the Al-Haq Business and Human Rights (2024) report addresses corporate complicity in the occupied Palestinian territory broadly, focusing primarily on companies with ongoing operational or financial relationships with the settlement enterprise as of 2023–2024. SodaStream is referenced in Al-Haq’s prior documentation as a historical case study but does not appear as a primary subject in the 2024 report’s focus on current corporate actors, consistent with the 2015 factory closure.46 Confidence: moderate. Direct document access unavailable.
Report A/HRC/59/23 (“From economy of occupation to economy of genocide,” Albanese, 2 July 2025) addresses categories relevant to SodaStream’s historical conduct — including direct economic integration (§§25–27), financial flows (§71), charities/faith-based/academia (§§81–86), and humanitarian-washing/executive-level conduct (§§87–93). Based on training data, SodaStream is not identified as a named subject in this report, consistent with factory closure in 2015 and PepsiCo absorption in 2018. Confidence: moderate. Direct document access was not possible.
[pre-2020]SodaStream was one of the most prominently targeted individual corporate subjects of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement from approximately 2009 through 2016.24 BDS publicly cited two grounds: (1) SodaStream’s operation of manufacturing facilities in an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank; and (2) the broader Israeli occupation framework.24
BDS campaign activity against SodaStream as an independent entity declined markedly following the 2015 factory closure. In the post-October 2023 period, the BDS Movement’s campaign materials include PepsiCo as a named corporate target, with SodaStream specifically identified as a reason for targeting PepsiCo, citing SodaStream’s Israeli manufacturing base (Idan HaNegev) and corporate origins. The BDS grounds in the current campaign period extend beyond the historic settlement factory to encompass SodaStream’s status as an Israeli-origin company manufacturing in Israel.45 Status: Active at the PepsiCo/SodaStream level through training data to April 2026.
Palestinian employees at the Mishor Adumim facility worked under Israeli Civil Administration work permits, a structural arrangement that created dependency and materially limited labor protections. Kav LaOved’s documentation noted limited ability for Palestinian workers to formally organize or strike under this permit framework, distinct from the rights available to Israeli workers at the same facility.19 [pre-2020]
Following the closure/relocation announcement in late 2014, a minority of Palestinian workers were offered permits to continue working at the new Idan HaNegev site, which required substantially longer commutes. The majority of the Palestinian workforce did not transfer.9252627 [pre-2020]
During the 2023–2024 proxy seasons, PepsiCo received shareholder resolutions on human rights due diligence in contexts including the Middle East/Israel-Palestine. Based on training data, PepsiCo’s board recommended voting against such resolutions, consistent with standard board recommendations against externally submitted ESG-linked resolutions that the board characterizes as micromanaging operations.4250 Confidence: moderate. Specific SodaStream-granular language in these resolutions has not been confirmed in training data; the resolutions appear to address PepsiCo’s broader UNGP compliance rather than SodaStream specifically.
No evidence that SodaStream-specific supply-chain or human rights due diligence resolutions were separately tabled at PepsiCo’s AGMs has been identified. No public evidence identified of SodaStream-specific shareholder activism within PepsiCo’s governance structures.
No public reports of SodaStream disciplining or dismissing employees for expressing political views on the conflict, for wearing political symbols, or for union activity specifically connected to the Israel-Palestine dispute have been identified in training data. No public evidence identified beyond the structural permit-system constraints documented by Kav LaOved above. No reports of SodaStream (as a brand/subsidiary) taking HR actions against pro-Palestinian employees, or any lawsuits against unions for pro-Palestine speech specifically attributable to SodaStream, have been identified. Note: PepsiCo as a broader entity may have faced such issues, but none specifically attributed to the SodaStream subsidiary have been confirmed.
SodaStream is a consumer goods manufacturer, not a media or technology platform. Algorithmic content moderation, editorial policy, and platform content governance are not applicable to SodaStream’s business model. No public evidence identified.
During the period of Mishor Adumim operations (pre-2015), SodaStream products manufactured there were marketed as “Made in Israel” across multiple markets, a practice contested by EU and UK regulatory guidance issued in November 2015.1721 [pre-2020] No confirmed enforcement actions in any jurisdiction specifically against SodaStream for mislabeling settlement-origin products as Israeli-origin have been identified in training data.
Post-2015, all manufacturing moved to Idan HaNegev within Israel’s pre-1967 borders, rendering settlement-origin labeling issues moot.1114 No current (post-2018) supply chain controversies specific to SodaStream under PepsiCo ownership have been identified in training data.
SodaStream’s core commercial branding has consistently centered on environmental and sustainability messaging — specifically, reduction of single-use plastic bottle waste — and household convenience.28 No evidence that SodaStream utilized Israeli military heritage, defense sector ties, or state-security origins as part of its commercial branding has been found in training data.288
During the 2013–2016 controversy period, CEO Birnbaum actively promoted a “coexistence” and “peace factory” narrative that blurred commercial PR with geopolitical positioning. This occurred primarily through earned media interviews and public appearances rather than through paid advertising.14229 This constitutes a form of deliberate brand-political hybridization — using the company’s commercial platform to make arguments about Israeli-Palestinian coexistence — but one driven by the CEO rather than by formal brand strategy documents. No evidence of dedicated advertising campaigns explicitly advancing state-aligned political narratives has been identified.
The “peace factory” / “coexistence” narrative deployed by Birnbaum from 2013–2016 was identified by critics — including Amnesty International,40 Who Profits,49 and 972 Magazine — as a form of humanitarian-washing: using Palestinian employment in a settlement context as a deflection from the legal and ethical status of that settlement operation. This characterization is relevant to the audit protocol’s criteria on humanitarian-washing (cf. A/HRC/59/23 §§87–93). The narrative was discontinued as an active public communications strategy after the factory closure (2015) and Birnbaum’s departure (2019), but its documentation remains part of SodaStream’s public record.
Amnesty International’s Israel’s Apartheid (2022)40 and HRW’s A Threshold Crossed (2021)41 provide the wider apartheid-framing context within which Mishor Adumim operated. Neither report names SodaStream as a primary subject, consistent with the 2015 closure, but both address the structural nature of the occupation economy.
While no formal corporate sponsorship of Brand Israel programming has been confirmed, Israeli government and diplomatic channels regularly cited SodaStream and the Mishor Adumim “coexistence” narrative as a public diplomacy asset during 2013–2016. Israeli government press materials and Ministry of Foreign Affairs statements referenced SodaStream in contexts arguing that settlement employment benefited Palestinians.2 This constitutes informal mutual amplification rather than a contractual Brand Israel relationship. [pre-2020]
SodaStream was frequently cited by Israeli government officials and in pro-Israel media as a positive example of Israeli enterprise and Arab-Jewish coexistence in the workplace. However, no documented formal corporate sponsorship of Brand Israel programming, government-affiliated public diplomacy initiatives, or Israel foreign ministry promotional campaigns by SodaStream as a corporate entity has been confirmed in training data. The company benefited from and sometimes amplified this narrative, but formal institutional partnership has not been evidenced.
Daniel Birnbaum delivered speaking appearances at institutions including Tel Aviv University.30 [pre-2020] This was in a guest lecture capacity; no evidence of a formal ongoing institutional partnership between SodaStream as a corporate entity and Israeli academic or cultural institutions has been identified.
No evidence of SodaStream as a corporate entity receiving state honors or hosting foreign government officials in a formal non-commercial capacity has been identified. The only recognized individual honor in training data is Birnbaum’s personal receipt of the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year (Israel) award.31 [pre-2020] This is a professional sector award, not a state honor.
No evidence of SodaStream conducting registered lobbying in the United States, the European Union, or the United Kingdom specifically on Israel-Palestine policy, settlement trade status, or anti-BDS legislation has been identified in training data. SodaStream is not identified in U.S. Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) registrant records in training data.
CEO Birnbaum made public statements that functioned as political advocacy — particularly sustained opposition to the BDS movement and defense of settlement employment practices — through media channels rather than through formal registered lobbying structures.14229
Following the PepsiCo acquisition in December 2018, any corporate lobbying on relevant issues would fall under PepsiCo’s registered lobbying activities. No SodaStream-specific lobbying line items within PepsiCo filings have been confirmed in training data.15 Whether SodaStream or its executives participated in U.S. state-level anti-BDS legislative processes (more than 30 U.S. states enacted such laws between approximately 2015 and 2020) has not been confirmed. No public evidence identified of formal SodaStream participation in anti-BDS legislative processes. The more than 30 U.S. states that enacted anti-BDS laws between approximately 2016 and 2020 did so primarily through the efforts of AIPAC, the Israel on Campus Coalition, and state-level Jewish federations. SodaStream’s name appears in public discourse around anti-BDS efforts — its relocation was cited by both BDS proponents and opponents as a case study — but no confirmed lobbying role has been identified.
No public evidence identified of SodaStream’s corporate membership in geopolitical pressure groups or formal pro-Israel advocacy organizations.
No public evidence identified of SodaStream as a corporate entity making material financial contributions to Israeli settlement groups, parastatal organizations, or military-welfare funds such as the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces (FIDF) or the Jewish National Fund (JNF). Training data does not confirm SodaStream or its principals as named donors in IRS Form 990 filings for FIDF and JNF-USA, though direct review of the most recent available filings (2021–2023 tax years) was not possible.
No public evidence identified of SodaStream or PepsiCo directing corporate logistics, products, cloud credits, services, or infrastructure to assist Israeli military or state-aligned NGO efforts during any period of active conflict, including the October 2023–present period.
SodaStream International Ltd. was incorporated and publicly listed on NASDAQ (ticker: SODA) from November 2010 until the close of the PepsiCo acquisition in December 2018.1412 As a NASDAQ-listed foreign private issuer, SodaStream filed annual reports on Form 20-F with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; these filings describe a standard commercial enterprise focused on manufacturing and selling home carbonation systems and flavoring products.1213
PepsiCo, a U.S.-headquartered multinational, announced the acquisition on August 20, 2018 at approximately $3.2 billion and completed it in December 2018.14 Since that date, SodaStream operates as a wholly owned subsidiary. It files no independent public disclosures with the SEC. Status: Ongoing.
SodaStream continues to operate as a wholly owned PepsiCo subsidiary through the training data period (April 2026). PepsiCo’s 2023 10-K lists SodaStream among its significant subsidiaries. No change in ownership structure, divestiture, or re-listing has been identified.34 No evidence of PepsiCo considering divestiture of SodaStream in the context of post-October 2023 consumer pressure has been confirmed in training data, though such pressure has been noted at the PepsiCo parent level.45
No evidence that SodaStream’s corporate charter, founding documents, or shareholder agreements contained provisions explicitly tying its primary corporate mission to advancing Israeli state geopolitical goals has been identified in training data. The company’s origins trace to a carbonation device developed by an Israeli inventor and commercialized by Soda-Club Ltd. before rebranding and international expansion. The SEC filings consistently describe a consumer goods commercial enterprise mission.1213
No evidence of state-held golden shares, Israeli government equity stakes, or formal state ownership interests in SodaStream at any point in its history as a public company has been identified in training data.121332
SodaStream’s majority institutional shareholder prior to the PepsiCo acquisition was Fortissimo Capital, an Israeli private equity firm.32 No evidence of Fortissimo Capital principals making documented donations or advocacy contributions connected to settlement activity or conflict-related organizations — specifically in their capacity as SodaStream shareholders — has been confirmed in training data. Fortissimo Capital is a mainstream Israeli private equity firm investing in Israeli mid-market companies; no documented evidence of its principals making donations to settlement organizations or military-welfare funds in connection with their SodaStream holdings has been identified.43 No public evidence identified.
Daniel Birnbaum served as CEO from approximately 2007 through March 2019, departing following the PepsiCo acquisition transition.33 He was the company’s dominant public voice throughout its most politically exposed period.
[pre-2020][pre-2020]Following Birnbaum’s departure in March 2019, SodaStream has been led by executives integrated into PepsiCo’s management structure. Based on training data, Eyal Shohat was appointed as SodaStream CEO in 2019 under PepsiCo’s ownership. Confidence: moderate — no high-confidence primary source URL available.
No verified evidence of Eyal Shohat or other post-2019 SodaStream leadership making public statements on the Israel-Palestine conflict, donating to FIDF/JNF or settlement organizations, or holding board roles in geopolitical advocacy organizations has been identified in training data. No public evidence identified.
No verified evidence of other SodaStream C-suite executives or board members making personal donations to FIDF, JNF, settlement groups, or comparable organizations has been identified in training data. No public evidence identified. No evidence of SodaStream board members holding leadership roles in geopolitical pressure groups has been identified. No public evidence identified.
Scarlett Johansson served as a SodaStream brand ambassador during the 2014 controversy period. She made public statements defending SodaStream’s employment of Palestinian workers and rejecting the BDS framing of its operations — characterizing herself as a believer in “conscious consumerism” and economic engagement.567 Her role as brand ambassador ended after the immediate controversy period. No evidence of Johansson making statements on SodaStream or the conflict in the post-October 2023 period in connection with SodaStream has been identified. [pre-2020 relationship] — Status: Discontinued.
Fortissimo Capital was SodaStream’s majority institutional shareholder prior to the PepsiCo acquisition (2018). No documented evidence of Fortissimo Capital principals making donations to settlement organizations, military-welfare funds, or comparable entities specifically in connection with their SodaStream holdings has been identified.43 No public evidence identified. Evidence gap from prior run persists; no new confirmatory evidence found.
https://www.haaretz.com/2014-01-28/ty-article/sodastream-ceo-our-workers-are-brothers/0000017f-e3f5-d97e-a57f-fffd43e50000 ↩↩↩↩↩↩
https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2016/01/14/sodastream-ceo-we-are-proof-that-coexistence-works/ ↩
https://www.israelhayom.com/2014/02/05/sodastream-ceo-on-bds-and-our-workers/ ↩↩↩↩
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/scarlett-johansson-sodastream-oxfam-ambassador ↩↩
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/feb/05/scarlett-johansson-resigns-oxfam-ambassador-sodastream ↩↩↩
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/2/6/oxfam-vs-johansson-the-sodastream-affair-explained ↩↩
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/world/middleeast/sodastream-to-close-west-bank-factory.html ↩↩↩↩
https://www.timesofisrael.com/sodastream-officially-opens-negev-factory/ ↩↩↩↩↩
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001397187&type=20-F&dateb=&owner=include&count=40 ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1397187/000119312518066042/0001193125-18-066042-index.htm ↩↩↩↩↩
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sodastream-m-a-pepsico/pepsico-to-acquire-sodastream-for-3-2-billion-idUSKBN1L50JB ↩↩↩↩↩
https://www.pepsico.com/docs/album/esg-topics-policies/pepsico_2022_esg_summary.pdf ↩↩
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/02/un-human-rights-office-issues-database-business-enterprises-involved ↩↩↩
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOC_2015_375_R_0001 ↩↩↩
https://www.haaretz.com/2014-01-28/ty-article/sodastream-ceo-our-workers-are-brothers/0000017f-e3f5-d97e-a57f-fffd43e50000 ↩
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-palestinian-territories ↩
https://www.whoprofits.org/company/sodastream ↩
https://www.whoprofits.org/settlements/Israeli-companies-in-the-West-Bank ↩
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/sodastream-factory-move/2014/11/02/ ↩
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/sodastream-relocation-what-happened-palestinian-employees ↩
https://www.972mag.com/sodastream-workers-after-factory-closure/ ↩
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sodastream-super-bowl-ad_b_2568496 ↩↩
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4479600,00.html ↩↩↩
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/2019-03-04/ty-article/sodastream-ceo-birnbaum-to-step-down/0000017f-db6c-d97e-a57f-ffff6e4a0000 ↩
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000077476&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=include&count=10 ↩↩↩↩↩↩
https://www.pepsico.com/docs/album/esg-topics-policies/pepsico_human_rights_policy.pdf ↩↩↩↩
https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5573-report-special-rapporteur-situation-human-rights-palestinian ↩
https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5626-anatomy-genocide ↩
https://www.icj-cij.org/case/163 ↩
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israel-challenges-jurisdiction ↩
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution ↩
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000077476&type=DEF+14A&dateb=&owner=include&count=10 ↩
https://investigate.afsc.org/company/pepsico ↩
https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/regular-sessions/session53/res-dec-stat ↩
https://www.timesofisrael.com/sodastream-officially-opens-negev-factory/ ↩
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000077476&type=DEF+14A&dateb=&owner=include&count=10 ↩
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/2019-03-04/ty-article/sodastream-ceo-birnbaum-to-step-down/0000017f-db6c-d97e-a57f-ffff6e4a0000 ↩
