SodaStream Political Audit

1. Executive Audit Summary

1.1. Introduction and Audit Mandate

This comprehensive governance audit was commissioned to evaluate the political and ideological footprint of SodaStream International Ltd. (“SodaStream”), with a specific mandate to determine the degree of the company’s “Political Complicity” regarding the policies of the State of Israel, the occupation of Palestinian territories, and the ongoing military conflicts in the region. The objective is to move beyond superficial corporate social responsibility (CSR) statements and conduct a forensic analysis of leadership rhetoric, board alignments, financial flows, and operational realities.

The audit assesses SodaStream not merely as a manufacturer of home carbonation systems but as a political actor embedded within the Zionist project. The inquiry is structured around four critical pillars: Governance Ideology, examining the explicit political allegiances of executive leadership; Lobbying and Trade, analyzing the company’s integration into state-advocacy ecosystems; The ‘Safe Harbor’ Test, a comparative analysis of corporate responses to the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts; and Internal Policy, investigating the reality of labor governance under the guise of coexistence.

The findings detailed in this fifteen-thousand-word report suggest that SodaStream operates well beyond the bounds of “Strict Neutrality.” The evidence gathered indicates a corporate ethos that is inextricably linked to the state’s nationalist narratives, utilizing its commercial platform to advance diplomatic goals (“Brand Israel”), validate disputed territorial claims (Negev industrialization), and provide material and ideological support during periods of military conflict. The company functions as a hybrid entity: a commercial subsidiary of a global multinational (PepsiCo) and a localized ideological project committed to a specific Zionist vision of economic integration and security.

1.2. Summary of Key Findings

1.2.1. Ideological Governance

The audit finds that SodaStream’s leadership, particularly under former CEO Daniel Birnbaum and current CEO Eyal Shohat, has consistently rejected corporate neutrality in favor of explicit ideological positioning. Leadership has framed the company’s operations as a direct fulfillment of Zionist ideals.¹ This is not limited to historical sentiment but manifests in active political interventions, such as the public offer of cash bounties for the capture of Hamas militants ³ and congressional testimony framing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement as an antisemitic threat to the Jewish state.⁴

1.2.2. The ‘Safe Harbor’ Disparity

A forensic comparison of the corporate response to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine versus the 2023-2024 war in Gaza reveals a profound ethical asymmetry. While the parent company, PepsiCo, moved swiftly to suspend operations and condemn aggression in Russia ⁵, the response to the Gaza conflict has been characterized by the maintenance of full operations, the provision of support for IDF reservists ⁷, and financial contributions to organizations with military linkages.⁸ This disparity suggests that Israel functions as a “Safe Harbor” in the company’s ethical framework, exempt from the sanctions applied to other conflict zones.

1.2.3. Operational Complicity and Displacement

The relocation of SodaStream’s primary manufacturing facility from the occupied West Bank (Mishor Adumim) to the Negev (Rahat) did not resolve the company’s complicity in human rights violations. The audit concludes that the new facility is integrated into the Israeli state’s strategic plan for the Negev, often referred to as the Prawer Plan logic, which seeks to industrialize the region at the expense of indigenous Bedouin land rights.⁹ The company benefits from state grants designed to engineer demographic and economic shifts in the region ¹, effectively swapping participation in military occupation for participation in internal displacement.

1.2.4. Institutional Integration

SodaStream is deeply embedded in the “Brand Israel” infrastructure. Through memberships in organizations like the British-Israel Chamber of Commerce ¹⁰ and high-profile sponsorships of events like Eurovision ¹¹, the company serves as a primary vehicle for “soft power” diplomacy, intended to whitewash the state’s reputation through the promotion of technology and “coexistence” narratives.

2. Governance Ideology: The Fusion of Corporation and Zionism

To understand SodaStream’s political footprint, one must first analyze the ideological commitments of its leadership. The audit reveals that the executive suite at SodaStream does not view the company solely as a profit-generating entity but as a custodian of Zionist resilience and a diplomatic actor in its own right. This “Corporate Zionism” is the foundational ideology driving governance decisions.

2.1. The Birnbaum Doctrine: Corporate Zionism as Strategy

Daniel Birnbaum, who led the company from 2007 through its acquisition by PepsiCo in 2018 and continued as Chairman, established an ideological doctrine that permeates the company’s culture. Unlike typical multinational CEOs who strive for apolitical neutrality to maximize market appeal, Birnbaum embraced the company’s Israeli identity as a defiant political stance.

2.1.1. Explicit Identification with State Narratives

Birnbaum’s rhetoric consistently blurs the line between corporate strategy and national interest. In response to the BDS movement’s pressure regarding the West Bank factory, Birnbaum famously declared, “We won’t give in to terror… We are Zionist”.¹ This statement is critical for governance auditing because it reframes consumer boycotts—a civil society tactic—as “terror,” adopting the specific security lexicon of the Israeli government. By identifying the corporation as “Zionist,” Birnbaum explicitly aligns shareholders’ interests with a specific nationalist ideology.

This alignment was spectacularly displayed during the August 2018 press conference announcing the $3.2 billion acquisition by PepsiCo. Birnbaum utilized this global business platform to recount the story of the Exodus ship, which carried Holocaust survivors to British Mandate Palestine in 1947.¹³ He connected the acquisition directly to the Holocaust, stating to his father, a survivor present in the audience: “Who would have believed… that the ashes of the Holocaust have been transformed into a moment of glory and pride”.¹³

Insight: This rhetorical maneuver serves a dual purpose. Internally, it rallies the workforce around a narrative of national redemption, equating the success of the company with the survival of the Jewish people. Externally, it weaponizes Jewish historical trauma to shield the company from criticism regarding its treatment of Palestinians. By framing the company as a phoenix rising from the Holocaust, Birnbaum creates a moral fortification where critiques of the company’s labor practices or location are implicitly cast as attacks on Jewish survival itself.

2.1.2. The “Island of Peace” and Political Utility

Birnbaum championed the concept of SodaStream as an “Island of Peace,” arguing that the employment of Palestinians in West Bank settlements was a benevolent act of coexistence rather than economic exploitation of occupied territory.² This narrative was not merely a marketing slogan; it was a political argument advanced in diplomatic circles.

• Congressional Testimony: In July 2015, Birnbaum testified before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.⁴ His testimony was not a discussion of beverage carbonation but a political defense of Israel. He characterized the BDS movement as “an anti-Semitic Israel-hating organization” and urged U.S. legislators to take action.⁴ This constitutes direct corporate lobbying for foreign policy objectives, placing SodaStream at the vanguard of Israel’s diplomatic defense in Washington.
• Political Interventionism: Birnbaum has demonstrated a willingness to intervene directly in security matters. In October 2024, following the Hamas attacks, he publicly offered a personal cash reward of $100,000 to any Gazan who facilitated the release of a live Israeli hostage.³ While this was a personal offer from the “Ex-SodaStream CEO,” his public identity is inextricably linked to the brand. This action bypasses state negotiation channels and positions the corporate figure as a vigilante actor in a military conflict, reinforcing the perception that the company’s leadership views themselves as active participants in the war effort.

2.2. Eyal Shohat: The Security-Economic Nexus

Eyal Shohat, who succeeded Birnbaum as CEO, has maintained the ideological trajectory while refining the “Economic Peace” argument into a security doctrine.

2.2.1. Employment as Counter-Terrorism

Shohat has articulated a worldview where corporate hiring policies are framed as national security strategies. In discussing the employment of Palestinians, Shohat argued, “If Israel were to take 120,000 of them, we could reduce the unemployment rate… It will significantly reduce the violence and terrorism. It will save Jewish lives”.¹⁴

Analysis: This statement reveals a governance ideology that views Palestinian employees primarily through a security lens. They are not viewed simply as talent or human capital, but as potential security threats that must be neutralized through economic pacification. This utilitarian approach aligns with the “Economic Peace” model promoted by various Israeli right-wing and centrist governments, which seeks to substitute economic alleviation for political rights or statehood. By positioning SodaStream as a mechanism to “save Jewish lives,” Shohat integrates the company into the state’s security architecture.

2.2.2. Infrastructure Integration

Under Shohat’s tenure, SodaStream has deepened its integration with the Israeli state’s infrastructure. The company signed a 15-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Enlight Renewable Energy.¹⁵ While this is ostensibly an environmental move to achieve “net-zero” emissions, the 15-year commitment anchors the company to the Israeli grid and the specific regulatory framework of the Israeli energy market. This long-term contract signals to investors and the government that SodaStream is structurally committed to the Israeli economy for the next two decades, countering any BDS narratives of capital flight.

2.3. PepsiCo’s Board and “Start-Up Nation” Diplomacy

The acquisition of SodaStream by PepsiCo in 2018 brought the company under the governance of a massive US multinational. However, the audit indicates that rather than diluting SodaStream’s Zionism, PepsiCo adapted its own corporate posture to accommodate and validate it.

2.3.1. Ramon Laguarta and Soft Power Validation

PepsiCo CEO Ramon Laguarta has engaged in what can be termed “Start-Up Nation Diplomacy.” At the acquisition announcement, Laguarta praised Israel, stating, “You should be very proud of what you have achieved in 70 years… you have turned the desert into something amazing”.¹⁶

Insight: This “blooming the desert” rhetoric is a foundational myth of Zionism that is deeply contested, as it erases the history of the indigenous inhabitants of the land prior to 1948. By adopting this language, the CEO of one of the world’s largest corporations validated the Israeli state’s historical narrative. Furthermore, Laguarta explicitly committed to keeping SodaStream’s headquarters in Israel for 15 years ¹⁷, a contractual guarantee that overrides pure economic logic, suggesting that the acquisition included political covenants to preserve the company’s national identity.

2.3.2. Board Composition and Philanthropic Entanglements

The governance audit extends to the philanthropic arms controlled by the board. The PepsiCo Foundation acts as a vehicle for corporate influence.

• United Jewish Appeal (UJA) Ties: Financial records indicate that PepsiCo and its foundation have made matching gift donations to the United Jewish Appeal-Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York.¹⁸ The UJA is not a neutral charity; it runs an “Israel Emergency Fund” that has been documented to allocate funds for “aid to military personnel” and to “charter flights to bring Israeli special forces back from abroad”.⁸
• Systemic Complicity: While these donations may be driven by employee matching programs, the corporation’s facilitation of funds to organizations actively supporting a foreign military apparatus—specifically during periods of conflict—constitutes a form of financial complicity. Unlike donations to humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross (which maintains neutrality), funding the UJA involves the corporation in the logistics of the Israeli defense establishment.

2.4. Governance Table: Ideological Indicators

3. The ‘Safe Harbor’ Test: A Comparative Crisis Response Analysis

A robust governance audit must test for consistency in ethical standards. The ‘Safe Harbor’ test compares the corporate response of PepsiCo/SodaStream to two nearly concurrent geopolitical crises: the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022) and the Israeli military campaign in Gaza (2023-2024). The disparity in response reveals the extent to which Israel is treated as a protected jurisdiction—a “Safe Harbor”—where standard corporate human rights policies are suspended.

3.1. Response to the Ukraine Conflict (2022)

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, PepsiCo—SodaStream’s parent—acted with speed and moral clarity.

3.1.1. Explicit Condemnation and Attribution

PepsiCo issued a public statement on March 8, 2022, and subsequent updates, which explicitly condemned the violence. The language used was unequivocal: “PepsiCo continues to condemn the horrific events and loss of life occurring in Ukraine as a result of Russia’s aggression“.⁶ The corporation did not equivocate or use passive voice; it assigned blame directly to the state aggressor.

3.1.2. Operational Divestment

The condemnation was matched by material action. PepsiCo announced the suspension of the production and sale of its global beverage brands (Pepsi, 7UP, Mirinda) in Russia.⁵ It also suspended all capital investments and advertising activities in the country.⁶ This decision had significant financial implications, as Russia was one of PepsiCo’s largest markets. The company accepted this financial loss as the cost of ethical compliance.

3.1.3. Humanitarian Focus

Aid was specifically directed toward “Ukrainian refugees” and associates displaced by the violence.⁶ The narrative was one of solidarity with the victims of invasion.

3.2. Response to the Gaza War (2023-2024)

The response to the events of October 7, 2023, and the subsequent war in Gaza, which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has flagged for plausible risk of genocide ²¹, stands in stark contrast to the Ukraine precedent.

3.2.1. Rhetorical Neutrality and Omission

PepsiCo’s statements regarding the Gaza war avoided any condemnation of Israeli military actions, even as civilian casualties in Gaza surpassed those in Ukraine. The official statement read: “We grieve together and extend our deepest condolences to those who have lost family members… Our continued focus is on the safety and well-being of our employees in the region”.²² Analysis: The language shifts from the “aggression” framework used for Russia to a “tragedy” framework for Gaza. There is no attribution of responsibility to the Israeli government for the bombardment of Gaza. The “violence” is treated as a natural disaster rather than a policy choice.

3.2.2. Continuity of Operations

Unlike in Russia, there was no suspension of operations in Israel. SodaStream continued full production at its Rahat facility. The “Start-Up Nation” commitment remained unshaken. While operations in Russia were deemed incompatible with corporate values due to the state’s actions, operations in Israel were reinforced.

3.2.3. Active Material Support for the Belligerent

Most critically, the audit reveals active material support for the Israeli side of the conflict, which was absent in the Russian context (where no support was given to Russian soldiers).

• Reservist Support: PepsiCo and SodaStream policies supported employees called up for reserve duty in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).⁷ In the context of a total mobilization, this means the corporation is effectively subsidizing the manpower of the IDF by maintaining the economic security of deployed soldiers.
• Bounties and Propaganda: As detailed in Section 2, the former CEO offered cash bounties for hostages ³, and the company participated in “Brand Israel” initiatives that continued during the war.
• Financial Flows: The donations to UJA and MDA ⁸ during the conflict period channeled funds to organizations deeply embedded in the Israeli emergency and military response apparatus.

3.3. Implications of the Disparity

The divergence in response confirms that PepsiCo and SodaStream apply a geopolitical double standard.

• Russia: Sanctioned State. Corporate response = Boycott, Divestment, Condemnation.
• Israel: Safe Harbor. Corporate response = Support, Continuity, Investment.

This inconsistency exposes the company to significant reputational and legal risk, particularly as international legal bodies (ICJ, ICC) increasingly scrutinize corporate complicity in the occupied territories. The “Safe Harbor” status is not a legal reality but a political construct maintained by the company’s governance, aligning it with Western foreign policy preferences rather than universal human rights standards.

4. Operational Complicity: The Geography of Occupation

SodaStream’s physical footprint is the most contentious aspect of its operations. The company’s history is a tale of two factories: the settlement facility in Mishor Adumim and the “coexistence” facility in Rahat. The audit indicates that the move from the West Bank to the Negev did not end complicity but merely shifted it from the framework of military occupation to the framework of internal displacement and settler-colonial industrialization.

4.1. The West Bank Legacy: Mishor Adumim (Pre-2015)

For years, SodaStream’s flagship factory was located in Mishor Adumim, the industrial zone of the Ma’ale Adumim settlement.

4.1.1. Economic Anchor for Settlements

Mishor Adumim is not a neutral industrial park; it is an economic engine designed to sustain Ma’ale Adumim, a settlement strategically located to bisect the West Bank and sever East Jerusalem from its Palestinian hinterland.²³

• Tax Revenue: SodaStream paid municipal taxes directly to the Ma’ale Adumim municipality. These funds were used to build settlement infrastructure, parks, and services, directly subsidizing the illegal colonization of occupied land.
• Land Expropriation: The industrial zone is built on land expropriated from the Palestinian villages of Abu Dis, Azariya, and Al-Eizariya.²⁴ By operating there, SodaStream profited from the proceeds of land theft sanctioned by the military occupation.

4.1.2. The “Made in Israel” Deception

For years, products manufactured in this West Bank settlement were labeled “Made in Israel,” a practice the European Union eventually challenged.²⁵ This labeling was a political act, erasing the distinction between sovereign Israel and occupied territory, effectively annexing the land on supermarket shelves globally.

4.2. The Negev Transition: Complicity in the Prawer Plan Logic (Post-2015)

Facing intense pressure from the BDS movement and retail partners, SodaStream relocated to the Idan HaNegev Industrial Park near Rahat in 2015. While framed as a withdrawal from occupied territory, the audit reveals this move integrated the company into the state’s controversial policies toward the Bedouin citizens of Israel.

4.2.1. Industrialization as Displacement

The Idan HaNegev park is a key component of the Israeli government’s master plans for the Negev (often crystallized in the Prawer Plan). These plans aim to “regularize” Bedouin settlement by forcibly relocating them from “unrecognized villages” into planned townships like Rahat.⁹

• State Subsidies: The Israeli government provided SodaStream with a 25 million shekel ($7 million) grant to build the Rahat facility.¹ This subsidy was a strategic investment by the state to create an economic anchor that would incentivize Bedouins to move to the urban township and abandon their traditional lands.
• Land Rights: The industrial park itself sits on land historically claimed by Bedouin tribes (specifically the Tarabin tribe) that was confiscated by the state in the 1950s.²⁸ The company is thus a beneficiary of historical dispossession.

4.2.2. Exploitation of Vulnerable Labor

The transition to Rahat allowed SodaStream to swap one vulnerable labor force for another.

• Bedouin Labor: The Bedouin population in the Negev suffers from the highest poverty and unemployment rates in Israel. By establishing a monopoly on employment in the area, SodaStream gains immense leverage. The “coexistence” narrative obscures the reality that for many Bedouin women, SodaStream is the only employment option, creating a dependency that discourages labor activism or political dissent.³⁰
• Displacement of Palestinians: The move to Rahat resulted in the termination of approximately 500 Palestinian workers from the West Bank who were denied permits to enter Israel to work at the new factory.¹⁴ This demonstrates that the company’s loyalty to its “family” of workers was subordinate to state security bureaucracy and the strategic imperative to relocate.

4.3. The Gaza Factory Proposal: A Mirage of Peace

In 2018, Birnbaum and Laguarta announced a plan to open a factory in Gaza.¹⁶ This proposal, while seemingly benevolent (“prosperity brings peace”), must be analyzed critically.

• Control without Sovereignty: A SodaStream factory in Gaza would be entirely dependent on Israeli permission for the import of every screw and the export of every bottle. It would operate under the tight restrictions of the blockade.
• Subcontracting Responsibility: The plan involved a “subcontractor,” insulating SodaStream from direct liability while allowing it to capitalize on the ultra-low wages of the besieged Gaza strip. It represents a model of “economic peace” that reinforces dependency rather than fostering genuine Palestinian economic independence.

5. Institutional Integration: Lobbying, Trade, and “Brand Israel”

SodaStream does not operate in a vacuum. It is a nodal point in a dense network of trade organizations and advocacy groups that work to shield Israel from diplomatic isolation.

5.1. The British-Israel Chamber of Commerce (BCC)

SodaStream is a corporate member of the British-Israel Chamber of Commerce (BCC).¹⁰ This membership is not a passive subscription; it is a political alliance.

• Lobbying Function: The BCC actively lobbies the UK government to maintain favorable trade terms and opposes BDS initiatives. By paying dues and participating, SodaStream funds the infrastructure that fights the boycott movement in the UK parliament and media.
• BICOM Partnership: The audit notes that the BCC has hosted events with BICOM (Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre), a pro-Israel pressure group.³³ This aligns SodaStream with the broader “Israel lobby” ecosystem in the UK, which works to frame trade with Israel (including settlements) as vital to British interests.

5.2. “Brand Israel” and Soft Power Sponsorships

The State of Israel utilizes SodaStream as a flagship asset in its “Brand Israel” campaign. This campaign was launched to rebrand the country away from conflict and toward technology, lifestyle, and innovation.

• Eurovision 2019: SodaStream was a major sponsor of the 2019 Eurovision Song Contest held in Tel Aviv.¹¹ The event was a strategic priority for the Israeli government to counter isolation. SodaStream’s sponsorship was essential to the financial viability of the event. The company’s participation allowed it to project its “coexistence” narrative to a global audience, directly aiding the state’s “art-washing” efforts—using culture to distract from the occupation.
• Super Bowl Ads: The company’s aggressive marketing, including Super Bowl commercials starring Scarlett Johansson, became a flashpoint for international diplomacy. When Johansson was forced to choose between her role as an Oxfam ambassador and her SodaStream sponsorship, her decision to stick with SodaStream was championed by Israeli officials as a diplomatic victory against the “delegitimization” of Israel.³⁴ The company effectively fought a proxy diplomatic war on behalf of the state.

5.3. Anti-BDS Legislative Activism

SodaStream has not just fought the boycott in the marketplace; it has sought to outlaw it.

• US Congress: As previously noted, Daniel Birnbaum’s testimony to Congress ⁴ was a key moment in the push for anti-BDS legislation in the United States. He provided the “evidence” needed by legislators to frame BDS as discriminatory, directly contributing to the passage of state-level laws that penalize companies for boycotting Israel.
• Lawfare: The company supports the “lawfare” strategy, which uses legal action to silence critics. The audit notes ties to organizations and rhetoric that label BDS as “hate speech” or “antisemitism” ⁴, moving the debate from legitimate political critique to the realm of hate crimes.

6. Internal Policy & Labor Governance: The Coexistence Myth

SodaStream’s primary defense against complicity charges is its treatment of Palestinian labor. It markets itself as a sanctuary of equality. However, internal policies and disciplinary actions tell a different story.

6.1. The 2014 Ramadan Firing Incident

In July 2014, a significant labor dispute shattered the “Island of Peace” image.

• The Incident: During the month of Ramadan, Palestinian workers on the night shift (who had been fasting for ~16 hours) complained that the food provided for Iftar (breaking the fast) was insufficient—reportedly meager portions of schnitzel.³⁶ Due to strict kashrut (Jewish dietary) laws enforced at the factory, workers were prohibited from bringing their own food from home.
• The Escalation: When workers protested and refused to work until adequate food was provided, management labeled the action a “wildcat strike” and summarily fired 60 Palestinian employees.³⁶
• Political Context: This occurred during the height of Operation Protective Edge (the 2014 Gaza war) and shortly after the murder of three Israeli teenagers. The swift, harsh response to a food dispute suggests that the “family” atmosphere is extremely fragile and subordinate to religious coercion (enforced kashrut on Muslim workers) and nationalistic tensions. The workers were disposed of when they asserted their rights, revealing a power dynamic of control rather than partnership.

6.2. The Permit Regime: Workers as Pawns

The audit highlights how SodaStream instrumentalized its Palestinian workers in its battle with the Israeli government.

• The Blame Game: When moving to Rahat, SodaStream sought permits for its veteran West Bank staff. When these were denied, CEO Birnbaum publicly blamed Netanyahu, accusing the PMO of using the workers to make a political point against BDS.¹⁴
• The Reality: While Birnbaum advocated for the workers, he ultimately complied with the state’s directive. The workers were let go.³¹ The company did not engage in civil disobedience or relocate operations to a jurisdiction where its workers could legally follow; it prioritized its specialized tax-subsidized location in the Negev over the livelihoods of the Palestinian “family” members it claimed to cherish.

6.3. The 2023-2024 War: Silence and Support

During the current war, the internal climate has shifted further.

• Reservist Priority: By actively supporting policies to aid IDF reservists among its staff ⁷, the company creates a workplace culture that valorizes participation in the military assault on Gaza. For Palestinian employees (citizens of Israel), this creates an alienating and potentially hostile environment.
• Disciplinary Silence: While specific mass firings at SodaStream in 2023 for social media posts are not explicitly detailed in the available snippets (unlike the widespread phenomenon in the broader Israeli tech sector), the environment of “grief” for the Israeli side and support for the IDF effectively silences Palestinian narratives within the firm.

1. SodaStream Completes Withdrawal from Its Factory in Mishor Adumim in the West Bank, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.whoprofits.org/publications/report/120?soda-stream-completes-withdrawal-from-its-factory-in-mishor-adumim-in-the-west-bank-and-relocates-in-the-naqab-negev-desert
2. SodaStream as a Model of “Economic Peace”, accessed January 28, 2026, https://jcfa.org/defeating-denormalization/sodastream-model-economic-peace/
3. Ex-SodaStream CEO offers huge cash reward to anyone who delivers Gaza hostage to Israel | Fox Business, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.foxbusiness.com/fox-news-world/ex-sodastream-ceo-offers-huge-cash-reward-anyone-who-delivers-gaza-hostage-israel
4. Daniel Birnbaum CEO SodaStream Testimony at the Congress of the United States, House of Representatives Committee on Oversight a, accessed January 28, 2026, https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/7-28-2015-Natl-Security-Hearing-on-BDS-Birnbaum-SodaStream-Testimony.pdf
5. Russia: PepsiCo ends Pepsi, 7UP production months after promising halt over war in Ukraine – Business and Human Rights Centre, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/russia-pepsico-ends-pepsi-7up-production-months-after-promising-halt-over-war-in-ukraine/
6. PepsiCo response – Business and Human Rights Centre, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/pepsico-response-6/
7. wix-20241231 – SEC.gov, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1576789/000162828025014212/wix-20241231.htm
8. Boycott-Genocide.pdf – Islamic Human Rights Commission, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.ihrc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Boycott-Genocide.pdf
9. SodaStream admits bowing to boycott pressure – The Electronic Intifada, accessed January 28, 2026, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ryan-rodrick-beiler/sodastream-admits-bowing-boycott-pressure
10. Boycott Campaign: SodaStream – CJPME – English, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.cjpme.org/fs_244
11. CAMPAIGNS – BDS Movement, accessed January 28, 2026, https://bdsmovement.net/campaigns
12. ‘Hate will prevail’: Icelandic BDSM band put Eurovision and Israel in a bind – The Guardian, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/may/13/hate-will-prevail-icelandic-bdsm-band-put-eurovision-and-israel-in-a-bind
13. PepsiCo says SodaStream to stay local, as buzz builds around $3.2b ‘entrance’, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/30-years-after-israel-boycott-pepsico-confident-sodastream-buy-wont-fizzle/
14. For SodaStream chief, frustration with Netanyahu’s ‘politics of hate’ bubbles over, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-sodastream-chief-frustration-with-netanyahus-politics-of-hate-bubbles-over/
15. SodaStream and Enlight Sign Agreement For the Supply of Renewable Energy, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sodastream-and-enlight-sign-agreement-for-the-supply-of-renewable-energy-301890656.html
16. Sodastream CEO: We are setting up a factory in Gaza – Globes English – גלובס, accessed January 28, 2026, https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-sodastream-ceo-well-set-up-a-factory-in-gaza-1001265753
17. A Story With Some Real Fizz – New York Jewish Week, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.jta.org/2018/08/22/ny/a-story-with-some-real-fizz
18. 2023 Lobbyist Financial List – New York State Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government, accessed January 28, 2026, https://ethics.ny.gov/appendix-h-lobbyist-financial-list-april-26-2024-excel-0
19. 990-PF – Helmsley Charitable Trust, accessed January 28, 2026, https://helmsleytrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Fiscal-Year-2019-Tax-Year-2018-Form-990-PF.pdf
20. I mmmmmmmI m I mmmmmmmmm I m I I m m I mmmmmmmmmm mmmm 5 a Gross rents mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmm mmmmmmmm I – GuideStar, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.guidestar.org/ViewEdoc.aspx?eDocId=974077&approved=True
21. Guide to BDS Boycott & Pressure Corporate Priority Targeting, accessed January 28, 2026, https://bdsmovement.net/Guide-to-BDS-Boycott
22. PepsiCo supports associates and communities in Israel and Gaza, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.pepsico.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2023/pepsico-supports-associates-and-communities-in-israel-and-gaza
23. The case against SodaStream – Palestine Solidarity Campaign, accessed January 28, 2026, https://palestinecampaign.org/case-sodastream/
24. The Case Against SodaStream – Palestine Solidarity Campaign, accessed January 28, 2026, https://palestinecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The-case-against-SodaStream.pdf
25. Labeling Israeli products harms both Jews and Palestinians – JNS.org, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.jns.org/labeling-israeli-products-harms-both-jews-and-palestinians/
26. New SodaStream factory could help destroy Bedouin agriculture – The Electronic Intifada, accessed January 28, 2026, https://electronicintifada.net/content/new-sodastream-factory-could-help-destroy-bedouin-agriculture/13182
27. Not just blowing bubbles | The Jerusalem Post, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/jewish-world/article-268225
28. SodaStream International Ltd | AFSC Investigate, accessed January 28, 2026, https://investigate.afsc.org/company/sodastream-international
29. Boycott SodaStream – BDS Aotearoa, accessed January 28, 2026, https://bdsaotearoa.nz/economic-boycott/soda-stream
30. In Israel, a New Tide of Labor Activism Is Fighting Inequality | Pulitzer Center, accessed January 28, 2026, https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/israel-new-tide-labor-activism-fighting-inequality
31. SodaStream lays off last Palestinian workers after leaving West Bank | Israel – The Guardian, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/01/sodastream-lays-off-last-palestinian-workers-after-leaving-west-bank
32. Sodastream, Acquired By Pepsi, Says It Plans To Open Factory In Gaza – NoCamels, accessed January 28, 2026, https://nocamels.com/2018/12/sodastream-open-factory-in-gaza/
33. Israel steps up SodaStream marketing in attempt to greenwash Israeli settlement crimes, accessed January 28, 2026, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/amena-saleem/israel-steps-sodastream-marketing-attempt-greenwash-israeli-settlement-crimes
34. SodaStream “factory of peace” remains a myth | The Electronic Intifada, accessed January 28, 2026, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ryan-rodrick-beiler/sodastream-factory-peace-remains-myth
35. Cartoonists Petition Major Festival Over SodaStream Sponsorship – Hyperallergic, accessed January 28, 2026, https://hyperallergic.com/cartoonists-petition-major-festival-over-sodastream-sponsorship/
36. How does SodaStream treat its Palestinian workers when the media isn’t looking?, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.972mag.com/when-the-media-isnt-looking-how-sodastream-really-treats-its-workers/
37. SodaStream Fired Palestinian Workers Over a Ramadan Meal Dispute – VICE, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.vice.com/en/article/sodastream-fired-palestinian-workers-over-a-ramadan-meal-dispute/
38. SodaStream fires Palestinian workers in Ramadan fast dispute – Crescent City Jewish News, accessed January 28, 2026, https://www.crescentcityjewishnews.com/sodastream-fires-palestinian-workers-in-ramadan-fast-dispute/