INDEX / DIRECTORY / BERSHKA

Bershka

Fashion & Apparel 61 CITED SOURCES UPDATED 2026-10-09 METHOD V6.5
Complicity Index score 541 /1000 C Tier C - High
Military ↗ 0.00 Digital ↗ 6.00 Economic ↗ 3.40 Political ↗ 4.00
OWNERSHIP TREE 1 brands and group businesses View all

OpenIntel is reader-funded - no sponsors, no institutional money. Support OpenIntel →

Key Findings

  • Digital: Bershka’s Israel-market privacy framework places ITX MERKEN B.V. and a local Israeli controller in the processing chain for identifiable customer, transaction, payment, device, browsing, geolocation, preference and marketing-profile data, with data stored in the controllers’ respective databases.1
  • Economic: Bershka has a sustained Israeli retail and e-commerce presence. Inditex reported 15 Bershka stores in Israel at 31 January 2026, while the current Aquilon operator portfolio states 17 stores; the difference in date or counting methodology remains unresolved.2, 3
  • Political: Bershka’s Israeli footprint continued and expanded after major legal and civil-society notice points: a Petah Tikva flagship opened in December 2024, another Jerusalem flagship was reported in February 2026, and Inditex’s European Works Council called in 2025 for termination of the Israel franchise relationship.4, 5, 6
  • Not found: No public evidence identified of Bershka or Inditex supplying the IDF or Israeli defence sector, operating in Israeli settlements, donating to Israeli military bodies, or providing military, intelligence or offensive-cyber technology.7, 8, 9

Target Profile

FieldDetail
Company NameBershka
JurisdictionSpain; Bershka is an Inditex brand, with principal group and Bershka design/logistics entities documented in Spain.2
HeadquartersInditex parent: A Coruña, Spain; the audited record places Bershka’s principal group entities in Spain.2
SectorFashion/apparel retail.2
OwnershipPart of listed Spanish group Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A. (Inditex). Amancio Ortega Gaona controlled 59.294% of voting rights at 31 January 2026 through Pontegadea Inversiones and Partler 2006; Sandra Ortega Mera held 5.053%.10
Key Executives / GovernanceMarta Ortega Pérez, non-executive chair of Inditex; Óscar García Maceiras, chief executive; Amancio Ortega Gaona, controlling shareholder.10
Israeli-Nexus SummaryBershka operates an Israeli retail and e-commerce business through a local seller/importer and franchise/operator structure, with associated Israel-market customer-data processing and a continuing physical store network.11, 1, 3

Key Facts:

Executive Summary

Bershka is a fashion brand of Spain’s Inditex group with a long-running Israeli retail franchise and distribution presence. Current Bershka legal notices identify Daniel Gottex Ltd as the authorised Israeli seller/importer under ITX MERKEN B.V., while a separate privacy notice names ITX MERKEN B.V. and a local Gottex entity as controllers of Israeli customer data.11, 1 Inditex’s FY2025 accounts recorded 15 Bershka stores in Israel at 31 January 2026; the current Aquilon operator portfolio states 17, a discrepancy the audits leave unresolved rather than treating as a confirmed increase.2, 3

The strongest documented economic vector is this sustained market presence. Inditex’s corporate reporting showed 14 Bershka stores in Israel at 31 January 2025 and 15 one year later, while the total Inditex Israel estate increased from 82 to 92 stores.2, 12 New Bershka flagships were reported at Ofer Grand Mall in Petah Tikva in December 2024 and at Azrieli Jerusalem Mall in February 2026.4, 5 The audits found no verified Bershka settlement storefront, settlement-origin product, Israel-domiciled Inditex subsidiary, Israeli factory, owned logistics hub or Israel-specific revenue figure.2, 7, 8

The strongest digital finding concerns Israel-market personal-data processing. Bershka’s privacy notice covers identity, economic and transaction information, payment information, device and browsing data, geolocation, preferences and marketing profiles, with data stored in the respective databases of the named controllers.1 The V6.5 digital adjudication treats this continuing Israeli-controller exposure as the governing digital mechanism. The audits did not establish the physical location of the relevant servers, participation in Project Nimbus, an Israeli data centre operated by Bershka or Inditex, or provision of technology to Israeli military or intelligence bodies. A separate Israeli-technology lead involving Anodot concerned Zara/Inditex data and a former technology provider; Bershka-specific exposure was not verified.13, 14, 15

The political-domain result arises principally from the continuation and expansion of the Israeli commercial footprint after substantial legal, workforce and civil-society notice. The Petah Tikva opening followed the ICJ advisory opinion of 19 July 2024 and the ICC’s 21 November 2024 warrant announcement; in 2025 the Inditex European Works Council called on management to terminate the Israeli franchise relationship, and the BDS National Committee’s Zara-focused campaign identified Bershka among Inditex brands operating in Israel.4, 6, 16, 17, 18 These facts establish chronology and notice, not a political endorsement by Bershka. The audits found no Bershka statement endorsing Israeli policy, no corporate military donation, no verified settlement sponsorship and no evidence that the 2022 private political activity of Israeli franchise principal Joey Schwebel was organised or endorsed by Bershka.19, 20

The military audit produced no mechanically eligible frame: no public evidence identified of defence procurement, IDF contracts, weapons or dual-use military supply, military logistics, defence-prime integration or Israeli security-sector services attributable to Bershka or Inditex.9 With the fixed V6.5 scores, Digital is the highest domain at 6.00, followed by Political at 4.00, Economic at 3.40 and Military at 0.00. The resulting Complicity Index score is 541, placing Bershka in Tier C (High) under the supplied, human-vetted scoring model.

Timeline of Relevant Events

DateEvent
1 December 2002Globes reported that acquisition of the Zara Israel franchise through the local Generique structure included rights relating to other Inditex brands, including future Bershka operations. The historical ownership structure is not assumed to be current.21
2010Ynet reported Gottex Brands opening the first Bershka store in Israel.22
10 January 2012Reporting described the Schwebel-owned Zara Israel group as an Inditex franchisee operating Zara, Pull&Bear, Bershka and Massimo Dutti.23
24 October 2022Reuters reporting described Israeli Zara franchise principal Joey Schwebel hosting Itamar Ben-Gvir at his home during the election campaign. The event was described as private and is not attributed to Bershka as a corporate act.19
12 November 2022Inditex was reported as telling the Palestinian Economy Ministry that the views of its Zara agent did not represent Inditex policy or opinion.20
15 November 2023A Mastercard country-manager promotional interview identified Bershka among companies recognising the value of Dynamic Yield personalisation technology. The audit treats this as a vendor statement rather than proof of a current Bershka contract or Israeli deployment.24, 25
19 July 2024The ICJ issued its advisory opinion concerning the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.16
21 November 2024The ICC announced arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant.17
5 December 2024Bershka and Pull&Bear opened new flagship stores at Ofer Grand Mall in Petah Tikva; reporting described roughly NIS 12 million of combined investment and a roughly 600 m² Bershka store.4
31 January 2025Inditex reported 14 Bershka stores and 82 total Inditex-brand stores in Israel.12
24 July 2025The BDS National Committee announced a Zara-focused boycott campaign, named Bershka among Inditex brands operating in Israel and called for Inditex to withdraw from Israel.18
9 October 2025Reporting said the Inditex European Works Council had asked management to terminate the Israel franchise relationship after its September meeting; no company response had been received at the time reported.6
31 January 2026Inditex reported 15 Bershka stores and 92 total Inditex-brand stores in Israel.2
4 February 2026Israeli reporting announced a roughly 450 m² Bershka flagship at Azrieli Jerusalem Mall.5
16 April 2026Inditex disclosed unauthorised access to transaction databases hosted by a former technology provider. Subsequent reporting tied a Zara dataset to alleged compromise of Anodot; no Bershka-specific exposure was established.13, 14
25 September 2026OHCHR’s A/HRC/63/20 settlement-business database update was reviewed; Bershka, Inditex, Zara and Gottex were not identified in the published report.7

Corporate Overview

Bershka is part of the Inditex group. The FY2025 consolidated accounts identify Inditex’s parent in A Coruña, Spain, and list Bershka retail, design and logistics entities within the wider group. ITX Merken B.V. is identified as a wholly owned Amsterdam services company. The same group-composition annex does not list an Israel-domiciled Inditex or Bershka subsidiary.2

The Israeli operating model documented by the audits is based on local distribution, franchise and retail relationships rather than a consolidated Israeli Inditex subsidiary. Bershka’s current terms identify Daniel Gottex Ltd in Or Yehuda as the authorised seller/importer for Israeli e-commerce under ITX MERKEN B.V.11 The privacy notice separately identifies GOTTEX MUTAGIM – REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP and ITX MERKEN B.V. as controllers.1 Aquilon’s current portfolio includes Bershka among its Israeli retail brands, while 2025 reporting identifies the Schwebel/Trimera franchise group.3, 6 Because the available records use several Gottex, Trimera and operator labels, the audits preserve those legal and operational distinctions rather than collapsing them into a single entity.

Historically, Israeli operation dates back at least to the franchise structures reported in the early 2000s and the first Bershka opening reported in 2010.21, 22 Current attribution, however, rests on the 2026 corporate filings and Bershka legal notices rather than assuming that historical ownership arrangements remain unchanged.2, 11

Domain Summaries

Military: Military

Mechanism of Involvement

No public evidence identified of a qualifying military mechanism attributable to Bershka or Inditex. The military audit found no contract, tender award, framework agreement or memorandum with the Israeli Ministry of Defense, IDF, Israel Prison Service, Border Police or another Israeli security body. It also found no verified military product line, defence-grade adaptation, export licence for a military end-user, defence-prime component supply, weapons manufacturing, military logistics contract or purpose-built targeting or kill-chain software.9

The documented Israeli relationship instead concerns civilian fashion retail, importing, e-commerce and customer-data processing through the Bershka/ITX Merken/local operator structure.11, 1 Continued civilian retail operations after the 2024 legal milestones do not, on the audited evidence, establish military procurement or military-sector integration.2, 4

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is that the audited record is consistently civilian. Bershka is documented as a fashion retailer, and the sources found for Israel describe consumer merchandise, stores, importing and retail data processing rather than defence supply.2, 11 The military audit also found no target match in the checked specialist military and occupation databases or in the relevant UN screening material.7, 9

Those absences are not treated as universal proof that no undisclosed relationship could exist. The specialist databases themselves have defined mandates, and the audit did not claim a complete address-level geospatial exclusion for every Israeli store. The finding is narrower: no public evidence identified of a mechanically eligible Military relationship in the reviewed record.

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Digital: Digital

Mechanism of Involvement

The governing Digital mechanism is the sustained Israel-market processing of customer data through ITX MERKEN B.V. and a local Israeli controller. Bershka’s privacy policy states that personal data is stored in the controllers’ respective databases and encompasses identity, economic and transaction information, payment information, device and browsing data, geolocation, preferences and marketing profiles.1 The Data-Exposure / Sovereignty Principle treats this Israeli-controller exposure as a qualifying digital relationship, producing Digital 6.00. This is a finding of structural data exposure; it does not establish that Israeli state agencies accessed these records.

Inditex also operates substantial parent-level digital infrastructure supporting its brands, including large-scale data platforms, machine-learning systems, recommendations and personalisation.26 That establishes substantial group technology capability but does not by itself establish Israeli military or surveillance use.

A separate Israeli-origin technology lead exists at parent/sister-brand level. Inditex disclosed unauthorised access in April 2026 to transaction databases hosted by a former technology provider.13 Have I Been Pwned records that the attackers attributed a Zara breach to compromise of Anodot, an analytics company headquartered in Petah Tikva and acquired by Glassbox in November 2025.14, 15, 27 The audits expressly do not attribute this breach or Anodot use to Bershka because no reviewed source identifies Bershka customer data or a Bershka-specific integration.

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is the narrow scope of what has actually been verified. The digital score is not based on evidence that Bershka supplies surveillance technology to Israel, participates in Project Nimbus, operates an Israeli data centre or provides AI, cyber or cloud services to the IDF or Israeli intelligence. No public evidence identified of those relationships in the audits.

The physical location of Bershka’s customer-data servers is also unresolved. The privacy notice establishes controllers, categories of processing and storage in their respective databases, but does not establish that the relevant servers are physically located in Israel.1

The Dynamic Yield evidence is similarly limited. A 2023 Mastercard representative named Bershka among brands recognising the value of Dynamic Yield’s personalisation technology, and Mastercard’s acquisition material documents Dynamic Yield teams in Tel Aviv and New York.24, 25 The audits do not treat that as proof of a disclosed Bershka contract, Israeli deployment, current use in October 2026 or a state-security function.

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Economic: Economic

Mechanism of Involvement

Bershka’s principal documented economic nexus is direct participation in Israel’s consumer retail economy. Inditex reported 15 Bershka stores in Israel at 31 January 2026, compared with 14 a year earlier.2, 12 The wider Inditex estate increased from 82 to 92 stores over the same reporting interval.2, 12 Aquilon’s current undated portfolio states 17 Bershka stores; because its reference date and counting methodology are not established, the audit does not equate that figure with the dated corporate count.3

Current e-commerce activity is supported by Bershka’s Israeli terms, which identify Daniel Gottex Ltd as the seller/importer authorised by ITX MERKEN B.V.11 The commercial footprint also includes the December 2024 Petah Tikva flagship and the February 2026 Jerusalem flagship reported in Israeli media.4, 5

The audit found no public figure for Bershka’s Israeli revenue, profit, employee count, corporate tax contribution, franchise royalty rate or Israel-specific remittance to Inditex. It likewise found no Israel-domiciled consolidated Inditex subsidiary, owned Israeli factory, office, data centre, warehouse or logistics hub.2

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is that the documented economic nexus is ordinary retail and franchise commerce rather than a verified settlement, military or state-finance relationship. No public evidence identified of Bershka sourcing goods from Israeli agricultural exporters, purchasing settlement-origin merchandise, underwriting Israeli sovereign debt, financing defence companies or investing in an Israeli operating subsidiary.

The settlement evidence is particularly limited. Bershka, Inditex, Daniel Gottex and Gottex were not identified in the reviewed September 2026 OHCHR settlement-business database.7 The audit also found no verified Bershka store in a West Bank settlement, occupied East Jerusalem settlement or occupied Syrian Golan. This is not a blanket geographic clearance because a complete address-level audit was unavailable.

The local retail structure is also independent enough that the audits avoid treating every franchisee action as an Inditex or Bershka act. Historical investments by the Schwebel-owned Israeli franchise group, for example, are attributed to that local operator rather than to Bershka itself.23

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Political: Political

Mechanism of Involvement

The governing Political frame is Bershka’s continued and expanded Israeli retail footprint after significant legal and civil-society notice. The ICJ issued its advisory opinion on 19 July 2024, and the ICC announced arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant on 21 November 2024.16, 17 A Bershka flagship then opened in Petah Tikva in December 2024, the corporate store count rose from 14 at January 2025 to 15 at January 2026, and a Jerusalem flagship was reported in February 2026.4, 2, 5, 12

Civil-society and workforce notice also became explicit in 2025. The BDS National Committee’s July statement made Zara the primary boycott focus but named Bershka among other Inditex brands operating in Israel and called for Inditex to withdraw from the market.18 In October, reporting said the Inditex European Works Council had asked management to terminate the Israeli franchise relationship after a September meeting, citing the humanitarian situation in Gaza; no response had been received at the time reported.6

This evidence supports the fixed political score through commercial continuation after notice. It does not establish that Bershka adopted a political position endorsing Israeli government policy.

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

Bershka’s strongest defence is the absence of verified corporate political or military advocacy. No public evidence identified of a Bershka-brand statement taking a position on Israel-Palestine, lobbying specifically on the issue, donating to the IDF, FIDF, JNF/KKL, reservist funds or settlement organisations, or sponsoring an Israeli state public-relations campaign.

The 2022 Joey Schwebel controversy is particularly important to attribute correctly. Reuters reporting described Schwebel, chairman of Trimera Brands and Zara’s Israeli franchise holder, hosting Itamar Ben-Gvir at his home; a spokesperson described the event as private.19 Inditex subsequently stated, according to WAFA, that the views of its Zara agent did not represent company policy or opinion.20 The audits found no public evidence that Bershka organised, funded or endorsed the event. The framework also evaluates exclusive-partner political acts with discounted proximity. The reported episode was considered in that comparison, but its one-off historical nature, limited direct brand involvement and Inditex’s disavowal support a lower scenario than the continuing corporate-operation frame; the partner episode is not erased from the assessment.19, 20

The audits also found no Bershka, Inditex, Zara or Gottex entry in the reviewed 2025 and 2026 OHCHR settlement-business reports.7, 8 Non-listing is not treated as proof of absence from every potentially relevant activity because those reports have a defined mandate and review scope.

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Complicity Index Score

Method: V6.5.

DomainIMPV-Domain Score
Military0.000.000.000.00
Digital6.007.008.806.00
Economic3.906.107.803.40
Political4.007.407.804.00

Digital supplies the highest domain score, driven by the verified Israel-market customer-data processing structure and the adjudicated directness and scale of that exposure. Political and Economic reflect the continuing Israeli commercial footprint and its persistence after documented notice, while Military remains zero because no qualifying military mechanism was established.

The assessment uses documented evidence. Impact reflects the type of activity, Magnitude its scale and persistence, and Proximity how directly Bershka is connected.

Methodology Note

Footnotes

  1. https://static.bershka.net/4/static/itxwebstandard/docs/privacypolicy/privacy_policy_en_IL.pdf?t=20240221021206 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11

  2. https://www.inditex.com/itxcomweb/api/media/50ba1fc0-3862-4408-8da2-4f973f1be18e/AnnualAccountsDirectorsReportandAuditReportconsolidated.pdf?t=1773650991401 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14 ↩15 ↩16 ↩17 ↩18 ↩19 ↩20 ↩21

  3. https://aquilon.com/retail/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  4. https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/article-832154 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9

  5. https://www.ice.co.il/consumerism/news/article/1102090 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  6. https://www.economiadigital.es/galicia/empresas/comite-empresa-europeo-pide-inditex-rompa-franquiciado-israel.html ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  7. https://api.ilcpal.com/storage/115/a-hrc-63-20-aev.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10

  8. https://documents.un.org/api/symbol/access?l=en&s=A%2FHRC%2F60%2F19&t=pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  9. https://paxforpeace.nl/publications/the-companies-arming-israel-and-their-financiers/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  10. https://www.cnmv.es/webservices/verdocumento/ver?e=9%2BftjzITArwLL0amK0QwHMrkj%2FRykjZHtcZt7V3gKZBRkTbOJDSVgXYoK%2BQzluTA ↩ ↩2

  11. https://static.bershka.net/4/static/itxwebstandard/docs/termsandconditions/terms_and_conditions_en_IL.pdf?20240305020007= ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10

  12. https://www.cnmv.es/WebServices/VerDocumento/ver?t=%7B8e727e15-87e8-431a-a55f-9bbfe07869a2%7D ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  13. https://www.zonebourse.com/actualite-bourse/inditex-proprietaire-de-zara-fait-etat-d-un-acces-non-autorise-a-ses-bases-de-donnees-de-transacti-ce7e50ddda89f320 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  14. https://haveibeenpwned.com/breach/Zara ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  15. https://www.anodot.com/about/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  16. https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/186-20240719-sum-01-00-en.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  17. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges?ftag=YHF4eb9d17 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  18. https://bdsmovement.net/news/boycott-zara-dressing-apartheid-and-genocide ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  19. https://www.euronews.com/2022/10/24/israel-election-zara ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  20. https://french.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/204712 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  21. https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-639660 ↩ ↩2

  22. https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3857351%2C00.html ↩ ↩2

  23. https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-4173745%2C00.html ↩ ↩2

  24. https://hr.bloombergadria.com/year-ahead-2024/vijesti/45279/the-value-of-technology-lies-in-making-complex-things-simple/news ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  25. https://investor.mastercard.com/investor-news/investor-news-details/2022/Mastercard-Strengthens-Consumer-Engagement-Services-With-Close-of-Dynamic-Yield-Acquisition/default.aspx ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  26. https://xtend.inditex.com/tech-teams ↩ ↩2

  27. https://www.glassbox.com/news/glassbox-anodot-acquisition/ ↩ ↩2