Ernst & Young

Key Findings

• Military: EY Israel disclosed fundraising for equipment for IDF soldiers, accommodation for soldiers, assistance returning mobilised Israelis from overseas, and supplies for the Artillery Corps unit Zik. Separately, its Israeli audit firm’s financial-auditing relationship with Elbit Systems remained documented in March 2026.^{1, 2}
• Political: EY Israel publicly described support for Israeli civilian, government and military beneficiaries. Its statement attributed a US$2 million contribution to EY Global for civilian organisations supporting displaced Israeli residents and IDF combatants, without allocating the amount between those beneficiary categories.¹
• Economic / Digital: EY operates through separately constituted Israeli member firms and offices, markets Israeli public-sector and technology consulting, and was reported to use Israeli company Altshare’s valuation platform. These records establish professional-services and technology relationships, with limits on contractual and ownership attribution.^{3, 4, 5, 6, 7}
• Not found: No public evidence identified in the four audits of an EY weapons-supply contract with Israeli forces, a Project Nimbus role, an Israeli military surveillance or autonomous-targeting deployment, or a verified settlement-specific EY operation. The documented Elbit relationship is financial auditing; the disclosed cybersecurity assistance does not establish an offensive or targeting function.^{1, 2, 8}

Target Profile

Executive Summary

EY’s documented Israel/Palestine nexus centres on professional services and corporate assistance. Its Israeli member firms provide assurance, taxation, consulting and transaction services, with published offices in Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem. Their consulting portfolio includes government ministries, statutory bodies, government companies and other public institutions, alongside technology, procurement and financial-management services. This establishes an operating presence and marketed public-sector capabilities; it does not establish that every advertised service corresponds to an executed government contract.^{4, 5, 6}

The clearest military-related evidence is EY Israel’s own account of its response to events beginning in October 2023. It describes fundraising for equipment for IDF soldiers, office accommodation, assistance returning mobilised Israelis from abroad, supplies for the Artillery Corps unit Zik, and a logistics centre with Alon & Ella serving southern Israeli communities and the IDF. It also attributes a US$2 million contribution to EY Global for civilian organisations supporting displaced residents and IDF combatants. Equipment categories, most transaction values, recipient allocations and precise continuation dates are not disclosed.¹

A separate commercial relationship is established by Elbit Systems’ 2025 annual filing: Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer, an EY Global member firm, signed independent financial-statement and internal-control audit reports dated 17 March 2026 and reported serving as Elbit’s auditor since 2003. The digital record includes reported use of Altshare’s valuation platform, auditing of Check Point, and EY Israel’s technology consulting operations. These relationships do not establish EY participation in weapons production, internal procurement of Check Point security software, or military surveillance deployment.^{2, 7, 12, 8}

The audits distinguish this evidence from unsupported allegations. No public evidence identified of direct EY weapons supply, Israeli military procurement awards, Project Nimbus participation, settlement-specific operations or offensive cyber provision. The political audit also records Cecilia Culver’s employment-related litigation concerning her Gaza speech, but unlawful dismissal and unequal treatment remain allegations rather than judicial findings. The fixed, human-vetted V6.5 result is BRS 848, Tier A (Extreme Complicity), with Political the highest domain. This is the corpus’s scoring classification, not a finding of legal liability.^{1, 2, 8, 13, 14}

Timeline of Relevant Events

Corporate Overview

EY is an international professional-services network. EYG is a UK company limited by guarantee, and the member firms retain separate legal identities and engagement responsibilities. The legal disclosures identify Ernst & Young (Israel) Ltd within the Americas organisational area and describe Ernst & Young Americas LLC as a coordinating entity without ownership or control of participating member firms. Network association therefore cannot substitute for identifying the entity responsible for a contract or corporate act.³

The Israeli entities identified in the June 2024 register are Ernst & Young (Israel) Ltd and Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer. The latter is the firm named in the Elbit and Check Point audit documentation. EY Israel publishes a domestic management directory and offices in Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem. The audits did not establish a settlement-based office or separately identified settlement contract; a Jerusalem address alone was not treated as proof of settlement activity.^{2, 4, 5, 10, 12}

Historical reporting placed EY Israel at approximately 2,000 employees and 90 partners in October 2022. Those figures are not a verified October 2026 workforce count. Similarly, EY’s US$57 billion FY2026 global revenue cannot be attributed to Israel: the audits identified neither a separately disclosed FY2026 Israeli revenue total nor quantified Israeli profit remittances. No public evidence identified of an Israeli parent owning the global network, Israeli state equity in EYG, or disclosed controlling investments by the named current leaders in military manufacturers or settlement enterprises.^{3, 10, 9, 17}

Domain Summaries

Military: Military

Mechanism of Involvement

EY Israel’s corporate disclosure establishes material and organisational assistance to military personnel: fundraising for equipment, accommodation in office classrooms, help returning mobilised Israelis, and food treats and necessities for Zik, which EY describes as a special unit of the Israeli Artillery Corps supported for many years. The Alon & Ella logistics initiative served both southern Israeli residents and the IDF. These are disclosed support activities, without an identified commercial military-logistics agreement.¹

The Elbit relationship establishes a continuing professional-services connection to an Israeli defence manufacturer. The March 2026 audit reports concern financial statements and internal controls for the year ended 31 December 2025. They demonstrate continuity beyond July and November 2024, while leaving EY’s role bounded to the service actually identified: financial auditing.²

EY’s UK member firm also undertook military-sector consultancy, including the approximately £4.007 million Defence People Transformation Programme Phase 2 award. This supports the audit’s finding of defence-sector professional-services experience, but supplies no contractual link to Israeli defence programmes.¹⁸

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

EY’s strongest defence is the distinction between civilian professional services, soldier welfare and weapons supply. No public evidence identified of EY manufacturing weapons, supplying military components, developing targeting systems or holding an Israeli Ministry of Defence procurement contract. Elbit’s filing identifies an auditor, not a weapons producer or integrator.^{1, 2}

The wartime statement includes substantial civilian assistance, including displaced families and medical or nonprofit recipients. The US$2 million cannot be described wholly as military financing: its stated beneficiaries include displaced civilians and combatants, with no allocation disclosed. The soldier-equipment fundraising does not establish the equipment’s military specification, purchase value or ultimate recipients. Nor does the statement establish continuation of each initiative after 19 July 2024 or November 2024.¹

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Digital: Digital

Mechanism of Involvement

The clearest identified Israeli-origin technology procurement is reported use of Altshare’s valuation platform. February 2025 reporting described EY using its algorithmic technology to audit valuation reports. The complete contracting entity, financial terms, hosting arrangements and datasets were not identified. Separately, Check Point’s March 2026 audit-consent documentation names EY’s Israeli audit firm; it does not establish internal use of Check Point software.^{7, 12}

EY Israel advertises technology selection, startup collaboration, pilots, analytics and implementation services. Its September–October 2026 recruitment records describe Databricks and AI platform work, industrial computer vision and an Advanced Cybersecurity Center in Tel Aviv providing defensive consulting. Its wartime statement also identifies assistance to the Israel National Cyber Directorate in finding and reporting security weaknesses.^{1, 26, 8, 24, 25}

Globally, EY’s Microsoft alliance and privacy disclosures establish substantial cloud integration and potential international information transfers. They do not establish a particular EY client dataset’s storage in Israel, access by EY Israel personnel or processing under Israeli jurisdiction.^{21, 27}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

EY’s strongest defence is that the identified technology activities are financial, enterprise, industrial or defensive. No public evidence identified of an EY Israeli military or intelligence technology contract, Project Nimbus participation, offensive cyber tools, population-surveillance deployment, biometric monitoring or autonomous targeting. Industrial computer-vision capability does not establish surveillance use; a defensive consulting advertisement does not establish a security-agency customer.^{8, 24}

Personnel connections also require restraint. Check Point appointed former EY Israel managing partner Yoram Tietz to its board in September 2026. That establishes a career and governance connection, not EY ownership or responsibility for Check Point’s other relationships. Likewise, an audit engagement is not evidence of software procurement. The audits identified no controlling EY equity investment in an Israeli surveillance or military-AI company.^{12, 23}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Economic: Economic

Mechanism of Involvement

EY’s economic nexus rests on direct professional-services operations within Israel. Registered member firms, published offices and marketed services establish local commercial participation across assurance, tax, consulting and transactions. Government-facing offerings include procurement improvement, financial controls, regulation and technology transformation. These capabilities connect EY to Israel’s institutional economy without establishing the value or execution of every advertised engagement.^{4, 5, 6}

EY Israel also promotes corporate-finance and innovation activity. Its 2025 and 2026 M&A events concern financing, transactions and integration, while its advisory materials offer assistance with Israel Innovation Authority and other research-and-development funding programmes. These records establish advisory and ecosystem participation; they do not establish EY ownership of investments discussed at events or direct receipt of government innovation funding.^{28, 20, 22}

The wartime disclosure records economic transfers and in-kind assistance benefiting civilians and military personnel, including equipment fundraising and supplies. It also describes help for affected businesses seeking government grants. Quantified expenditure is limited, and the US$2 million contribution attributed to EY Global covers mixed beneficiary categories.¹

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

EY’s strongest defence is that local commercial activity does not itself establish settlement commerce, sovereign-war financing or control of Israeli operating companies. No public evidence identified of EY underwriting or purchasing Israeli war bonds, directly lending to military suppliers or settlement businesses, owning an identified Israeli manufacturer, or importing settlement-origin goods. The documented structure is a network of separate professional-services entities.^{3, 4}

Scale must also remain bounded. The approximately 2,000 employees and 90 partners figure is historical; global revenue is not Israeli revenue. The audits identified no current Israeli payroll total, corporate-tax amount or quantified cross-border profit flow. No independently verified settlement-specific office, transaction or operating contract was established, and no verified EY-specific OHCHR database listing was established.^{5, 9, 17}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Political: Political

Mechanism of Involvement

The strongest political evidence is EY Israel’s public institutional alignment through disclosed assistance. Its statement explicitly identifies soldiers, a named artillery unit, government cybersecurity cooperation, reservist-return assistance and mixed civilian/military logistics. The political mechanism is the public mobilisation of corporate resources and relationships, rather than an inferred ideology or an undocumented lobbying programme.¹

A documented comparison is EY’s July 2022 Russia statement, which announced government-client restrictions and separation of the Russian member firm. No public evidence identified in the reviewed audits of an equivalent global decision concerning Israeli government engagements. This contrast records different published responses; it does not establish an identical contractual or legal context.^{1, 16}

The domain also includes the Culver dispute. Her April 2026 complaint alleges unlawful employment treatment connected to her Gaza commencement speech, and contemporary reporting describes her allegations of differential treatment. The complaint identifies Ernst & Young LLP and Ernst & Young U.S. LLP among the defendants. No final judicial determination was established in the reviewed record.^{13, 14}

Historically, EY prepared the economic-impact study announced by Taglit-Birthright Israel in January 2014. That source establishes a study, not continuing programme sponsorship or an enduring political partnership; involvement after 2014 is unknown.¹⁵

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

EY’s strongest defence is the mixed humanitarian character of its response and the absence of verified settlement advocacy or a demonstrated corporate mandate to advance Israeli geopolitical objectives. The statement documents help for displaced families, medical organisations and affected businesses alongside soldier support. Civilian assistance must retain its distinct character, and the combined US$2 million figure cannot be assigned entirely to combatants.¹

The Culver allegations cannot establish a company-wide policy suppressing Palestinian expression. No public evidence identified of such a policy, verified Palestine-specific lobbying, settlement-directed donations, or personal military-welfare donations by the named current leaders. The audits also did not establish post-July or post-November 2024 continuation of each wartime initiative. Member-firm separation and the distinction between local acts and the contribution attributed to EY Global remain relevant to attribution.^{1, 3, 10, 11, 13, 14}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Complicity Index Score

Method: V6.5. The following values are fixed, human-vetted corpus results.

• V_MAX: 9.20 Avg_OTHERS: 4.87
• BRS Score: 848 Tier: A (Extreme Complicity)

Political supplies V_MAX through the documented corporate mobilisation and publicly acknowledged military-related support, while Israeli operations, technology relationships and Elbit auditing establish the other recorded vectors.^{1, 2, 4, 7} The fixed BRS and tier reflect that vetted evidence record, preserving the lower military and digital values alongside the absence of verified weapons supply, military surveillance or settlement operations. The method is scale-free in Impact and evidence-only; the classification neither resolves the Culver litigation nor converts unverified allegations into findings.

Methodology Note

• This dossier compiles only the four supplied domain audits, with a research cutoff of 22 October 2026. It introduces no additional investigation or independently recalculated scores.
• Under V6.5, I measures activity type on a scale-free basis, M measures scale, and P measures directness. The supplied human-vetted values are reproduced unchanged.
• Temporal attribution distinguishes historical, current and unresolved activity. Divested or exited operations are mitigated; unknown continuation is not presumed. EY’s wartime initiatives are not automatically carried beyond July or November 2024, while the Elbit audit relationship is documented in March 2026.^{1, 2}
• Entity attribution excludes transitive guilt: member-firm acts, global contributions, external companies and former employees are distinguished. Network coordination does not establish universal ownership or responsibility for every engagement.^{3, 23}
• Verified settlement operations would count in both Economic and Political. No independently verified settlement-specific EY operation was established in these audits; office listings alone do not supply that missing link.⁵
• “No public evidence identified” records a negative audit finding, not proof that an activity could never have occurred. Allegations remain allegations, and documentary omissions are not filled with inference.