At OpenIntel, our goal is to move beyond vague labels and provide a rigorous, evidence-based assessment of corporate complicity. To achieve this, we designed and utilized the BDS-1000 Boycott Classification Model, a standardized framework designed to objectively measure how far a company’s actions support the State of Israel militarily, economically, digitally, or politically.
The purpose of this model is to replace subjective opinion with quantifiable data. Rather than simply labeling a company as “good” or “bad,” the BDS-1000 analyzes the specific nature of a corporation’s involvement. It assesses companies across four distinct domains:
Military (V-MIL): The provision of hardware, logistics, or infrastructure to the military or security apparatus.
Digital (V-DIG): The integration of software, cloud infrastructure, or surveillance technology.
Economic (V-ECON): The depth of financial integration, investment, and trade relations.
Political (V-POL): The use of corporate influence for ideological advocacy or narrative control.
What makes the BDS-1000 unique is its depth of analysis. It does not treat all connections equally. The model uses a weighted formula that accounts for Impact (the severity of the action), Magnitude (the scale and duration), and Proximity (how directly the company is involved). This allows us to strictly distinguish between a company that merely purchases a generic software license and one that actively develops military technology or invests heavily in the Israeli economy.
Below, you will find the full methodology we use to calculate every score on this site. We believe in total transparency; by publishing this model, we invite you to understand exactly how our conclusions are reached and to verify the evidence for yourself.
Each company will be scored across four domains:
Each domain’s Impact (I) is adjusted by Magnitude (M) and Proximity (P):
$$V_{domain} = I * min(M/7,1) * min(P/7,1)$$
Where:
Magnitude and Proximity are adjusters of the Impact, they must be measuring the same activity as the Impact.
Then compute:
Let:
$$V_{MAX} = \max(V_{MIL}, V_{DIG}, V_{ECON}, V_{POL})$$
$$Sum_{OTHERS} = (V_{MIL} + V_{DIG} + V_{ECON} + V_{POL}) – V_{MAX}$$
BRS Score Formula
$$BRS_Score = ((maxV +( sumOthers x 0.2)) ÷ 16) × 1000$$
I-MIL — Impact of Military Support (High-Resolution Table, 0.0–10.0 Continuous Scale)
Definition: This domain measures the direct operational relevance of the company’s physical products, hardware services, or kinetic logistics to the Israeli military, prison system, or security apparatus. It explicitly excludes software, code, and data services unless they are embedded firmware essential to the operation of a specific physical weapon system (e.g., the guidance chip in a missile).
Scope: Arms, ammunition, military vehicles, construction machinery, fuel, physical infrastructure (concrete, barriers, checkpoints), and logistical services (shipping, base catering, uniform supply).
| Score Range | Band | Detailed Impact Description |
| 0.0 | None | No Measurable Kinetic Impact. The company’s products are entirely unrelated to physical defense, security, or prison sectors. No physical supply chain interaction exists. |
| 1.0–2.0 | Incidental | Civilian Parallel / Market Drift. The company sells generic civilian goods (e.g., textiles, office furniture, consumer electronics) available on the open market. Evidence suggests incidental presence on IDF bases or in prisons via third-party distributors, not direct contracting. The company does not actively target the defense sector. |
| 2.1–3.0 | Low | Direct Civilian Supply. The company holds direct contracts to supply standard non-lethal goods to the Ministry of Defense (IMOD) or IDF (e.g., catering services, uniforms, non-tactical transport vehicles, medical consumables) that offer no direct combat advantage but support general operations. |
| 3.1–3.9 | Low-Mid | Logistical Sustainment. Provision of broad logistical support that reduces the state’s operational burden. Includes international shipping lines transporting general cargo to state-owned ports, or maintenance contracts for non-combat vehicle fleets. |
| 4.0–5.0 | Moderate | Dual-Use Heavy Hardware. Supply of heavy machinery, vehicles, or construction materials (e.g., bulldozers, excavators, cement, cranes) that are theoretically civilian but are utilized in the construction of settlements, the separation wall, or military infrastructure. The product enhances physical engineering capacity.7 |
| 5.1–6.0 | Moderate-High | Militarized Infrastructure Construction. Direct involvement in the construction, maintenance, or servicing of checkpoints, prison facilities, military bases, or the separation wall. The company provides the physical shell of the occupation apparatus. |
| 6.1–6.9 | High | Tactical Support Components. Manufacture or supply of specialized, ruggedized components for military use (e.g., tank treads, military-grade aviation fuel, optical glass for sights, night-vision housing). Not a weapon itself, but essential for the weapon’s mobility or operation. |
| 7.0–7.9 | High (Upper) | Munitions Precursors & Sub-Systems. Supply of critical raw materials (e.g., white phosphorus, specialized chemical propellants) or essential electronic sub-systems (guidance fins, firing pins, warhead casings) specifically calibrated for lethal systems. |
| 8.0–8.9 | Severe | Lethal Platform Manufacturer. Prime contractor for small arms, artillery systems, armored personnel carriers (APCs), or tactical drone frames. The company produces the direct mechanism of injury or physical coercion. |
| 9.0–9.4 | Extreme | Primary Combat Systems. Manufacturer or prime integrator of heavy strategic platforms: Fighter jets (e.g., F-35 fuselage), Main Battle Tanks (Merkava), Warships, or Attack Helicopters. |
| 9.5–10.0 | Upper-Extreme | Strategic Deterrence & Existential Defense. Involvement in the nuclear triad, ballistic missile defense systems (Iron Dome, Arrow interceptors), or the sovereign aerospace defense architecture. The company is an existential pillar of the state’s physical survival.17 |
I-DIG — Impact of Digital (High-Resolution Table, 0.0–10.0 Continuous Scale)
Definition: This domain measures the impact of digital integration, software provision, and technological infrastructure. It covers cloud computing, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, surveillance software, telecommunications, and the financial-technological integration with the Israeli “Startup Nation” ecosystem.
Scope: Cloud infrastructure (IaaS/PaaS), Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) algorithms, facial recognition, biometric data harvesting, cybersecurity suites, Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) tools, and venture capital flows into Israeli military-tech firms.
Very important in this section is the distinction between buying and selling.
| Score Range | Band | Detailed Impact Description |
| 0.0 | None | No Digital Interaction. No measurable digital interaction with the state, security sector, or settlement economy. |
| 1.0–2.0 | Incidental | Passive Commercial Consumption. The company (as a buyer/user) utilizes Israeli-origin commercial software (e.g., Wix, Fiverr, Monday.com) for routine business operations outside of Israel. No strategic relationship or dependency exists. |
| 2.1–3.0 | Low | Commercial Compliance & Consumer Services. The company provides standard consumer digital services (e.g., ride-hailing apps, video streaming, social media) in Israel, complying with local regulations (e.g., data retention) but providing no special access or tools to security services beyond statutory requirements. |
| 3.1–3.9 | Low-Mid | Soft Dual-Use Procurement. The company (as a buyer) integrates “Unit 8200 Alumni” technology (e.g., Check Point, Wiz, SentinelOne, CyberArk) into its own critical enterprise infrastructure. This actively subsidizes the Israeli military-tech R&D pipeline through significant licensing fees, validating the “military-to-civilian” commercialization model. |
| 4.0–5.0 | Moderate | Administrative Digitization. The company provides enterprise software (ERP, CRM, HR systems) to the Israeli government or military for non-combat functions (e.g., payroll, healthcare scheduling, inventory management). This streamlines the military bureaucracy but does not directly enhance lethality or surveillance capabilities. |
| 5.1–6.0 | Moderate-High | Data Residency & Digital Sovereignty. The company operates local data centers or cloud regions explicitly to ensure “Digital Sovereignty” for the state. This protects the state from international digital sanctions, data embargoes, or cable severing, ensuring continuity of government. |
| 6.1–6.9 | High | Surveillance Enablement. Provision to Israel of technologies capable of mass monitoring and control. Includes facial recognition, biometric data harvesting, wide-area motion imagery, or predictive policing tools. Also includes platforms used to “train” military AI models on civilian data. |
| 7.0–7.9 | High (Upper) | Intelligence Integration. The company’s technology is integrated into the Israeli state’s intelligence cycle. Example: Cloud storage used to host intercepted communications, signal data, or civilian archives accessible by intelligence agencies (e.g., hosting Unit 8200 data). The tool may be general purpose, but the application is the core work of repression. |
| 8.0–8.9 | Severe | Algorithmic Lethality. Provision of AI/ML tools specifically tuned for target generation, automated sentiment analysis for threat detection, or autonomous object tracking. The code directly informs kinetic action, effectively automating the “Kill Chain”. |
| 9.0–9.4 | Extreme | Cyber-Warfare Capabilities. Development, sale, or maintenance of offensive cyber-weapons (e.g., Pegasus, Zero-click exploits) used to target journalists, dissidents, or foreign officials. The digital tool is the weapon. |
| 9.5–10.0 | Upper-Extreme | Sovereign Cloud Backbone. The company provides the “All-Encompassing Cloud Solution” (e.g., Project Nimbus) for the entire defense establishment, ensuring the resilience, redundancy, and scalability of the state’s war-making capacity. The military cannot function at modern standards without this digital layer. |
I-ECON — Impact of Economic Integration (High-Resolution Table, 0.0–10.0 Continuous Scale)
Scope: Measures the company’s role in sustaining the Israeli economy. Key Principle: Origin outweighs Volume. A company that is fundamentally “of the Israeli economy” (repatriating profits, local R&D) scores higher than a global company that merely views Israel as an export market.
| Score Range | Band | Detailed Impact Description |
| 0.0 | None | No measurable commercial or financial relationship. |
| 1.0–2.0 | Low (Lower End) | Incidental Market. Products available via third parties/resellers only. No direct presence or strategy. Revenue is negligible. |
| 2.1–3.0 | Low (Mid) | Direct Sales. Direct sales channels exist but Israel is a minor export market. No significant capital investment or infrastructure. |
| 3.1–3.9 | Low (Upper End) | Sustained Trade. Recurring revenue streams (SaaS, import/export). Relationship is transactional; revenue is extracted from the economy, not invested into it. |
| 4.0–5.0 | Moderate (Lower End) | Indirect Portfolio Flow. A non-Israeli company generating revenue globally whose profits flow to a Parent/Owner that actively invests in Israel. The target itself does not operate in Israel; the economic link is structural/fungible, not operational. |
| 5.1–6.0 | Moderate (Mid) | Operational Presence. Physical footprint (sales offices, support centers). Contributes via employment/taxes, but functions are support-only, not core value creation. |
| 6.1–6.9 | Moderate (Upper End) | Strategic FDI. Significant capital investment (acquisitions, factories, data centers). Company is a key employer in a sector, but ownership remains foreign. |
| 7.0–7.4 | High (Lower End) | Core R&D. Company operates significant R&D centers within Israel, actively validating and sustaining the local high-tech ecosystem. |
| 7.5–8.2 | High (Mid) | Acquired Identity. Company was founded in Israel or is a former national champion now owned by foreign capital. Operational “heart” and brand identity remain tethered to the Israeli economy. |
| 8.3–8.9 | High (Upper End) | Indigenous Capital / Beneficial Ownership. Company is beneficially owned by Israeli capital or HQ’d in Israel. Global profits are repatriated, contributing directly to national capital accumulation. |
| 9.0–9.4 | Extreme (Lower End) | Critical Infrastructure. Operates essential national infrastructure (water, power, ports, telecom backbone). |
| 9.5–9.7 | Extreme (Mid) | State-Linked. State-owned enterprise or government-controlled entity serving national policy. |
| 9.8–10.0 | Extreme (Upper End) | Structural Pillar. Conglomerates or institutions so large they are systemic to the state’s economic survival. |
I-POL Table
Scope: Measures active ideological support for Zionism/Occupation.
| Score Range | Band | Detailed Impact Description |
| 0.0 | None | Strict Neutrality. No measurable political activity. The entity avoids all geopolitical engagement. |
| 1.0–2.0 | Incidental | Generic “Peace” Statements, These companies avoid taking any political stance whatsoever, likely to protect their bottom line and avoid alienating any customer base. |
| 2.1–3.0 | Low | The Double Standard (Selective Silence), The company is silent or neutral on this specific conflict, despite having a history of vocal activism on other social or geopolitical issues |
| 3.1–4.0 | Low-Mid | Business-as-Usual. The company treats Israel as a standard “Western” market in its corporate communications, ignoring the occupation context. This is the “default” stance of most multinationals. It normalizes the status quo but involves no active advocacy. |
| 4.1–5.0 | Moderate | Discriminatory Governance. Weaponization of HR or corporate policy to silence dissent. Includes firing staff for pro-Palestine speech while permitting other political symbols, or legal action against unions for political expression |
| 5.1–6.0 | Moderate-High | Systemic/Algorithmic Bias. Repeated corporate decisions that implicitly favor Israeli narratives. Examples include social media platforms systematically suppressing Palestinian content under “safety” guidelines while permitting aggressive Zionist content, or retail chains mislabeling settlement goods to avoid consumer friction. |
| 6.1–6.9 | High | Militaristic Branding. The company actively leverages Israeli military service, intelligence heritage, or “battle-tested” status as a corporate asset or marketing tool. This normalizes the occupation apparatus by reframing it as a source of innovation and prestige.
Institutional Legitimation. Accepting state honors (e.g., The Jubilee Award), hosting state officials, or partnering with state academic institutions (e.g., Hebrew U, Technion) for non-commercial ideological reasons |
| 7.0–7.9 | High (Upper) | Official Partnership. The company (as an entity) issues official statements aligning with Israeli government goals, sponsors state-backed events (e.g., “Brand Israel” festivals), or partners with Israeli state institutions for non-commercial reasons.
Structured Advocacy. Holding leadership roles in pressure groups (e.g., CFI, AIPAC) or lobbying governments to oppose BDS/labeling laws. Using corporate influence to shape legislation in favor of the target state |
| 8.0–8.9 | Severe | Lobbying & Funding. Sustained political involvement. The company engages in corporate lobbying, makes PAC donations to pro-Israel candidates, or maintains structured partnerships with advocacy organizations (e.g., AIPAC, ADL) to influence legislation or public opinion.
Direct Financing. Material financial support for parastatal, military-welfare, or settlement organizations (e.g., FIDF, JNF, Regavim). Transferring wealth to the ideological/military apparatus |
| 9.0–9.4 | Extreme | Narrative Control. The company wields substantial power over public discourse (e.g., major media outlets, search engines) and evidence shows a deliberate, top-down editorial policy to sanitize Israeli state violence or delegitimize Palestinian rights at a systemic level.
Ideological Actor. Mobilizing corporate assets to fight for the state’s narrative or logistics during crisis. Framing corporate resources as national assets |
| 9.5–10.0 | Upper-Extreme | The Political Project. The entity exists primarily to advance the Zionist political project. Commerce is merely a funding mechanism for land acquisition, settlement expansion, or global propaganda campaigns.
State Instrument. The entity functions as a non-governmental arm of the state’s foreign policy. Its governance is structurally locked (e.g., Founder Share) to prevent divestment and ensure service to the regime Sovereign Fusion. Total identification with the state apparatus. The entity’s primary purpose is the advancement of the state’s geopolitical goals (e.g., The Jewish National Fund). |
M — Magnitude Table
Scope: Measures the scale, intensity, and duration of the complicit activity. Crucial Distinction: Magnitude is measured relative to the Target Company/Key Personal or the Israeli State. It is NOT measured by the supplier’s dependence on the contract.
Application:
| Score Range | Band | Detailed Magnitude Description |
| 0.0 | None | Negligible / Historic. A single, isolated action that occurred in the distant past and is no longer active. No current volume or legacy impact remains. |
| 1.0–2.0 | Very Low (Lower End) | Incidental / Commodity. The Target purchases generic goods/services (e.g., dates, office supplies, software licenses). While the revenue may be meaningful to the supplier, the transaction is immaterial to the Target and the Israeli economy. Easily replaceable. |
| 2.1–3.0 | Very Low (Upper End) | Occasional / Non-Strategic. Irregular involvement. Small, sporadic orders or donations. The activity is a “rounding error” for the Target and offers no strategic advantage to the State. |
| 3.1–3.9 | Low (Lower End) | Minor Recurring. Consistent but small-scale involvement. Annual orders or donations that are reliable but low-value. The relationship is established but effectively irrelevant to the broader strategic picture. |
| 4.0–5.0 | Low (Mid) | Modest Presence. Periodic involvement or ongoing presence at a modest scale. Multi-year contracts for non-critical items, or a standard corporate presence (e.g., a small sales office). Activity is noticeable but not impactful. |
| 5.1–6.0 | Low (Upper End) | Regular / Standard. Standard commercial scale. Regular deliveries or established service agreements. The company is a “regular supplier” or participant, but the Target could switch vendors with minimal disruption. |
| 6.1–6.9 | Moderate (Lower End) | Significant Scale. Sustained, multi-year involvement with noticeable volume. The Target is a preferred vendor or significant investor. Departure would cause friction but not failure for the Israeli partner. |
| 7.0–7.4 | Moderate (Mid) | Major Scale. Long-term involvement with high recurring volumes. Large-scale manufacturing supply, major infrastructure projects, or “Silver” level sponsorship. The Target is a key player in its specific niche. |
| 7.5–8.2 | Moderate (Upper End) | Substantial / Hard to Replace. The Target manages a key portfolio of services or holds a significant market share (>10%) in a specific Israeli sector. Replacing the Target would require significant time and capital. |
| 8.3–8.9 | High | Systemic Importance. Large-scale involvement over long durations. Removal would disrupt capabilities or operations significantly. Includes Tier-1 defense suppliers, top-10 foreign investors, or media platforms with dominant narrative reach. |
| 9.0–9.4 | Very High (Lower End) | Critical Volume. Extremely sustained involvement with high-volume, essential contributions. Constant flow of key components or capital. The Target is deeply embedded in the national supply chain. |
| 9.5–9.7 | Very High (Mid) | Massive / Decades-Long. Decades of continuous presence; massive quantities of supply; or multi-billion dollar cumulative investment. The company is ubiquitous in the sector. |
| 9.8–10.0 | Extreme | Indispensable / Monopolistic. Massive-scale, continuous, indispensable involvement. The company is the sole provider of a critical resource, or its volume is so large that it constitutes a percentage of the national GDP or Defense Budget. |
P — Proximity Table
Scope: Measures the structural distance and control between the Target and the Complicit Act.
| Score Range | Band | Detailed Proximity Description |
| 0.0 | None | No connection. |
| 1.0–2.0 | Very Low (Lower End) | Passive Market Link. Connection via broad index funds or open market purchases. No awareness or control. |
| 2.1–3.0 | Very Low (Upper End) | Distant Supply Chain. Sub-contractor of a sub-contractor. Target is part of the chain but “two steps removed.” |
| 3.1–3.9 | Low (Lower End) | Sister Entity / Portfolio. Target shares a Parent (PE/Holding) with the Actor. Capital is fungible at the top, but operations are distinct. No control. |
| 4.0–5.0 | Low (Mid) | Upstream Subsidiary. Target is a subsidiary feeding profits up to a Complicit Parent. Target enables the parent financially but does not commit the act. |
| 5.1–6.0 | Low (Upper End) | Indirect but Meaningful. Target is a key distributor or has a “Cultural/Personnel” link (e.g., Board overlap) that influences culture but not ops. |
| 6.1–6.9 | Moderate (Lower End) | Minority Partner. Target holds a significant minority stake (5–20%) or has a Joint Venture. Has influence, but not full control. |
| 7.0–7.4 | Moderate (Mid) | Majority Owner (Passive). Target owns >50% of the Actor but maintains “hands-off” management. |
| 7.5–8.2 | Moderate (Upper End) | Strategic Partner / Active Parent. Direct commercial contract OR Target is the Owner/Parent actively managing the asset. |
| 8.3–8.9 | High | Controller / Architect. Target is the decision-maker. Founder/CEO uses the company as a vehicle for the act. |
| 9.0–9.4 | Very High (Lower End) | Direct Operator. Target is the entity physically performing the complicit act or deploying the system. |
| 9.5–9.7 | Very High (Mid) | Purpose-Built Actor. Company exists primarily to serve the complicit function. |
| 9.8–10.0 | Extreme | Identity. Target is indistinguishable from the state military apparatus. |