New Balance - Military Audit

Direct Defence Contracting & Procurement

No public evidence identified of any contract, tender award, or memorandum of understanding between New Balance and Israel’s Ministry of Defence (IMOD), the Israel Defense Forces, the Israel Prison Service, or the Israel Border Police. A direct review of the Israeli Ministry of Defence’s SIBAT export-promotion directorate 2018/19 Homeland & Cyber Defense industry directory found no New Balance listing among the enterprises catalogued for defence and security-sector export ¹. No public evidence identified of press releases, procurement notices, or official announcements describing a defence-cooperation relationship between New Balance and Israeli state bodies.

Dual-Use Products & Tactical Variants

No public evidence identified of a dual-use or tactical product line marketed by New Balance specifically to Israeli defence, security, or law-enforcement end-users. No public evidence identified of export-licence applications, end-user certificates, or government export-control reviews tied to New Balance sales to Israeli defence or security purchasers.

Heavy Machinery, Construction & Infrastructure

Not applicable to this company’s core business: New Balance is a footwear and apparel manufacturer. No public evidence identified of heavy machinery, vehicles, or construction and demolition equipment linked to the company in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or elsewhere in Israel/Palestine.

Supply Chain Integration with Defence Primes

No public evidence identified of New Balance supplying components, sub-systems, or materials to Elbit Systems, Israel Aerospace Industries, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, or IMI Systems/Elbit Land. No public evidence identified of joint development, co-production, or technology-transfer agreements between New Balance and any Israeli defence firm.

Logistical Sustainment & Base Services

No public evidence identified of New Balance providing catering, transport, fuel, facilities-management, or telecommunications services to IDF bases or detention facilities, whether in the West Bank, Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, the Negev, or elsewhere in Israel. No public evidence identified of shipping, freight, or port-handling contracts servicing Israeli military cargo.

Munitions, Weapons Systems & Strategic Platforms

No public evidence identified of any role for New Balance as manufacturer, integrator, or component supplier for lethal platforms, munitions, or strategic defence systems, including Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow, military aircraft, armoured vehicles, or naval vessels.

Export Licensing, Regulatory & Legal History

New Balance is privately held, majority-owned (reported at approximately 95–98%) by the Davis family (Jim Davis and Anne Davis), and consequently does not file SEC Form 10-K or 20-F disclosures, meaning no public securities filing exists in which Israel-related trade or human-rights risk factors would be disclosed ²³. No public evidence identified of export-licence grant, denial, or suspension decisions, sanctions-enforcement actions, or OECD National Contact Point or judicial proceedings concerning New Balance’s Israel-related trade.

Civil Society Scrutiny & Documented Investigations

UN/OHCHR settlement-business database. New Balance does not itself appear as a named entity in the Wikipedia-aggregated rendering of the OHCHR database of business enterprises operating in Israeli settlements, nor in the underlying OHCHR database resource or its June 2023 update document, which together catalogue 158 enterprises ⁴⁵⁶⁷. The entries returned under “Delta” relate to New Balance’s Israeli franchise partner, Delta Galil Industries / Delta Israel Brands Ltd., rather than to New Balance directly ⁴⁵⁶⁷.

Israeli retail and import structure. New Balance’s three Israeli retail stores (Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa) are operated by Delta Israel, a franchise subsidiary of Delta Galil Industries (TASE: DELG); separately, Silon Sports Ltd./Silon Sports Marketing Ltd. is described as New Balance’s official importer and distributor in Israel for approximately 20 years ⁸⁹. Who Profits Research Center and AFSC Investigate both maintain company profiles on Delta Galil Industries documenting its West Bank settlement links, but neither profile mentions New Balance by name ¹⁰¹¹.

Franchise-partner settlement nexus. Delta Israel Brands, an 80%-owned subsidiary of Delta Galil, operates retail branches in Pisgat Ze’ev and Ramot (occupied East Jerusalem) and Ma’ale Adumim (an occupied West Bank settlement), and is listed in the OHCHR settlement-business database in both its original 2020 listing and the confirmed June 2023 update ^45671011. Delta Galil is also reported to have operated a 1,680 sq m warehouse in the Barkan Industrial Zone settlement as of May 2011, though the current operational status of that specific warehouse is not confirmed in available sources ¹⁰¹¹.

Franchise-partner military-uniform manufacturing claim (unverified). A secondary source states that Delta Galil manufactures IDF combat uniforms and tactical gear; this claim was not corroborated by the Who Profits or AFSC Investigate profiles reviewed, both of which discuss only Delta Galil’s settlement retail and warehouse activity and make no mention of military or IDF uniform contracts ¹²¹⁰¹¹. No public evidence identified connecting New Balance itself - as distinct from franchise partner Delta Galil - to IDF uniform manufacture, settlement construction, or military logistics.

Jerusalem Marathon sponsorship (historical, discontinued/unconfirmed as current). The BDS National Committee called on New Balance, alongside InterContinental Hotels Group, to withdraw sponsorship of the Jerusalem Marathon - whose route passes through occupied East Jerusalem - in campaigns dated 25 February 2013 and 11–12 March 2014 ¹³¹⁴. Reporting on the 2024 running of the marathon (its 13th edition, with a record 40,000 participants) does not name New Balance among the event’s current sponsors ¹⁵. Separately, Saucony ended its own Jerusalem Marathon sponsorship in September 2025 following a boycott campaign led by a UK running club, indicating continued civil-society pressure on international sportswear brands’ association with the event, though this development concerns Saucony rather than New Balance ¹⁶¹⁷.

BDS “secondary target” listing claim (weakly sourced). A secondary aggregator source states that the BDS National Committee added New Balance to a “secondary target” watchlist in late 2023; this claim could not be corroborated against a live, primary BDS Movement page, as the originating site was inaccessible at time of research and its content is known only via a search-engine cached snippet ⁸. A further secondary BDS-tracking listing repeats boycott-call framing around New Balance without independent primary corroboration ¹⁸¹⁹.

New Balance x Ahava collaboration claim (unverified). A secondary source claims a “limited-edition New Balance x Ahava” collaboration used Dead Sea minerals sourced by Ahava, an Israeli cosmetics brand associated with West Bank sourcing, and attributes to New Balance the statement “our focus is on athletes, not geopolitics” ⁸. No primary New Balance press release, product listing, or independent news report corroborating this collaboration was identified; this claim should be treated as unconfirmed.

“IDF uniform logo” viral claim (unverified). A secondary source asserted that in 2023 activists identified New Balance’s logo on uniforms worn by Israeli soldiers during a televised military drill, prompting a boycott trend on social media ⁸. No corroborating news coverage or documentation of this incident was identified, and the originating source was inaccessible at the time of research; this claim should not be treated as established fact.

Institutional response and divestment. No public evidence identified of institutional divestment decisions by pension funds or sovereign wealth funds specifically citing New Balance’s Israel- or defence-sector activity. No public evidence identified of New Balance issuing any public statement, policy change, or end-use monitoring commitment in response to Israel/Gaza-related civil society pressure; multiple secondary sources characterize the company as having remained silent on the controversy ⁸.