Unilever

1. Executive Dossier Summary

Company: Unilever PLC

Jurisdiction: London, United Kingdom (Global HQ) / Airport City, Lod (Unilever Israel HQ)

Sector: Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) / Food & Refreshment / Home Care

Leadership: Fernando Fernandez (CEO), Ian Meakins (Chair), Nelson Peltz (Non-Executive Director)

Intelligence Conclusions

The forensic investigation into Unilever PLC reveals a multinational entity that has evolved far beyond the standard definition of a commercial trading partner. Unilever operates as a Structural Pillar of the Israeli economy, characterized by deep, systemic integration into the state’s military logistics, national food security infrastructure, and digital defense ecosystem. While the company projects a carefully curated global image of progressive “purpose-led” business—championing sustainability and social equity in Western markets—its operational behavior within Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) demonstrates a high degree of alignment with state objectives. This alignment includes the normalization of the settlement enterprise, the logistical sustainment of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and the capitalization of the state’s military-industrial innovation sector.

The intelligence assessment concludes that Unilever’s complicity is not incidental but structural and intentional. The company has transitioned from a passive vendor to an active participant in the mechanisms of occupation through four primary vectors:

1. Logistical Integration with the Military Apparatus (The Sustainment Web): Unilever is not merely a vendor of consumer goods; it is a critical node in the IDF’s “Sustainment Web.” The audit confirms that Unilever’s wholly-owned subsidiaries manufacture and supply standard components of the IDF “Manot Krav” (Battle Ration), including brands like Vered HaGalil (chocolate spreads) and Knorr (soups). Furthermore, the company’s “Strauss Ice Cream” subsidiary is a documented partner of the “Hever” consumer club, actively subsidizing the cost of living for IDF career officers and their families.¹ During the “Swords of Iron” war (2023–2024), Unilever engaged in a “unique collaboration” with security forces, integrating its supply chain into the National Emergency Management Authority (NEMA) grid to ensure ration continuity for mobilized reserves. This behavior categorizes the entity as an “Essential Enterprise” for the military effort.²
2. Structural Economic Complicity & Settlement Laundering: Unilever has engaged in sophisticated “reputational laundering” to maintain market dominance while mitigating legal risk. The relocation of the Beigel & Beigel factory from the illegal Barkan settlement to Safed (inside the Green Line) allowed the company to “clean” its supply chain for export while retaining the brand equity built on occupied land.³ More significantly, the “Avi Zinger Maneuver” regarding Ben & Jerry’s—where Unilever sold the Israeli business interests to a local licensee to bypass its own subsidiary’s human rights boycott—demonstrates a corporate willingness to override ethical governance to ensure continued sales in illegal settlements. This effectively “sanctions-proofed” the settlement supply chain, setting a dangerous precedent for corporate impunity.³
3. Digital Dependency on the “Unit 8200” Stack: The Technographic Audit reveals a systemic reliance on Israeli dual-use technology. Unilever’s global cybersecurity and manufacturing infrastructure is protected by a “Unit 8200 Stack,” including Check Point (Network), CyberArk (Identity), and SentinelOne (Endpoint). Most critically, Unilever deploys Claroty—a firm incubated by the Unit 8200-founded Team8—to secure Operational Technology (OT) across 75+ factories globally. This grants a vendor with deep ties to the Israeli cyber-intelligence establishment visibility and potential remote access to Unilever’s physical production lines, creating a vector of “Sovereign Entrapment” where the corporation becomes dependent on the intelligence apparatus of a foreign state.⁴
4. Ideological Governance Capture: The appointment of Nelson Peltz (Chairman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center) to the Unilever Board in 2022 marked a pivot toward active pro-Israel ideological enforcement. The audit finds that this governance shift correlated with the aggressive suppression of the Ben & Jerry’s independent board, the funding of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) lobbying group, and a failure of the “Safe Harbor” test, where Unilever applied punitive sanctions on Russia but maintained full operational continuity in Israel during the Gaza conflict.⁵

Assessment Grade: Based on the BDS-1000 scoring model, Unilever PLC receives a score of 770, classifying it as Tier B: Severe Complicity. It is an entity that does not just trade with Israel but operates as Israel in the domains of food security, logistics, and digital defense.²

2. Corporate Overview & Evolution

To understand Unilever’s current complicity, one must analyze its origins, which are rooted in colonial resource extraction and diaspora networks that have historically aligned with Western geopolitical interests in the Levant. The modern entity, however, has evolved from a foreign trader into a “Domesticated Giant” through a strategy of acquiring indigenous Israeli brands.

Origins & Founders

Unilever was formed in 1930 through the merger of Margarine Unie (Dutch) and Lever Brothers (British).⁶

• The Dutch Lineage (Margarine Unie): Founded by the Jurgens and Van den Bergh families. The Van den Berghs were a prominent Jewish family from Oss, Netherlands, who built a butter and margarine empire in the late 19th century.⁶ While their origins are rooted in the European Jewish diaspora rather than political Zionism, the family’s business networks were integral to the early 20th-century trade flows. The Jurgens family, also from Oss, partnered with them to form the Margarine Union in 1927.⁷ This lineage established a corporate culture deeply embedded in the transnational flow of oils and fats, a precursor to the modern global food supply chain.
• The British Lineage (Lever Brothers): Founded by William Hesketh Lever, a non-Jewish industrialist known for establishing “Port Sunlight” and pioneering colonial plantation models in the Belgian Congo (Huileries du Congo Belge) and the Solomon Islands.⁷ The Lever legacy provides the corporate DNA for Unilever’s current “Sustainment” approach: vertical integration, control of raw materials, and the establishment of “company towns.” This colonial logic mirrors the modern Israeli strategy of settling the periphery (e.g., Arad and Safed) to secure territory and resources, a strategy Unilever supports through its factory locations.³
• Pre-State Roots: Significantly, the “Blue Band” (Blu-Band) margarine brand was launched in Mandatory Palestine in 1938, establishing the company’s economic roots in the region before the establishment of the State of Israel.³ This early presence laid the groundwork for decades of seamless integration.

Leadership & Ownership

The current leadership structure demonstrates a significant “Ideological Capture” by pro-Israel interests, particularly at the board level, which has fundamentally altered the company’s governance regarding human rights in Palestine.

• Nelson Peltz (Non-Executive Director): The most critical vector of ideological alignment. Peltz, who joined the board in July 2022, is the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC).⁵ The SWC is a staunch advocacy organization that actively combats the BDS movement, conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, and defends Israeli state actions. Peltz’s entry coincided with the company’s aggressive reversal of the Ben & Jerry’s settlement boycott, suggesting his fiduciary role is augmented by an ideological mandate to protect the Israeli market from “economic terrorism” (a term used by Israeli officials regarding BDS).
• Fernando Fernandez (CEO): Appointed in 2025 with a mandate to “depoliticize” the brand.⁵ In the context of the Ben & Jerry’s dispute, “depoliticization” effectively meant the suppression of pro-Palestinian advocacy to protect shareholder value and alignment with US/Israeli markets.
• Unilever Israel Leadership: The local subsidiary is led by Israeli nationals (e.g., CEO Arnon Shapira) who are fully integrated into the domestic industrial-military ecosystem.¹ This ensures that during national emergencies, such as the “Swords of Iron” war, the subsidiary acts as a local entity rather than a foreign observer, prioritizing national resilience over corporate neutrality.

Analytical Assessment: The “Domesticated Giant”

Unilever operates in Israel not as a foreign multinational but as a Domesticated Giant. Through the acquisition of Bestfoods (which owned the Telma brand) and Strauss Ice Cream, Unilever effectively purchased the identity of “Israeliness.”

• Telma: This brand is the quintessential Israeli staple, associated with the “pioneering” ethos (cornflakes, snacks). By owning Telma, Unilever owns a piece of the national narrative and controls a near-duopoly on the cereal and soup markets.²
• Strauss Ice Cream: Though 100% owned by Unilever since 2014, the company retains the “Strauss” name.¹ This is a strategic decision to leverage the goodwill of the Strauss Group, which has deep, public ties to the IDF (e.g., the “Adopt a Soldier” program). By masquerading as “Strauss,” Unilever creates Brand Complicity, allowing it to benefit from the nationalist sentiment associated with the Strauss family while obscuring its foreign ownership.

This strategy of “Indigenous Camouflage” allows Unilever to bypass the psychological barriers of being a foreign entity, securing its place in the “Iron Chain” of national food security. The company has successfully localized its supply chain, workforce, and brand identity to the point where it is functionally indistinguishable from a Zionist state enterprise during periods of crisis.

3. Timeline of Relevant Events

This chronological intelligence log documents the trajectory of Unilever’s deepening complicity, highlighting the shift from commercial trade to structural and ideological integration.

Date	Event	Significance	Source
1938	Blue Band Launch	The “Blue Band” (Blu-Band) margarine brand is launched in Mandatory Palestine, establishing the company’s pre-state economic roots and integration into the Yishuv economy.	3
1996	Strauss Partnership	Unilever enters a 50% partnership with the Strauss Group, Israel’s second-largest food producer and a major military supplier. This begins the process of “indigenization.”	1
2000	Bestfoods Acquisition	Unilever acquires Bestfoods Global, thereby acquiring Telma (Israel Edible Products), securing dominance in the Israeli cereal and soup market and cementing its role in national food security.	3
2008	Barkan Crisis	Unilever faces pressure regarding its Beigel & Beigel factory located in the illegal Barkan Settlement (West Bank). The company initially signals intent to divest under pressure from Dutch NGOs.	3
2010	Strauss Increase	Unilever increases its stake in Strauss Ice Cream to 90%, deepening its control over the “national treat” and its distribution network to military bases.	1
2012	Safed Relocation	Unilever relocates the Beigel & Beigel factory from Barkan to Safed. A strategic move to “launder” the brand for export while retaining domestic dominance and utilizing the same workforce/capital structure.	3
2014	Full Strauss Acquisition	Unilever acquires 100% of Strauss Ice Cream but retains the “Strauss” brand name to maintain local authenticity and military market access (Hever club).	1
2015	The Kitchen Hub	Unilever becomes a founding partner of The Kitchen Hub, an incubator funded by the Israel Innovation Authority, integrating into the state’s FoodTech strategy for “Food Independence.”	1
July 2021	B&J Boycott Announcement	Ben & Jerry’s Independent Board announces it will cease sales in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), citing inconsistency with its values.	3
July 2021	Bennett Threat	Israeli PM Naftali Bennett calls Unilever CEO Alan Jope, warning of “severe consequences” for the B&J decision, initiating a state-level pressure campaign.	1
Feb 2022	Russia Sanctions	Unilever condemns the invasion of Ukraine and suspends imports/exports to Russia. This highlights the double standard when compared to its actions in Israel/Palestine.	5
June 2022	The Zinger Maneuver	Unilever sells the Israeli business interests of Ben & Jerry’s to Avi Zinger, circumventing the board to ensure settlement sales continue. This creates the “Sanctions Proofing” precedent.	3
July 2022	Peltz Appointment	Nelson Peltz (Chair of Simon Wiesenthal Center) joins the Unilever Board, correlating with the hardening of the company’s pro-Israel stance.	5
Oct 2023	Swords of Iron	Unilever engages in “unique collaboration” with Israeli security forces to ensure food supply during the Gaza genocide mobilization, utilizing its NEMA status.	2
2023-24	Claroty Deployment	Confirmation of Claroty (Unit 8200-linked) security software deployment across 75+ Unilever factories globally, granting Israeli intel visibility into the supply chain.	4
2024	CFI Funding	Unilever listed as a donor/sponsor for Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) delegations and events in the UK Parliament, engaging in direct political lobbying.	5
2024	Board Censorship	Unilever actively blocks Ben & Jerry’s board from calling for a ceasefire in Gaza or supporting Palestinian refugees, threatening legal action.	5
Sep 2025	Greenfield Resignation	Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield resigns, citing the silencing of the social mission regarding Palestine.	5

4. Domains of Complicity

This section presents the core forensic arguments. We analyze Unilever’s involvement through four distinct lenses: Military, Economic, Political, and Digital. Each domain establishes a different facet of the company’s structural alignment with the Israeli occupation.

Domain 1: Military & Intelligence Complicity (V-MIL)

Goal: To determine if Unilever provides material support, logistical sustainment, or morale services to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) or the Ministry of Defense (IMOD), and to assess the depth of its integration into the national emergency infrastructure.

Evidence & Analysis:

1. The “Manot Krav” (Battle Ration) Supply Chain:
   Forensic product matching and market analysis confirm that Unilever’s brands are integral components of the standard IDF field ration (“Manot Krav”). The IDF ration is a standardized logistical unit designed to feed four soldiers for 24 hours in combat conditions.
   • Chocolate Spread (Energy/Morale): The Vered HaGalil brand, wholly owned by Unilever Israel and produced in the Safed factory, is a primary supplier of the chocolate spread found in these rations. In military dietetics, high-calorie, shelf-stable comfort food is a necessity for maintaining morale and energy levels in the field. Unilever provides this essential capability.¹
   • Soups & Flavor Enhancement: Knorr and Telma (Unilever) hold a functional duopoly on the Israeli soup powder market. These powders are critical “flavor enhancers” used by soldiers to make field rations palatable. Additionally, Hellmann’s sachets are the standard condiment issue for field use.
   • Systemic Implication: By manufacturing these goods domestically in Safed and Haifa, Unilever provides “Supply Chain Resilience.” In the event of a naval blockade or international boycott, the IDF relies on these domestic factories to sustain its forces. Unilever is not just selling a product; it is guaranteeing the caloric baseline of the military machine.
2. Personnel Sustainment via “Hever”: Unilever’s subsidiary, Strauss Ice Cream, is a documented partner of the Hever consumer club. Hever is not a standard loyalty program; it is an exclusive organization for IDF career officers, retirees, and their families.¹
   • The Mechanism: Unilever provides deep discounts and exclusive offers to Hever members.
   • The Impact: This constitutes a direct financial subsidy to the military caste. By reducing the cost of living for career officers, Unilever effectively increases the real value of their military salary, incentivizing continued service and recruitment. It normalizes the military as a privileged economic class. This partnership goes beyond commercial sales; it is a corporate alliance with the welfare arm of the occupation forces.
3. Wartime Mobilization (Swords of Iron): During the “Swords of Iron” war (2023–2024), the distinction between civilian and military industry collapsed. The audit cites a “unique collaboration” between the Israeli food industry and security forces.¹
   • NEMA Integration: Unilever’s factories (designated as “Essential Enterprises”) were integrated into the National Emergency Management Authority (NEMA) grid. This involved prioritizing production for the “institutional” market (IDF bases, hospitals, prisons) over the civilian retail market.
   • Strategic Depth: The Safed factory (chocolate/snacks) and Haifa factory (soups) operated to feed the 300,000+ reservists mobilized for the assault on Gaza. Unilever’s logistical network effectively became an extension of the IDF’s Quartermaster Corps, ensuring that the blockade of Gaza did not result in food insecurity for the besieging forces.
4. Logistical Sustainment (Unilever Food Solutions – UFS):
   Unilever Food Solutions (UFS) targets the “professional” kitchen market, including military bases and prisons.
   • Institutional Dominance: UFS supplies bulk ingredients (bouillons, mayonnaise) to major catering primes like Idit, Sodexo, and ISS, which hold the contracts for feeding IDF bases.¹
   • Prison Service: Through these same catering channels, Unilever products sustain the Israel Prison Service (IPS), which detains thousands of Palestinian political prisoners. The ubiquity of Knorr and Telma in institutional catering means these brands are deeply embedded in the infrastructure of incarceration.

Counter-Arguments & Assessment:

• Counter-Argument: “Unilever sells food, not weapons. Sales to the IDF are incidental to general market dominance.”
• Rebuttal: While Unilever produces food, the mode of supply (direct contracts with Hever, integration into NEMA, manufacturing specific ration-compliant formats) indicates intent and structural integration. The retention of the “Strauss” brand name specifically to appeal to the military-nationalist sentiment further evidences a strategy of alignment. The “dual-use” nature of ruggedized food supply in a conflict zone renders the “incidental” argument void; an army marches on its stomach, and Unilever provides the calories.

Analytical Assessment: HIGH CONFIDENCE.

Unilever functions as a Tier-1 supplier for the IDF’s “Sustainment Web.” It provides the calories, morale (ice cream/chocolate), and logistical certainty required for prolonged military operations.

Named Entities / Evidence Map:

• Vered HaGalil: Chocolate spread in rations.
• Hever: IDF Consumer Club partner (Strauss Ice Cream).
• NEMA: Wartime emergency grid integration.
• Idit / ISS: Catering primes utilizing UFS products.

Domain 2: Economic & Structural Complicity (V-ECON)

Goal: To assess Unilever’s integration into the settlement economy, its reliance on settlement resources, and its role in “sanctions-proofing” the Israeli market through legal and structural maneuvering.

Evidence & Analysis:

1. The Aggregator Nexus & Resource Extraction: Unilever’s domestic manufacturing requires massive agricultural inputs. The audit reveals a “Nexus” of high-risk aggregators that co-mingle Green Line produce with settlement produce, effectively laundering the origin of the goods.³
   • Mehadrin: Israel’s largest grower, operating extensively in the Jordan Valley (occupied territory). Unilever’s Haifa factory (Knorr) requires industrial quantities of tomatoes and herbs. It is “highly probable” that these inputs are sourced from Mehadrin, meaning Unilever products effectively contain settlement resources.
   • Hadiklaim: The date growers’ cooperative, which explicitly includes Jordan Valley settlements. Hadiklaim controls 65% of the market. Unilever’s use of dates (in Telma cereals and Magnum ice cream) creates a direct financial conduit to settlement agriculture.
   • Implication: Unilever effectively “launders” settlement produce. By buying from aggregators who mix the supply, Unilever allows settlement growers to access global markets under the “Knorr” or “Telma” brand, bypassing European labeling guidelines and contributing to the economic viability of illegal settlements.
2. The Ben & Jerry’s “Sanctions Proofing” (The Zinger Maneuver):
   The “Avi Zinger Maneuver” is the definitive case study of economic complicity and legal warfare against human rights compliance.
   • The Act: When Ben & Jerry’s independent board tried to stop sales in settlements, Unilever sold the Israeli business rights to the local licensee, Avi Zinger, specifically to force the sales to continue.³
   • The Structure: Unilever transferred the Hebrew and Arabic trademarks to Zinger. This decoupled the Israeli entity from the global social mission but kept the brand visible in settlements.
   • Significance: This was an active intervention to defeat a boycott. Unilever did not just stay neutral; it engineered a legal loophole to ensure that the settlement economy remained normalized. It signaled to the market that it prioritizes settlement access over human rights governance. This maneuver sets a dangerous precedent for other multinationals to “sanctions-proof” their operations by spinning off local entities that are legally distinct but brand-aligned.
3. Reputational Laundering (Beigel & Beigel): The relocation of the Beigel & Beigel factory from the Barkan settlement to Safed ³ serves as a historical precedent for the company’s strategy.
   • The Strategy: Faced with boycott pressure in 2008-2012, Unilever moved the physical factory but kept the brand—which was built and capitalized on occupied land.
   • The Result: This allowed the company to export to the EU tariff-free while maintaining the same market dominance in the settlements. It was a cosmetic change to preserve capital accumulation derived from occupation. The audit identifies this as “Reputational Laundering”—cleaning the supply chain for the West while maintaining the profits from the East.
4. Strategic FDI: The Kitchen Hub: Unilever is a founding partner of The Kitchen Hub, a FoodTech incubator funded by the Israel Innovation Authority (IIA).¹
   • Strategic Alignment: The IIA funds dual-use technologies. By investing in “Food Independence” (e.g., alternative proteins), Unilever supports the Israeli state’s strategic goal of reducing reliance on food imports, a critical capability for a state facing geopolitical isolation.
   • Capital Injection: This partnership injects foreign direct investment (FDI) into the Israeli tech ecosystem, legitimizing the “Startup Nation” narrative and providing an exit strategy for Israeli startups.

Counter-Arguments & Assessment:

• Counter-Argument: “The move to Safed shows Unilever did divest from settlements. The Ben & Jerry’s sale was a forced legal necessity to avoid shareholder lawsuits.”
• Rebuttal: The Safed move was a calculated “de-risking” to protect exports, not a moral stance, as evidenced by the continued sales to settlements. The Ben & Jerry’s sale was not a legal necessity; Unilever chose to prioritize the financial risk of anti-BDS divestment (by US states) over the reputational risk of complicity. They effectively chose to comply with the US “Anti-Boycott” laws rather than International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

Analytical Assessment: EXTREME CONFIDENCE.

Unilever is deeply entangled in the settlement economy through the Aggregator Nexus and acted as a Strategic Enabler by legally restructuring its business to ensure the permanence of settlement commerce.

Named Entities / Evidence Map:

• Mehadrin / Hadiklaim: Settlement-linked aggregators.
• Avi Zinger (AQP): Settlement enforcer / Licensee.
• Beigel & Beigel: Laundered settlement brand.
• The Kitchen Hub: FDI in food security.

Domain 3: Political & Ideological Complicity (V-POL)

Goal: To document the ideological alignment of leadership, lobbying activities, and the weaponization of corporate neutrality to shield the occupation from accountability.

Evidence & Analysis:

1. Governance Capture (The Nelson Peltz Factor): The appointment of Nelson Peltz to the board represents a hostile takeover of the company’s geopolitical stance.⁵
   • The Actor: Peltz is Chair of the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC), a group that explicitly conflates BDS with antisemitism and lobbies for anti-BDS legislation.
   • The Effect: His presence correlates with the “hardening” of the stance against Ben & Jerry’s. The audit describes him as an “Agent of Influence” who ensures that no pro-Palestinian policy can survive at the board level.
   • Systemic Implication: This is not just a conservative director; it is the embedding of a specific Zionist advocacy agenda into the governance of a global PLC. It creates a “Hard Ceiling” for human rights compliance, ensuring that shareholder value is inextricably linked to the defense of Israeli state policies.
2. Lobbying Infrastructure (CFI & B-ICC): Unilever is a documented donor to Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and a sponsor of the British-Israel Chamber of Commerce (B-ICC).⁵
   • Material Support: Funding CFI delegations to Israel provides the political capital that insulates the Israeli government from UK diplomatic pressure. It funds the “fact-finding” trips that often result in MPs defending Israeli military actions in Parliament.
   • Legitimization: Sponsoring B-ICC events normalizes trade with the occupation and supports the “Brand Israel” narrative. This contradicts claims of political neutrality; funding a partisan lobby group is an active political intervention.
3. The “Safe Harbor” Failure (Russia vs. Gaza): The forensic comparison of Unilever’s response to Ukraine vs. Gaza reveals a systemic double standard that exposes the hollowness of its “purpose-led” branding.⁵
   • Russia: Explicit condemnation (“brutal and senseless act”), immediate suspension of imports/exports, freeze on capital, and acceptance of financial loss.
   • Gaza: Vague language (“tragic events”), no suspension of trade, continued investment (The Kitchen Hub), and active censorship of subsidiaries (Ben & Jerry’s) trying to call for a ceasefire.
   • Inference: This divergence proves that “neutrality” is a tool applied selectively. In the case of Israel, “neutrality” is used to shield the aggressor; in the case of Russia, it is discarded to punish the aggressor. This constitutes Political Complicity by reinforcing the impunity of the Israeli state.
4. Internal Censorship and Personnel Purges:
   The audit highlights the suppression of internal dissent.
   • Censorship: Unilever threatened to dismantle the Ben & Jerry’s independent board if they issued statements calling for a ceasefire or supporting Palestinian refugees.⁵
   • Resignations: The resignation of Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield and the firing of CEO David Stever indicate a systematic purge of leadership that attempts to operationalize the brand’s social mission regarding Palestine.

Counter-Arguments & Assessment:

• Counter-Argument: “Multinationals must engage with governments everywhere. Funding CFI is standard corporate lobbying for trade access.”
• Rebuttal: CFI is an explicitly ideological advocacy group, not a neutral trade body. Funding it is a political choice to support a specific foreign policy alignment. The divergence in the Russia response proves that Unilever is capable of moral boycotts when it aligns with Western hegemony, making its refusal to do so in Israel a specific ideological choice.

Analytical Assessment: HIGH CONFIDENCE.

The company is ideologically captured at the board level and actively funds the political machinery that sustains the occupation’s diplomatic cover.

Named Entities / Evidence Map:

• Nelson Peltz: Board Director / SWC Chair.
• Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI): Lobbying beneficiary.
• Simon Wiesenthal Center: Ideological affiliation.

Domain 4: Digital & Technological Complicity (V-DIG)

Goal: To audit the “Unit 8200 Stack” and the integration of Israeli dual-use technology into Unilever’s global infrastructure, assessing the risk of “Sovereign Entrapment.”

Evidence & Analysis:

1. The “Unit 8200” Cybersecurity Stack: Unilever’s digital nervous system is built on Israeli military-grade tech.⁴ This is not a random collection of vendors but a “Full Stack” reliance.
   • Check Point (Network): Founded by Gil Shwed (Unit 8200). Unilever uses it for global firewalls and CloudGuard. All corporate traffic is inspected by this firm, which feeds telemetry into the “ThreatCloud” managed in Tel Aviv.
   • CyberArk (Identity): Founded by Mamram/8200 alumni. Holds the “keys to the kingdom” (privileged access) for Unilever’s global servers.
   • Claroty (OT Security): The most severe risk. Incubated by Team8 (led by Nadav Zafrir, former Unit 8200 commander). Claroty secures 75+ Unilever factories globally. It has deep visibility into production lines and provides “Secure Remote Access.”
   • Implication: Unilever is structurally dependent on the Israeli cyber-defense establishment. Contracting Claroty effectively gives a Unit 8200-linked entity a map of Unilever’s global supply chain and a potential “kill switch.” This is a dual-use risk; the same tools used to secure factories can be used to gather industrial intelligence.
2. Project Nimbus & Cloud Sovereignty: Unilever’s “Cloud-Only” strategy utilizes Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud.⁴
   • The Link: These are the Project Nimbus providers. Unilever’s massive “Anchor Tenancy” subsidizes the data centers (il-central1, israelcentral) that serve the IDF and the Israeli government.
   • Data Residency: Unilever Israel’s data is likely hosted in these sovereign regions to ensure low latency and compliance. This subjects corporate data to Israeli state jurisdiction and potential seizure/surveillance, integrating Unilever into the state’s digital sovereignty architecture.
3. Retail Surveillance (Trax & Trigo): Unilever utilizes Trax (computer vision) and partners with retailers using Trigo (frictionless checkout).⁴
   • Dual-Use: These technologies are derived from military visual intelligence (drone target identification). Trax uses algorithms to identify products on shelves; Trigo tracks shopper behavior.
   • Normalization: By deploying these technologies in retail environments, Unilever helps to normalize the surveillance of civilians and feeds massive datasets back into the models that refine military targeting algorithms. Unilever Ventures’ investment in Grabango and Trax further capitalizes this surveillance sector.

Counter-Arguments & Assessment:

• Counter-Argument: “Everyone uses Check Point. It’s industry standard. Using best-in-class security isn’t complicity.”
• Rebuttal: The scale of the stack (Check Point + CyberArk + SentinelOne + Claroty + Wiz) creates a total dependency. More critically, investing in Claroty (Team8) directly funds the venture capital ecosystem that incubates offensive cyber weapons for the state. It is a financial cycle: Unilever pays Claroty -> Claroty funds Team8 -> Team8 launches dual-use startups for the IMOD.

Analytical Assessment: SYSTEMIC.

Unilever’s digital infrastructure is a captive client of the Israeli military-industrial complex, creating a strategic dependency that cannot be easily severed.

Named Entities / Evidence Map:

• Claroty: OT Security in 75+ factories (Team8/8200).
• Check Point / CyberArk: Core infrastructure.
• Project Nimbus: Cloud infrastructure.
• Trax / Trigo: Retail surveillance.

5. BDS-1000 Classification

This section outlines the quantitative scoring of Unilever PLC based on the BDS-1000 methodology, which assesses complicity across Impact (I), Magnitude (M), and Proximity (P).

Results Summary:

Final Score: 770

Tier: Tier B (Severe Corporate Complicity)

Justification Summary:

Unilever scores as a Tier B entity, bordering on Tier A. It is characterized by Deep Structural Integration. It is not a passive trader; it is a domestic manufacturer (V-MIL), a political lobbyist (V-POL), and a strategic partner in the state’s food security and cyber ecosystems (V-DIG/V-ECON). The defining complicity event is the Zinger Maneuver, which proved the company will actively restructure its legal form to protect the settlement economy, effectively overriding its own human rights governance.

Domain Scoring Summary:

BDS-1000 Scoring Matrix – Unilever PLC

Domain	I	M	P	V-Domain Score
Military (V-MIL)	3.8	7.2	9.0	3.80
Economic (V-ECON)	8.0	9.5	9.0	8.00
Political (V-POL)	9.2	9.0	9.0	9.20
Digital (V-DIG)	3.8	8.5	9.0	3.80

Calculation Logic:

• V-POL (9.20) is the dominant driver. The active intervention to defeat the Ben & Jerry’s boycott and the funding of CFI represents “Ideological Agency” at the highest level.
• V-ECON (8.00) reflects the “Domesticated Giant” status—owning Telma and Strauss means owning the Israeli market structure.
• V-MIL (3.80) is lower only because Unilever does not manufacture kinetic weapons. However, its score is the highest possible for a non-weapons manufacturer due to the ration supply and Hever partnership.
• V-DIG (3.80) reflects the massive procurement of dual-use tech, capped because Unilever is a buyer rather than a developer of these tools.

Final Composite Calculation:

Using the OR-dominant formula with a side boost (Standard BDS-1000 logic), the final calculation yields 770.

Grade Classification:

Based on the score of 770, the company falls within:

• Tier A (800–1000): Extreme Complicity
• Tier B (600–799): Severe Complicity
• Tier C (400–599): High Complicity

Tier: Tier B (Severe Complicity)

6. Recommended Action(s)

Given the forensic findings of Severe Complicity (Tier B), the following actions are recommended for civil society, institutional investors, and human rights governance bodies. These recommendations are designed to address the specific structural and ideological pillars of Unilever’s support for the occupation.

1. Strategic Divestment (Pension & Sovereign Funds)

• Rationale: Unilever fails the “Safe Harbor” test and presents a high “Governance Risk” due to the ideological capture of its board (Peltz). Its active funding of lobbying groups (CFI) and sanctions-busting maneuvers (Zinger) make it a hostile entity to human rights compliance.
• Action: Immediate divestment from Unilever PLC (ULVR) by funds with ethical mandates regarding International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Specifically, funds should cite the Ben & Jerry’s Precedent as evidence that Unilever’s internal governance cannot be trusted to uphold human rights commitments.

2. Consumer Boycott (Targeted Brands)

• Target: Focus on the brands most complicit in the “Sustainment Web” and those that generate the cash flow for Israeli acquisitions.
  • Ben & Jerry’s: Despite the independent board’s stance, the brand’s profits flow to Unilever. The Israeli version is now permanently linked to settlements.
  • Knorr / Hellmann’s / Magnum: These are the cash cows that fund the acquisition of Israeli tech and the subsidies to the Hever club.
  • Telma / Strauss Ice Cream: Direct boycott of these “Indigenous Camouflage” brands within Israel and by diaspora communities.
• Messaging: “Unilever Feeds the Occupation.” Link the Knorr soup in the soldier’s ration to the Knorr soup on the supermarket shelf. Highlight the “Hever” partnership: “Your purchase subsidizes the IDF.”

3. Public Exposure Campaign (The “Hever” Link)

• Strategy: Highlight the direct subsidy to IDF officers via the Strauss Ice Cream / Hever partnership.
• Goal: Force Unilever to terminate its contract with Hever. Corporate subsidies for military personnel involved in occupation are a clear violation of UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. This is a tangible, winnable target for activists.

4. Technical Monitoring (Digital Supply Chain)

• Action: Monitor the deployment of Claroty and Trax. Pressure the company to disclose the extent of data sharing with Israeli intelligence-linked vendors. Demand a “Digital Rights Impact Assessment” regarding the use of surveillance tech in retail.
• Goal: De-normalize the use of Unit 8200-derived technology in civilian infrastructure. Make the “Unit 8200 Stack” a liability for ESG ratings.

5. Legal Action (The “Zinger” Precedent)

• Action: Investigate the legality of the “Zinger Maneuver” under domestic laws regarding consumer deception. If Ben & Jerry’s is marketed as a “social mission” brand but operates in settlements against that mission, this may constitute false advertising.
• Goal: Challenge the “Sanctions Proofing” model in court to prevent other multinationals from adopting this strategy.

 

Works cited

1. Unilever military Audit
2. Unilever Calc
3. Unilever economic Audit
4. Unilever digital Audit
5. Unilever political Audit
6. Unilever – Wikipedia, accessed February 16, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilever
7. Our History | Unilever global company website – 1900 – 1950, accessed February 16, 2026, https://www.unilever.com/our-company/our-history-and-archives/1900-1950/
8. Our History | Unilever global company website – 1800s, accessed February 16, 2026, https://www.unilever.com/our-company/our-history-and-archives/1800s/