This audit assesses the political and ideological footprint of International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) to determine its material and operational complicity risk stemming from involvement in systems supporting the occupation of Palestine, specifically focusing on militarisation, surveillance, and apartheid frameworks. The analysis spans governance ideology, lobbying activities, comparative geopolitical response consistency, and operational contracts.
The evidence compiled establishes that IBM demonstrates High Material Complicity and Evident Ideological Bias in its sustained operations supporting the mechanisms of military occupation and control.
Material complicity is evidenced by decades of deep operational and technical integration with the Israeli military, intelligence, and civil surveillance infrastructure.1 IBM’s role is not peripheral but involves the provision of core, mission-critical infrastructure, including artificial intelligence (AI) collaboration and the maintenance of essential population control systems.
Ideological bias is confirmed through the failure of the Geopolitical Response Consistency Test (the “Safe Harbor” Test), which reveals a selective application of ethical and operational standards when comparing the corporate response to the 2022 Ukraine/Russia conflict versus the 2023 Israel/Gaza conflict.3 This disparity, coupled with active corporate promotion of bilateral trade and innovation, demonstrates an institutional commitment to the Israeli political and economic ecosystem.5
The assessed risk profile indicates systemic exposure to reputational and operational disruption due to entanglement in alleged human rights violations.
| Risk Category | Primary Nexus of Concern | Complicity Rating | Impact Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reputational/Ethical | Policy Incoherence (Double Standard), Historical Precedents, Surveillance Infrastructure (PIBA) | High Complicity | Severe: Elevated exposure to targeted divestment and boycott campaigns.7 |
| Operational/Financial | Strategic Dependency on IDF Contracts, Regulatory Scrutiny of Dual-Use AI Technology | High Complicity | Substantial: Risk of contract termination or subsidiary divestment required to meet ethical mandates. |
| Governance/Compliance | Lack of Corporate Neutrality in Geopolitical Crisis Response | Evident Bias | Moderate: Undermines stated commitments to universal business conduct guidelines. |
Based on the documented operational depth of complicity, the following high-level actions are recommended for institutional review:
In the context of this audit, Material Complicity is defined as the provision of technology, services, or capital that is indispensable to the function or maintenance of systems related to military occupation, surveillance, or institutionalized discrimination (apartheid). This includes supplying the core infrastructure, advanced capabilities (like AI frameworks), or maintenance services essential for the continuity of the security or administrative apparatus.1
Ideological Complicity refers to the use of corporate influence, financial power, or rhetorical framing to actively support the political or economic narrative of a state actor, particularly when such alignment disregards documented human rights concerns or selectively applies corporate ethical standards based on geopolitical identity.
Understanding IBM’s historical involvement with state systems of control is critical for assessing the current political risk, as historical patterns often predict future governance vulnerabilities. Reports explicitly draw parallels between IBM’s current activities in the region and its past entanglement with oppressive regimes globally.1
Historically, IBM provided technology to Nazi Germany during World War II, a foundational example of corporate-assisted state infrastructure for control. Furthermore, IBM supplied computers that enabled the racist population registry of the apartheid regime in South Africa.1 This historical record establishes a severe precedent for reputational risk associated with providing technology utilized for racial sorting and political control.
The ongoing audit must view IBM’s contemporary roles—such as operating the Eitan System 1—through the lens of this historical context, assessing whether the functionality and purpose of the current contracts resemble these prior instances of corporate enablement of systematic human rights violations. The historical pattern significantly amplifies the severity of the current material complicity findings.
This section documents the specific, deep operational ties between IBM and the Israeli military-security apparatus, establishing the core rationale for the high material complicity rating.
IBM’s involvement with the Israeli military extends back over six decades, commencing in the early 1960s with the supply of manual mechanization machines.1 This relationship intensified dramatically with the advent of computerization, marked by the Israeli military purchasing its first IBM computer in 1967, followed by numerous acquisitions.1 Over the last decades, IBM, primarily through its fully owned Israeli subsidiaries, IBM Israel and Red Hat Israel, has consistently supplied critical services and technology to the IDF.1
This long-standing operational commitment is evidenced by substantial contracts: in 2011, IBM secured a contract worth hundreds of millions of US dollars from the Israeli Ministry of Defense (IMOD) for the provision of central servers and storage. Earlier, in 2008, the company was awarded a three-year contract valued at US$60 million for server provision, alongside an additional US$6–7 million contract specifically for virtual Vmware servers.1 This financial and technological dependency demonstrates a systemic reliance by the IDF on IBM hardware and services. Furthermore, since the early 2000s, IBM Israel employees have worked alongside soldiers from the Israeli military’s Computer and IT Unit, highlighting a deep outsourcing of software development work.1
IBM’s material support extends beyond hardware maintenance to the co-development of advanced warfare capabilities. The company holds joint projects with the Israeli military Computer Service and Cyber Defense Divisions focusing specifically on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning.1
The provision of general-purpose AI and Machine Learning frameworks to a military engaged in occupation creates a significant legal and ethical accountability vacuum. This technology is inherently “dual-use.” Even if IBM does not program the final offensive targeting algorithm, the supply of the underlying infrastructure, expertise, and computational tools constitutes material support for offensive capabilities. This complicity is heightened in light of reports that the Israeli military utilizes AI programs to produce targets with minimal human oversight.8 Therefore, IBM’s role shifts from supplier to active enabler in the development of sophisticated military mechanisms, significantly increasing its material complicity risk.
The acquisition of Red Hat transformed IBM’s risk profile by integrating the company into the IDF’s core operational command structure. In 2017, the Israeli military established its first operational cloud, built in collaboration with Red Hat and based on its technologies. This project was not merely for administrative efficiency; it was explicitly part of the Israeli Military Network Program designed to establish operational internet infrastructure. This system enables the real-time sharing of operational information between highly sensitive and critical military divisions, including the Israeli Air Force, Intelligence, Ground Forces, and Navy.1 The project was reportedly valued at tens of millions of shekels.
This operational integration demonstrates a profound level of strategic dependency. The IDF’s core operational functions—from aerial strike command to intelligence gathering—rely on Red Hat/IBM technology for real-time information sharing and continuity.1 Israeli military officers have recognized this dependence by describing Red Hat as a “business partner,” while company executives have described the IDF as their “partner” and “leading customer,” expressing “great pride” in enhancing the military’s capabilities.2 This institutional relationship means that IBM has moved past simple contractor status; it is deeply embedded as an indispensable strategic asset. Suspending this service would critically impair Israeli military capability, suggesting that IBM’s operational entanglement serves as a form of strategic protection for the company against international pressure or divestment campaigns.
IBM’s material complicity extends into the civilian administration of the occupation, particularly through the provision of essential surveillance and control infrastructure.
IBM designed and currently operates the Eitan System for the Israeli Population, Immigration and Border Authority (PIBA). The central function of this system is to store and manage personal information collected by Israel on the occupied Palestinian and Syrian populations.1
The maintenance and operation of the Eitan System represent a foundational cause of complicity, as it directly supports the administrative infrastructure of military governance and population sorting. The technology enables the systematic surveillance and control mechanisms necessary for governing an occupied population. Analysts have explicitly compared this registry to the systems deployed by the South African apartheid regime, which used similar population registry technology for racial sorting and implementing racially based discriminatory policies.1 IBM’s control over the PIBA data structure is thus crucial for implementing policies of restriction, movement control, and differentiation between populations (Israeli citizens versus residents of the occupied territories). This functional similarity to historical mechanisms of apartheid links IBM’s contract work directly to the institutionalization of systematic discrimination.
The audit confirms IBM’s deep technological integration with the Israeli Police, the security force responsible for enforcing occupation policies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and maintaining control within Israel. Many of the police computer systems are developed based on IBM’s hardware and software and depend solely on IBM products.1
Through a tender exemption process, IBM secured contracts to be the sole supplier of software maintenance and hardware maintenance for the Israel Police.1 For example, in 2016, IBM was contracted through a NIS 3 million exemption, and in 2014, secured a NIS 2.8 million contract for the maintenance of central computer and software licensing for two years.1 By serving as the exclusive technology provider for maintenance and software licensing, IBM ensures the continuous operation of the security system essential for enforcing occupation policies and exercising control over the population.
This section assesses the ideological posture of IBM through its leadership screening, political contribution policies, and active engagement in bilateral trade promotion.
A review of publicly available information, based on the audit’s core intelligence requirements, did not yield direct evidence linking specific IBM Board members, the CEO (Arvind Krishna), or majority owners to personal financial contributions to Zionist advocacy groups such as AIPAC or the Jewish National Fund (JNF).9 Major documented AIPAC donors identified in the research belong to other investment and real estate firms.10
This observation must be interpreted in light of IBM’s corporate governance structure. IBM maintains a strict, publicly stated policy against operating a Political Action Committee (PAC). Furthermore, the policy explicitly prohibits direct corporate payments or employee expense reimbursements for campaign contributions to political candidates, their election campaigns, or political parties. Contributions to intermediary organizations (like trade associations) intended to fund political campaigns are also explicitly prohibited.11
While this policy generally mitigates the risk of direct ideological political spending by the corporation or its senior leadership, it does not diminish the risk posed by the material complicity detailed in Section III. The lack of evidence for personal political donations, combined with high operational integration, implies that IBM’s commitment to the Israeli military-tech ecosystem is institutional and commercial, driven by the massive strategic value and profitability of long-term contracts that have spanned decades and multiple military modernizations. The material commitment to the military-industrial complex supersedes individual political affiliation.
In the absence of direct political lobbying, IBM engages in activities that promote economic normalization, effectively substituting political intervention with the financialization of ideology.
The Israel-Britain Chamber of Commerce (IBCC) is an independent non-profit organization dedicated to promoting bilateral trade, investment, and business between the two nations.5 Organizations like the IBCC actively coordinate business delegations, facilitate networking events, and operate sector-specific forums (Innovation, Real Estate, Financial) designed to build connections between leading UK and Israeli business people.6
Although IBM’s specific membership status is not explicitly confirmed, its substantial operational presence in both the UK and Israel strongly suggests participation in these or similar bilateral initiatives. By investing in and promoting the economic stability of the Israeli market through these trade channels, IBM achieves a similar geopolitical outcome to political lobbying: protecting its operational base and ensuring continued economic integration. This constitutes a subtle yet effective form of ideological support aimed at normalizing economic ties and insulating the Israeli economy from international boycotts or political scrutiny.
IBM has participated in events promoting technological collaboration between the two regions, evidenced by references to an “innovation day” that occurred in the UK.12 The context of this discussion frames Israeli innovation as an “asset of brand Israel”.12
The sponsorship of “Innovation Days” aligns with broader Hasbara efforts—activities designed to promote Zionism and reshape Israel’s public image to counter international criticism.13 By championing the Israeli tech ecosystem, IBM provides ideological support by focusing on economic success and technological prowess while simultaneously obscuring the geopolitical conflict and the role of its technology in supporting the occupation. The company is positioned as a corporate champion of the Israeli economy, providing insulation against accusations of complicity.
The “Safe Harbor” Test requires a rigorous, evidenced comparison of IBM’s corporate reaction to two major geopolitical crises: the 2022 Ukraine/Russia conflict and the 2023 Israel/Gaza conflict. The comparison across operational, financial, and rhetorical dimensions reveals a profound ideological double standard and significant policy incoherence regarding the application of corporate ethical guidelines.
Consistency is measured by evaluating three core dimensions of corporate responsibility in a crisis:
Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, IBM adopted a robust ethical and operational response.3
The Operational Stance was definitive: IBM suspended all business in Russia.3 This action represented a full corporate exit driven by the ethical risk associated with the conflict.
The Financial Commitment was substantial and direct: IBM provided a total of $500,000 in direct corporate donations to two organizations providing critical aid: $250,000 to People in Need in the Czech Republic and $250,000 to Polish Humanitarian Action in Poland.3
The Rhetorical Framing and Employee Support reflected a clear condemnation and proactive support system. CEO Arvind Krishna communicated a strong, clear stance, emphasizing the crisis and the safety of IBMers and their families as the “top priority”.3 IBM deployed highly centralized support mechanisms, including the “IBMer Resource Finder Map.” This system was designed to connect Ukrainian employees fleeing their country with colleagues in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region who could offer assistance, including lodging, transportation, food, and supplies.3
Following the October 2023 outbreak of the Israel/Gaza conflict, IBM’s response was qualitatively and quantitatively different.
The Operational Stance remained unchanged: Business operations in Israel were maintained and reinforced, continuing critical contracts with the IDF, Police, and PIBA.8 There was no public or private suggestion of suspending operations or divesting from material complicity contracts detailed in Section III.
The Financial Commitment was limited. Corporate financial aid was restricted to matching employee donations 1:1 to two organizations in Israel providing support for medical needs, food, or housing insecurity.4 Critically, there is no evidence of a direct corporate donation comparable to the $500,000 provided during the Ukraine crisis.
The Rhetorical Framing and Alignment showed a clear ideological bias. The CEO’s message offered deepest condolences for the violence and focused exclusively on mourning the loss of an IBMer and a retiree in Israel.4 The message unequivocally condemned “these attacks and all acts of terrorism” but remained “largely silent” regarding the resulting humanitarian crisis in Gaza or the estimated scale of Palestinian casualties, which exceeded 35,000 at the time of subsequent analysis.8 Furthermore, IBM explicitly reinforced its alignment by stating it stands “firmly with our partners at the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Partnership for New York in condemning attacks in Israel” 4, aligning the corporation with a specific pro-Israel corporate consensus.
The comparative audit reveals a profound ideological and operational double standard. The decision to completely suspend operations and offer direct, substantial financial aid in response to the Russian invasion (an act of aggression) while simultaneously maintaining and reinforcing operations critical to the Israeli military and security apparatus (the focus of this audit), exposes a fundamental incoherence in IBM’s governance and ethical risk framework.
This disparity suggests a strategic prioritization wherein the strategic value and profitability of the Israeli military/tech ecosystem outweigh the ethical risk associated with occupation and complicity allegations. The failure to apply universal human rights principles—where material support for systems of military control and surveillance would typically necessitate operational suspension—demonstrates policy incoherence, which increases vulnerability to stakeholder and shareholder challenges regarding selective compliance.
The following table summarizes the observed divergence:
Comparative Corporate Response Audit (Ukraine vs. Israel/Gaza)
| Criteria | Ukraine/Russia Conflict (2022) | Israel/Gaza Conflict (2023) | Assessment of Disparity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operational Stance | Full suspension of business operations in Russia 3 | Business operations maintained in Israel 8 | Demonstrates material prioritization of Israeli operations over ethical withdrawal criteria. |
| Corporate Financial Aid | $500,000 direct corporate donation to aid organizations 3 | Employee donations matched 1:1 to Israeli organizations (no confirmed direct corporate donation) 4 | Financial commitment disparity, suggesting a lowered perceived humanitarian responsibility outside of local employee care. |
| Rhetorical Framing | Clear condemnation of invasion; focus on supporting refugees 3 | Condemnation of “attacks” and “all acts of terrorism”; exclusive focus on Israeli casualties/colleagues 4 | Ideological bias in crisis communication, failing the neutrality standard applied elsewhere.8 |
| Employee Support Scope | Dedicated, centralized assistance network (lodging, transport, Resource Finder Map) 3 | Support limited primarily to financial matching and accounting for local colleagues 4 | Disparity in proactive, wide-scale humanitarian support offered to displaced individuals. |
The internal policy audit focuses on the risk of ideological bias being enforced internally, particularly regarding employee expressions of Palestine solidarity, which may run counter to the confirmed corporate ideological alignment.
IBM’s internal guidelines mandate that employees must comply with the company’s Business Conduct and related guidelines at all times, stating that violation is cause for discipline, up to and including dismissal.15
The risk assessment is based on the contextual tension between explicit corporate rhetoric and employee concerns. CEO Arvind Krishna’s official communication following October 7, 2023, expressed unequivocal support for Israel and condemned “terrorism,” aligning the company with a specific political narrative.4 Concurrently, reports indicate that IBM employees have raised concerns internally regarding the company’s ties to the Israeli military.16
This environment creates a significant vulnerability for selective, ideologically motivated enforcement. While the audit did not identify specific disciplinary actions (such as banning Palestine flag badges 17), the documented rhetorical bias establishes an internal environment where expression of Palestine solidarity—which would inherently contradict the corporate political stance—is likely to be viewed by management as a breach of “Business Conduct”.15 Such selective enforcement, driven by the ideological bias documented in Section V, would contradict any presumed corporate neutrality policy and further expose IBM to legal and internal governance risks related to discrimination and employee rights.
The audit concludes that IBM presents an Unacceptable Complicity Profile for investors with strict mandates against supporting military occupation, surveillance, and systems of institutionalized discrimination.
Material Complicity: Confirmed. IBM is deeply embedded within the Israeli military-industrial complex. The company supplies critical infrastructural backbones—including Red Hat cloud systems essential for the IDF’s Air Force, Intelligence, and command structure 1—and operates core civilian control apparatuses, notably the Eitan System for the PIBA population registry.1 This constitutes sustained, high-value material support.
Ideological Complicity: Confirmed. The documented failure of the “Safe Harbor” Test reveals policy incoherence and a clear rhetorical alignment with the Israeli state narrative.3 This ideological commitment is structurally supported by the corporate investment in bilateral trade promotion (“Brand Israel” initiatives) intended to normalize economic relations and shield the Israeli tech economy from scrutiny.5
To achieve any reasonable level of ethical compliance, IBM must address its operational entanglement through decisive action rather than rhetorical shifts. The following recommendations target the cessation of material support for the occupation infrastructure:
Recommendation 1: Review of Dual-Use Technology Contracts. An immediate, independent audit must be launched to assess all joint projects (AI/ML) and cloud infrastructure contracts (Red Hat) with the IDF.1 Given the high risk of utilization in offensive or surveillance operations, a stringent timeline for divestment from these mission-critical military contracts must be established to reduce severe militarisation risk.
Recommendation 2: Disengagement from Surveillance Infrastructure. The contract for the maintenance and operation of the Eitan System (PIBA) must be immediately terminated.1 Continuing to operate the core population registry that facilitates systematic surveillance and control mechanisms necessary for administering the occupied populations constitutes direct complicity in a system likened to historical apartheid regimes and is ethically indefensible.
Recommendation 3: Policy Consistency Enforcement. The Global Crisis Response Framework requires immediate revision. The revised framework must ensure that geopolitical responses (Operational Stance, Financial Aid, Rhetoric) are applied consistently and neutrally across all conflicts, thereby resolving the documented Ukraine/Gaza double standard and restoring integrity to IBM’s stated commitment to ethical business conduct.3
IBM’s strategic decision to maintain and deepen its operational commitment to the IDF, the Israeli Police, and PIBA administration systems, while simultaneously maintaining a strict divestment stance against Russia, demonstrates a conscious corporate acceptance of the geopolitical risk associated with material complicity in occupation and surveillance. This structural relationship has persisted across multiple decades and military modernizations.
For the ethical investment community, the documented depth of material complicity, combined with the confirmed ideological bias and resulting policy incoherence, cannot be adequately mitigated through standard engagement strategies. The institutional risk stemming from this entanglement warrants a Maximum Risk Rating, making divestment a necessary consideration for funds operating under stringent ethical guidelines regarding systematic human rights abuses and the material support for apartheid and militarisation.
