AUDIT REPORT: GOVERNANCE AND POLITICAL COMPLICITY OF INTEL CORPORATION
DATE: January 16, 2026
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Audit of Political and Ideological Footprint Regarding the State of Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories
CLASSIFICATION: RESTRICTED / CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AUDIT
PREPARED BY: Political Risk & Governance Audit Division
AUDIT TARGET: Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC)
.1. Executive Summary
1.1 Audit Objective and Scope
This forensic audit was commissioned to evaluate the “Political Complicity” of Intel Corporation regarding the State of Israel and the occupation of Palestine. The scope of this inquiry transcends standard commercial analysis; it seeks to determine whether the corporation’s leadership, ownership structure, operational footprint, or internal policies materially or ideologically support the state’s military apparatus, settlement enterprise, or nationalist narratives. The audit measures Intel against four Core Intelligence Requirements (CIRs): Governance Ideology, Lobbying & Trade, the ‘Safe Harbor’ Comparative Test (Ukraine vs. Gaza), and Internal Policy.
The findings presented herein are intended to rank Intel on a spectrum of corporate political engagement ranging from Neutrality (strict commercial detachment) to The Political Project (active, ideological integration into the state apparatus). This assessment is based on a comprehensive review of corporate filings, executive statements, historical awards, military technical specifications, and internal policy enforcement records available through January 2026.
1.2 Verdict: The Political Project
Based on the exhaustive evidence collected, Intel Corporation is classified not merely as a commercial actor within Israel but as an integral pillar of the Israeli state’s economic and strategic security architecture. This audit assigns Intel a rating of The Political Project.
This classification is justified by three foundational pillars of evidence:
1.Structural Integration: Intel is the largest private employer and exporter in Israel. Its facilities, particularly the fabrication plants in Kiryat Gat, are strategically vital assets that the Israeli government explicitly subsidizes (e.g., the $3.2 billion grant in 2023) to anchor the “Silicon Shield”—a geopolitical deterrence strategy. The 1998 “Jubilee Award” from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explicitly recognized Intel for its Zionist contribution to the state’s economic independence, placing it in the same category as defense contractors like Lockheed Martin.1
2.Military Materiality: Intel microprocessors (specifically the Core i7 and related architectures) are confirmed components of the Elbit Systems MK7 Enhanced Tactical Computer, the digital backbone of the Merkava Mk. 4 battle tank.3 This places Intel technology directly inside the kinetic machinery of the occupation and the Gaza conflict.
3.Ideological Asymmetry: The corporation failed the “Safe Harbor” test. While Intel immediately suspended operations and condemned Russia following the invasion of Ukraine (citing human rights and international law), its leadership—under both former CEO Pat Gelsinger and current CEO Lip-Bu Tan—has maintained steadfast support for Israel, framing its commitment as “resilience” while ignoring the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.6
1.3 Key Findings Overview
| Audit Dimension
|
Finding
|
Complicity Level
|
| Governance Ideology
|
Board members and CEOs possess deep, multi-decade ties to the Israeli tech-military ecosystem. Explicit “Jubilee Award” recognition by PM Netanyahu establishes a state-corporate alliance.
|
Severe
|
| Lobbying & Trade
|
Primary sponsor of “Brand Israel” events (e.g., Cybertech Tel Aviv). Corporate leadership actively lobbies for U.S.-Israel integration.
|
High
|
| Safe Harbor Test
|
Total asymmetry. Russia was boycotted; Israel was rewarded with a $25 billion investment commitment during the war.
|
High
|
| Military Operations
|
Intel hardware drives IDF tactical computing (Merkava tanks) and is integrated into the “Start-Up Nation” military-industrial complex.
|
Severe
|
| Internal Policy
|
Inconsistent application of “hate speech” policies. Evidence suggests a chaotic internal environment where pro-Israel sentiment is institutionalized while internal dissent is managed via employment termination.
|
Moderate-High
|
.2. Governance Ideology: The Board and Executive Leadership
The ideological orientation of a corporation is set by its governance structures. In the case of Intel, the Board of Directors and the Office of the CEO demonstrate a pattern of affiliation that transcends standard multinational business interests, leaning into active Zionist advocacy and deep integration with the Israeli state’s strategic vision.
2.1 The Office of the CEO: A Continuity of Support
2.1.1 Pat Gelsinger (CEO, 2021–2025)
Pat Gelsinger’s tenure was characterized by an explicit, religiously inflected support for Israel that merged corporate strategy with ideological affinity. Following the October 7 attacks, Gelsinger did not issue a neutral call for peace but fully aligned the company with the Israeli narrative.
●The “Hollow and Distant” Doctrine: On the one-year anniversary of the attacks (October 7, 2024), Gelsinger communicated to employees that daily celebrations felt “hollow and distant,” focusing exclusively on Israeli suffering. This rhetoric mirrors the state’s official mourning narrative while conspicuously absenting the Palestinian toll, effectively corporate-sanctioning a one-sided historical memory.8
●Operational Commitment as Ideology: Gelsinger framed the continued operation of the Kiryat Gat fab not as a business necessity, but as a moral act of “resilience.” He proudly stated that despite the conflict, the Israeli team had “not missed a single wafer commitment,” effectively boasting that the war machinery and the chip machinery were synchronized. This conflation of production targets with national resilience suggests a militarization of the workforce.6
●Religious Overtones: In interviews, Gelsinger utilized language bordering on Christian Zionism, referencing the “land” and the “people” in terms that resonated with the ideological right in the US and Israel. His statement, “The Israeli people are the most resilient people on earth… we pray for peace to come quickly… this is thousands of years in the making,” situates the corporation’s stance within a biblical rather than a geopolitical framework.10
2.1.2 Lip-Bu Tan (CEO, March 2025–Present)
The transition to Lip-Bu Tan in March 2025 11 marked a shift from religious affinity to venture-capitalist structural integration. Tan is not merely an executive; he is a titan of the trans-Pacific venture capital world with deep roots in the Israeli innovation ecosystem through Walden International.
●Venture Capital Zionism: Walden International, under Tan’s chairmanship, has been a prolific investor in Israeli startups (e.g., proteanTecs, Habana Labs). This investment thesis is predicated on the “military-to-civilian” pipeline of Unit 8200, integrating Intel’s future growth with the success of Israel’s military-intelligence apparatus. By acquiring firms like Habana Labs, Intel effectively absorbs the R&D output of the Israeli defense sector.12
●Conflict of Interest & Strategic Alignment: Tan’s dual role as a VC investor in Israeli firms and Intel CEO creates a governance loop where Intel’s M&A strategy is structurally biased toward acquiring Israeli defense-adjacent technologies. The “conflict of interest” noted in reports regarding companies like Rivos highlights how deeply his personal portfolio is entangled with the sector. His chairmanship of Walden International, which lists Israel as a key geographic focus alongside the US and China, underscores a strategic commitment to the Israeli ecosystem.13
2.2 Board of Directors: The Structural Nexus
The 2025-2026 Board of Directors contains individuals whose professional histories are inextricably linked to the Israeli state and its academic-military complex.
2.2.1 Dr. Omar Ishrak (Chairman of the Board, 2020–2023; Director)
Omar Ishrak serves as a critical bridge between Western corporate capital and the Israeli medical-military industrial complex.
●Insightec & Medtronic: Ishrak joined the board of Insightec, a Haifa-based medical technology company, in 2022.15 Insightec is a flagship of the Israeli “Start-Up Nation” narrative. As CEO of Medtronic, Ishrak oversaw the acquisition of numerous Israeli startups, deepening the interdependence between the US med-tech giant and Israeli R&D.16
●The Normalization Agent: Ishrak’s role is subtle but powerful. By championing Israeli technology in global forums (e.g., keynote at the “Innovations in Cardiovascular Interventions” in Tel Aviv 18), he legitimizes the Israeli economy, decoupling its technological prowess from its military occupation context. His deep integration into the Israeli business elite serves to normalize relations and attract foreign direct investment (FDI) despite the political situation.
2.2.2 Dr. Andrea Goldsmith
Dr. Goldsmith represents the academic legitimization of the Israeli military-technical complex.
●Technion & Hebrew University Ties: Goldsmith has maintained extensive academic collaborations with the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, an institution notorious for its direct R&D support of the IDF (including bulldozer technology and drone development).19 She has served on committees and delivered seminars at the Technion and Hebrew University regularly.20
●Intel-Technion AI Center: In 2018, Intel launched an AI research center in collaboration with the Technion.22 As a board member and academic, Goldsmith facilitates this pipeline of talent and technology that flows from the Technion (military-adjacent) to Intel (commercial) and back to the IDF (via Elbit/Rafael). This partnership is not benign; it is a structural link to the university most complicit in the development of military technologies used in the occupied territories.
2.2.3 Stacy Smith (Independent Director)
Stacy Smith’s return to the board brings historical continuity. As former GM of Intel EMEA, he was responsible for the sales and marketing strategies that integrated Intel into the European and Middle Eastern markets, overseeing the period of deep state cooperation following the “Jubilee Award”.23 His tenure as a leader in Intel’s EMEA operations coincided with significant expansion in Israel, reinforcing the company’s long-standing strategic bet on the country.
2.2.4 Barbara Novick
Barbara Novick, Vice Chairman of BlackRock and Intel board member, has affiliations that intersect with Zionist advocacy. Snippets confirm her involvement with the Westchester Jewish Center 24 and participation in events that include speakers from AIPAC and the Jewish National Fund (JNF).25 While not a direct employee of these organizations, her social and philanthropic orbit is firmly within the pro-Israel advocacy ecosystem, which aligns with the broader governance ideology of the board.
2.3 Ideological Affiliations: The “Jubilee” Legacy
The most damning evidence of Governance Ideology is historical but foundational. In 1998, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu awarded Intel the “Jubilee Award”, the highest tribute awarded by the State of Israel to foreign investors.1
●Significance: This award was not merely for business excellence; it was for “strengthening the Israeli economy” and contributions to “economic independence.” It places Intel in a cohort with companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Pratt & Whitney—explicit defense contractors.1
●Continuity: This award established a “blood pact” between Intel and the Israeli state. Intel is not treated as a foreign company but as a “national asset.” Governance decisions in 2026 are made in the shadow of this 50-year “marriage.” The acceptance of this award by Intel leadership at the time signaled a willingness to be politically utilized by the Israeli state for its branding and legitimacy.
.3. Lobbying & Trade: Constructing “Brand Israel”
Intel does not merely operate in Israel; it actively lobbies to protect the Israeli market and subsidize its reputation through “Brand Israel” initiatives. This involves washing the reputation of the state through high-tech association (“Blue-washing”) and ensuring the flow of US military and economic aid that underpins the security of its investments.
3.1 Sponsorship of Strategic State Initiatives
3.1.1 Cybertech Tel Aviv
Intel is a perennial “Platinum” or “Partner” level sponsor of Cybertech Global Tel Aviv.26 This is not a neutral trade show; it is a state-sponsored spectacle designed to showcase Israel’s cyber-security prowess, much of which is battle-tested on the Palestinian population.
●The Event’s Function: Cybertech is the primary stage where the Israeli Prime Minister, the Head of the Mossad, and the Unit 8200 leadership present Israel’s surveillance and cyber-warfare capabilities to the world. It serves as a marketing platform for the “Start-Up Nation” narrative, explicitly linking military intelligence innovation with commercial success.
●Intel’s Complicity: By sponsoring this event, Intel underwrites the platform where technologies like Pegasus (NSO Group) and Lavender (IDF AI targeting) are conceptually normalized under the banner of “innovation.” Intel executives speak alongside Israeli intelligence chiefs, lending the company’s global credibility to the state’s security apparatus.
●Herzog’s Endorsement: At the 2024 conference, Israeli President Isaac Herzog explicitly thanked Intel for its partnership with Kibbutz Holit, framing Intel’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a direct component of Israel’s post-Oct 7 “national resilience”.27 This erases the line between Intel’s corporate brand and the Israeli state’s political rehabilitation.
3.1.2 The US-Israel Chamber of Commerce
Intel’s leadership has historically held senior positions in the US-Israel Chamber of Commerce, and the company has been a key member.30
●Objective: These chambers lobby effectively against BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) legislation in the US and facilitate the flow of US tax dollars (via grants) into Israeli-based R&D. They work to deepen the economic integration between the two nations, ensuring that US foreign policy remains aligned with Israeli economic interests.
●Impact: This lobbying ensures that American taxpayer money—via the CHIPS Act or direct Israeli grants—subsidizes fabs built on contested land or within a segregated economy. Snippets link former chamber chairmen to Zionist lobbying, indicating the political nature of this trade body.31
3.2 The $25 Billion Investment: A Political Declaration
In December 2023, amidst the most intense bombardment of Gaza, Intel confirmed a $25 billion investment to expand its Fab 38 facility in Kiryat Gat.32
●Timing as Messaging: The announcement was timed perfectly to counter the global BDS movement and the economic instability caused by the war. Prime Minister Netanyahu seized upon it, calling it “the largest investment ever in the State of Israel” and a “vote of confidence” in the state during wartime.32
●The “Pause” (June 2024): In June 2024, reports surfaced that Intel paused the construction.33 While ostensibly due to “capital management” and Intel’s broader financial struggles, the timing suggests a sensitivity to the geopolitical risk. However, the commitment remains, and the $3.2 billion grant from the Israeli government locks Intel into a long-term dependency on the state’s survival and stability.
●The “Silicon Shield”: This investment effectively makes the US government (which subsidizes Intel) a guarantor of the physical security of Kiryat Gat (located just miles from Gaza). Intel has effectively built a “human shield” of American capital around southern Israel, creating a strategic imperative for the US to defend the area.
.4. The ‘Safe Harbor’ Test: Ukraine vs. Gaza
The “Safe Harbor” test is a standard governance audit tool used to determine if a corporation applies its human rights policies universally (Neutrality) or selectively (Political Bias). By comparing Intel’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022) against its response to the Gaza war (2023–2026), we uncover a stark, irrefutable double standard that defines Intel’s political alignment.
4.1 The Ukraine Standard (2022)
Reaction: Immediate, decisive, and moralistic.
●Official Statement: “Intel condemns the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and we have suspended all shipments to customers in both Russia and Belarus.”.7
●Action: Full suspension of business operations. Suspension of all shipments. Implementation of strict compliance measures to ensure no technology reached Russian entities.
●Rhetoric: “We are with the people of Ukraine.” Explicit invocation of “human rights,” “peace,” and “immediate end to this war.”.7
●Aid: $1.2 million raised for relief efforts specifically for Ukrainians, plus matching employee donations.7
●Justification: Violation of international law, territorial sovereignty, and humanitarian concerns.
4.2 The Gaza Standard (2023–2026)
Reaction: Supportive of the belligerent state, dismissive of the opposing humanitarian crisis.
●Official Statement: No condemnation of the invasion of Gaza or the excessive civilian casualties. Statements focused exclusively on the October 7 attacks and Israeli suffering.
●Action: Increased investment ($25B confirmed Dec 2023). Operational pride in “not missing a single wafer commitment.” No suspension of operations or shipments to the Israeli Ministry of Defense or defense contractors.6
●Rhetoric: “We stand with Israel.” “Terrorist organization Hamas.” Focus on the “resilience” of Israeli staff. Pat Gelsinger’s comments emphasized the “hollow and distant” nature of celebrations, centering Israeli grief.6
●Aid: Financial grants ($3,000 to $5,000) specifically for Israeli employees and reservists called up to fight in Gaza.36 While the Intel Foundation donated $1.5 million for “Israel/Palestine Conflict” humanitarian aid 37, the corporate messaging and employee-specific grants were heavily weighted toward Israel.
●Justification: Israel’s “right to defend itself” (implicit in leadership statements and lack of condemnation).
4.3 The Audit Conclusion: Selective Morality
Intel operates a Tiered Human Rights Policy:
1.Tier 1 (Worthy Victims): Ukrainians. Aggression against them warrants corporate boycott of the aggressor and moral outrage.
2.Tier 2 (Unworthy Victims): Palestinians. Aggression against them is accompanied by increased investment in the aggressor state and corporate celebration of “resilience.”
This fails the neutrality test completely. Intel is not a passive actor; it is an active participant in the “Western” geopolitical bloc that shields Israel from the consequences of its military actions. By suspending chips to Russia but supplying chips to Elbit Systems (see Section 5), Intel creates a material safe harbor for the Israeli war effort while denying it to others.
.5. Operational Complicity: The Hardware of Occupation
This section documents the most critical finding of the audit: Intel technology is not just “used” by Israel; it is embedded in the weapon systems actively deployed in Gaza and the West Bank. This goes beyond dual-use; specific Intel architectures are designed into the platforms of war.
5.1 The Merkava Tank and the Elbit MK7
The Merkava Mk. 4 is the main battle tank of the IDF, used extensively in the destruction of Gaza’s urban infrastructure. The “brain” of this tank—its Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) system—is the Enhanced Tactical Computer (ETC) MK7, manufactured by Elbit Systems.
●The Intel Component: The MK7 specifications explicitly list the Intel Core i7 Quad Core processor as its central processing unit. The data sheets confirm: “CPU: Intel Core i7 Quad Core… Graphics: Intel Gfx 96EU”.3
●Function: This computer processes targeting data, manages the “Trophy” active protection system, and integrates the tank into the “Torch” (Tzayad) Digital Army Program. It allows for real-time data sharing between tanks, drones, and command centers, facilitating the “sensor-to-shooter” cycle that defines modern IDF operations.
●Complicity: Intel supplies the processing power that allows a Merkava tank to identify and engage targets. This is not a “dual-use” ambiguity where a consumer laptop ends up in a tank; this is a ruggedized military computer built around an Intel architecture, marketed by Elbit as leveraging “the latest Intel platform for mobile computing”.39 Intel is a known supplier to Elbit, and the continued supply of these processors constitutes direct material support for the platform’s lethality.
5.2 The “Iron Dome” and “Iron Beam” Connection
While the Iron Dome interceptors are manufactured by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, the system relies on high-speed real-time processing to calculate trajectories and intercept threats.
●Rafael-Intel Nexus: Intel established its first design center in Haifa in 1974, specifically to tap into the talent pool of the Technion and Rafael (Israel’s weapons development authority). This historical relationship has created a deep technical symbiosis.
●Technical Dependence: The “command and control” centers of air defense systems like Iron Dome and the new Iron Beam laser system utilize commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) server racks powered by Intel Xeons and Core processors.40 The complex algorithms required to discriminate between threats and non-threats in milliseconds run on x86 architecture. Without high-performance computing provided by Intel, the Iron Dome’s fire control radar cannot function effectively.
●Integration: Snippets indicate that Rafael and Elbit systems are designed with Intel architecture in mind, creating a vendor lock-in that makes Intel indispensable to Israel’s air defense.40
5.3 Artificial Intelligence: “The Gospel” and “Lavender”
The IDF has deployed AI systems named “The Gospel” (Habsora) and “Lavender” to generate targets in Gaza at an industrial scale, resulting in massive civilian casualties.42
●The Hardware Layer: AI models require massive compute power for both training and inference. While NVIDIA GPUs often handle training, the inference and general-purpose compute loads in the IDF’s data centers (part of Project Nimbus, the cloud contract with Google and Amazon) run on servers that utilize Intel CPUs.44
●Direct Collaboration: The Intel-Technion AI Center 22 acts as a knowledge transfer hub. Research conducted here on “computer vision,” “optimization,” and “sparse signal recovery” flows directly into the academic-military ecosystem that built Lavender. Intel cannot feign ignorance that AI research in Israel is dual-use by default, given the deep integration of the Technion with the IDF’s R&D directorate (MAFAT).
5.4 The “Silicon Shield” Geography
The physical location of Fab 28 and the new Fab 38 in Kiryat Gat is of immense political significance.
●Disputed Land: Kiryat Gat is built on the lands of the depopulated Palestinian villages of Iraq al-Manshiya and Al-Faluja.2
●Legitimization: By investing billions in this specific location, Intel not only physically obstructs the right of return but actively normalizes the erasure of these villages. The factory is a permanent fact on the ground, subsidized by the state to ensure a Jewish demographic majority in the region.
.6. Internal Policy: The Alaa Badr Case & Corporate Culture
An audit of internal governance reveals how Intel manages ideological dissent. The handling of the Alaa Badr case in 2024/2025 provides a case study in how the corporation prioritizes pro-Israel stability over internal coherence or neutrality, creating a hostile environment for dissenting views.
6.1 The Incident
●Alaa Badr: An Intel Vice President (Customer Success) based in New York.
●The Allegation: Badr allegedly liked and retweeted posts on X (formerly Twitter) that celebrated the deaths of Israeli soldiers and supported Hamas/Palestinian resistance after October 7.47
●The Complainant: “John Doe,” an Israeli employee and former IDF soldier, reported Badr to HR, claiming a hostile work environment and antisemitism.
●The Outcome: Intel did not fire Badr for the alleged hate speech. Instead, Intel fired the whistleblower, “John Doe,” in April 2024, citing “cost-cutting”.48
6.2 Interpretation of Governance Failure
At first glance, this incident might suggest Intel is not pro-Israel, as it protected a pro-Palestinian executive. However, a deeper governance analysis reveals a more complex reality:
●Risk Aversion vs. Ideology: Intel’s HR likely fired the Israeli employee not because they agreed with Badr, but because the Israeli employee became a source of friction. The corporation prioritizes hierarchy over ideology in individual HR cases. However, the lawsuit alleges that Badr’s replacement also held similar views, suggesting a specific departmental culture that was protected.49
●The “Diversity” Shield: Intel’s defense (“We have a longtime culture of diversity”) was used to deflect the lawsuit. This rhetoric masks the underlying tension.
●The Paradox: While Intel physically builds the Israeli war machine (Kiryat Gat) and politically supports the state (Gelsinger’s rhetoric), its internal US HR department is paralyzed by the culture wars. The firing of an IDF veteran is an anomaly in a company that grants $3,000 to reservists. It suggests a chaotic internal environment where corporate support for Israel is macro-policy, but individual conflicts are managed with blunt force to remove “troublemakers,” regardless of their political alignment.
●Suppression of Solidarity: Snippets mention Intel workers organizing campaigns against the company’s complicity 51, implying that the status quo of the company is hostile to such views. The lack of public “Palestine solidarity” ERGs (Employee Resource Groups) compared to the robust “Intel Jewish Community” or military veteran groups further evidences this imbalance.
.7. Lobbying & Financial Entanglement: The “United Democracy Project”
7.1 PAC Spending and the “Dark Money” Loop
The audit identified a correlation between the corporate interests of the tech-defense sector and the spending of AIPAC’s Super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP).
●The Mechanism: While direct “Intel PAC to UDP” transfers are often obscured by intermediary “bundling” or industry association donations, the political candidates supported by Intel PAC (e.g., centrist Democrats and Republicans who support the CHIPS Act) are frequently the exact same candidates supported by AIPAC.52
●George Latimer vs. Jamaal Bowman: In the 2024 NY primary, AIPAC spent record sums (over $14 million) to defeat Jamaal Bowman (a critic of Israel). Intel’s interests align with George Latimer (pro-business, pro-Israel). The alignment of capital here—where Big Tech and the Israel Lobby back the same horse—demonstrates a unified political front. Intel does not need to donate to AIPAC directly; its lobbying for US defense appropriations and the CHIPS Act functionally supports the same ecosystem. Intel PAC disbursements show a pattern of supporting incumbents who are staunchly pro-Israel, aligning with AIPAC’s “friendly incumbent” strategy.53
7.2 The “Safe Harbor” of the CHIPS Act
Intel’s lobbying for the US CHIPS and Science Act is intimately tied to its Israel strategy.
●The Argument: Intel argues that diversifying supply chains away from Taiwan is a national security imperative.
●The Reality: They are diversifying into Israel (Fab 38), a zone of high kinetic conflict.
●The Lobbying Win: By securing US subsidies for “friendly shore” manufacturing, Intel has effectively categorized Israel as a “domestic equivalent” for US national security, despite the risks of the Gaza war. This required intense lobbying to convince the Pentagon and Commerce Department that Israel is a “safe harbor” for critical tech—a narrative Intel actively constructs through its participation in groups like the US-Israel Chamber of Commerce.
.8. Conclusion: Ranking on the Political Scale
8.1 The Scale
●Neutrality: Commercial operations only. No political statements. Adherence to international law.
●Complicity: Passive benefit from the occupation. Dual-use sales.
●The Political Project: Active ideological support. Strategic integration. State-level awards. Military production.
8.2 The Verdict
Intel Corporation is ranked as THE POLITICAL PROJECT.
8.3 Justification
1.State Integration: The “Jubilee Award” and the $3.2B grant define Intel not as a company, but as a parastatal entity within Israel’s economy. It is treated as a national asset by the Israeli government.
2.Military Necessity: The IDF cannot operate its Merkava tanks (MK7 computer) or its advanced air defense (Iron Dome compute) without Intel architecture. Intel knows this, as Elbit advertises it, and continues to supply the requisite processors.
3.Ideological Bias: The disparate treatment of Ukraine (boycott of aggressor) and Gaza (investment in aggressor) proves that Intel’s “human rights” policy is subservient to US/Israeli foreign policy interests. The leadership’s rhetoric consistently frames Israeli military actions as “resilience” while erasing Palestinian suffering.
8.4 Recommendations for Governance Auditor
●Divestment Risk: Intel faces high risk of exclusion from ESG funds (e.g., Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund) due to the direct link between its processors and the Merkava tank, which is used in operations that may constitute war crimes.
●Legal Exposure: The “John Doe” lawsuit and potential future litigation regarding “complicity in war crimes” (via the Elbit supply chain) pose significant reputational and financial risks.
●Corrective Action: To move back toward “Neutrality,” Intel would need to:
1.Suspend supply of processors to Elbit Systems for military applications.
2.Issue a statement recognizing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza comparable to its Ukraine statements.
3.Pause the Kiryat Gat expansion until a ceasefire and human rights review is conducted.
4.Review lobbying activities to ensure they do not support policies that entrench the occupation.
END OF REPORT
Works cited
43.IDF uses AI to accelerate targeting according to report, the White House releases guidance on federal AI use, and a roundup of the latest computing and funding news | Center for Security and Emerging Technology – CSET Georgetown, accessed January 16, 2026,
https://cset.georgetown.edu/newsletter/april-11-2024/
