The United Nations has revealed that more than 150 international and Israeli companies maintain business ties with Israeli settlements in the West Bank, a territory considered illegal under international law. The database, released by the UN’s human rights office, highlights the growing entanglement of global commerce with one of the world’s most contested political and territorial conflicts. For the UN, the update underscores corporate responsibility in conflict zones; for Israel, it represents what officials call a politically motivated attack on legitimate business activity.

Expansion of the UN Settlement Database

The UN database, first published in 2020 and updated periodically since, now lists 158 companies, with 68 new entries compared to the previous version. These include both Israeli firms and prominent international corporations spanning industries such as tourism, construction, real estate, and resource extraction. Well-known consumer platforms like Airbnb, Booking.com, Expedia, and TripAdvisor appear on the list due to their accommodation offerings in settlements. Heidelberg Materials, a German cement giant, was also included, though the firm disputes its presence, saying it no longer operates in the occupied territory.

Seven companies were removed from the list after evidence showed they had ceased activities linked to settlements. While the database is not exhaustive, the UN says it is still assessing more than 300 additional companies for possible inclusion. This process reflects a broader effort to scrutinize the private sector’s role in perpetuating or enabling settlement expansion, which the UN maintains contributes to systemic human rights violations.

The UN human rights office outlined ten categories of activity that pose significant concerns, ranging from real estate development in occupied land to exploitation of natural resources. Businesses operating in settlements, directly or indirectly, may be implicated in supporting infrastructure that restricts Palestinian freedom of movement, appropriates land, or facilitates demographic shifts. The UN emphasized that companies should conduct thorough due diligence and, where implicated, provide remediation for adverse human rights impacts.

This framing reflects a broader shift in international law and corporate governance, where companies are increasingly judged not only on profits but on ethical conduct in conflict zones. Human Rights Chief Volker Türk stressed that businesses must ensure their operations do not fuel or profit from rights abuses. Civil society groups welcomed the report, arguing that it promotes transparency and pressures companies to reconsider their involvement. For activists, consumer awareness and reputational risks could push firms to disengage from settlements even if governments hesitate to act.

Israel’s Objections and Political Pushback

Israel has forcefully rejected the UN’s database, calling it a discriminatory “blacklist” that unfairly singles out companies for lawful commerce. Israeli officials argue that international law does not impose a blanket prohibition on business activities in disputed territories and that companies are being vilified for meeting demand from residents of the West Bank. They also point to biblical and historical claims to justify settlement presence and reject the notion that the land is occupied, framing it instead as disputed territory pending negotiations.

The Israeli mission in Geneva described the list as politically driven and legally baseless. Officials argue that it undermines cooperation and economic growth, particularly in joint Israeli-Palestinian ventures that could foster stability. The United States has echoed criticism of what it views as disproportionate focus on Israel within the Human Rights Council. Both governments argue that the database discourages constructive engagement and investment, while critics counter that it enables a cycle of impunity for settlement expansion.

The debate over corporate complicity cannot be separated from the wider trajectory of settlement expansion. Since Israel’s capture of the West Bank in the 1967 war, settlement activity has steadily grown, creating a network of housing, roads, and infrastructure that fragments Palestinian territory. According to UN reports, the pace of expansion has accelerated in recent years, with policies that critics say aim to solidify permanent Israeli control.

A UN Commission of Inquiry recently concluded that Israel’s settlement policies since late 2023 indicate an intent to forcibly displace Palestinians and annex the West Bank de facto. Israel dismisses these findings as biased. Yet the settlements, supported by government incentives and security infrastructure, continue to spread, making the prospect of a contiguous Palestinian state increasingly tenuous. Businesses operating in these areas are therefore seen not as neutral service providers but as participants in a contested political project with lasting consequences.

International Reactions and Ongoing Debate

The release of the updated database comes amid heightened international scrutiny, driven by Israel’s military operations in Gaza and intensified raids in the West Bank. Civilian casualties and displacement have magnified calls for accountability, extending not only to states but also to private actors. European governments are under pressure from rights groups to advise companies against involvement in settlements, while some investors and pension funds have already divested from firms tied to activities in occupied territories.

For companies named in the database, responses vary. Some, like Expedia, defend their practices as compliant with international law, emphasizing due diligence and transparent labeling of disputed properties. Others remain silent or dispute the UN’s findings. The reputational stakes are high: being associated with alleged violations in the world’s most high-profile conflict zone risks alienating consumers, investors, and regulators.

As the UN continues to expand its assessment to hundreds of additional firms, the spotlight on corporate responsibility in conflict zones is intensifying. For Israel, the database is an unwanted tool of pressure; for Palestinians, it represents a rare mechanism of accountability. And for businesses caught in the middle, the growing intersection of commerce, politics, and human rights poses questions that extend far beyond the West Bank.

(Adapted from ThePrint.in)

Categories: Geopolitics