Palestine Boycott Lists and the UN Business Database: What Each Tells You

People looking for ways to respond to the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza often encounter lists of companies to avoid. Those lists can come from campaign organisations, UN research, corporate disclosures or an anonymous social-media graphic. They do not all establish the same thing.

A useful first question is: “Who compiled this list, and what qualifies a company for inclusion?” It is more informative than treating every logo as proof of an identical relationship to the war in Gaza.

Three different kinds of evidence

The Palestinian-led BDS movement’s corporate targeting guide distinguishes consumer boycott priorities, organic campaigns it supports and pressure targets. Its 2026 strategic campaigning guide explains its preference for focused campaigns with identifiable objectives. These are the movement’s choices and strategy, not categories assigned by a court.

Check the dated guidance directly before presenting a brand as a current priority. A screenshot can outlive the campaign or omit the category that explains what action is being requested.

What the UN’s 2025 update actually covers

On 26 September 2025, the UN Human Rights Office published an update covering 158 businesses. The office said it reviewed 215 businesses, added 68 to the earlier list and removed seven. Its stated standard was reasonable grounds to conclude involvement in the specified activities, after inviting businesses to supply information.

This is a database about defined activities connected to Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory. Examples include construction-related supply and certain services supporting settlements. It is not an inventory of every commercial connection to Israel, nor a comprehensive account of corporate activity during the war in Gaza.

The report’s Annex I includes Airbnb Inc. and Booking Holdings Inc. Read the legal entity and activity category, rather than replacing them with a broader allegation. Inclusion is a serious due-diligence signal; it is not a criminal verdict against every employee, customer or host.

A practical check before sharing a claim

1. Copy the precise claim. “Listed by OHCHR in the 2025 settlement update” is different from “found guilty of financing a particular attack.”
2. Open the original document. Check its date, author and inclusion criteria. Keep the link with your notes.
3. Identify the entity. Parent companies, subsidiaries, local franchisees and individual owners are not interchangeable.
4. Record the response and any later change. An announcement to leave a business is different from a completed exit. An old list may not reflect either.
5. Choose an action consistent with the evidence. Record what change you want the company to make and what evidence would demonstrate it.

Corporate accountability concerns business conduct. Religion, ethnicity, a person’s name or assumed nationality is not evidence of corporate involvement.

Where company scores help—and where they stop

Airbnb’s score and Booking Holdings’ score give readers another route into the companies’ wider records. They are not official BDS designations or substitutes for the UN source. A broad aggregate assessment can also obscure the specific issue that matters most to a reader.

For another example of why the exact relationship matters, see our Starbucks boycott explainer. For a documented technology case connected to Gaza and the West Bank, read the Microsoft evidence timeline.

Sources checked on 24 September 2026. Dated findings and company policies may change; the publication date is not a new verification date.