Rooftop protesters have drawn renewed attention to an Austrian manufacturer whose engines were installed in Elbit Systems’ Hermes 900 drones. The paper trail confirms a relationship with the Israeli arms company, but secrecy surrounding individual Israeli attacks makes the full human consequences difficult to trace.
At approximately six o’clock on the morning of Friday, 24 July 2026, activists carrying Palestinian flags climbed onto the roof of the BRP-Rotax engine factory in the Austrian town of Gunskirchen.
From the edge of the building, they unfurled banners declaring: “Your drones kill children” and “Blood on your hands.” Below them, other protesters blocked entrances to the industrial complex, while two participants reportedly chained themselves to a gate. Red paint, intended to symbolise blood, was poured over company signs and parts of the factory façade.
The location was incorrectly described in some international social media reports as Vienna. The protest actually took place at Rotax’s principal Austrian manufacturing site in Gunskirchen, near Wels in Upper Austria, approximately 180 kilometres west of the capital.
The action targeted what activists described as the company’s role in supplying the engines used in Israeli military drones operating over the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. Their central demand was that Rotax end all business connected with military aircraft and guarantee that its engines would be used exclusively for civilian purposes.
At approximately 10am, Austrian police began clearing the demonstration. Officers cut the chains attaching protesters to the gate, while those occupying the roof were brought down without resistance. No injuries were reported.
The factory was on its annual shutdown, with only security and maintenance personnel present, meaning that the immediate disruption to production was limited. Nevertheless, police said the damage caused by the red paint could have legal consequences. The protest organiser may also face an administrative penalty because the demonstration was allegedly registered too late.
“Today we occupied the roof of BRP-Rotax to draw attention to the company’s complicity,” a statement circulated by campaigners declared. The activists accused the Austrian government of facilitating military exports and called upon Rotax employees to resist the production of components intended for weapons systems.
The company responded by saying that it respected freedom of expression and assembly but operated in accordance with Austrian law.
“The safety of our employees is our highest priority,” BRP-Rotax said in a statement reported by local media. The company added that it reserved the right to pursue legal action over the damage to its property. MeinBezirk, ORF Upper Austria, Laumat
From recreational aircraft to military drones
BRP-Rotax is part of the Canadian Bombardier Recreational Products group. Its Austrian factory employs approximately 1,500 people and produces lightweight engines for motorcycles, snowmobiles, boats, go-karts and aircraft.
Rotax engines are particularly valued in aviation because they are small, reliable and comparatively powerful. These characteristics make them useful not only for recreational aircraft but also for unmanned aerial vehicles.
This civilian and military crossover lies at the centre of the controversy. An engine marketed for civilian aviation can be purchased through a distributor, installed in an unmanned aircraft and ultimately incorporated into a military surveillance or attack system.
Rotax has repeatedly emphasised that its engines are manufactured primarily for civilian purposes and distributed through an independent international sales network. The company has said that it attempts to prevent its products from entering active conflicts, while acknowledging that unauthorised or unintended military use cannot always be excluded.
The difficulty with that defence is that the relationship between Rotax engines and Israeli military drones is no longer based solely on campaigners’ allegations.
In November 2025, Austria’s Ministry for Economic Affairs informed Parliament that BRP-Rotax had confirmed that its engines were “originally installed” in Hermes 900 drones manufactured by the Israeli arms company Elbit Systems.
The ministry said it had no independently verified information establishing whether those particular drones were being used in the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, the admission confirmed the most important part of the activists’ case: Rotax engines had been incorporated into one of Israel’s principal military drone platforms. Austrian parliamentary response
Rotax acknowledges supplies to Elbit
Further evidence emerged from an investigation published in August 2025 by Austrian journalist Raimund Löw for the weekly newspaper Falter.
Löw investigated claims that Rotax engines were powering Hermes 900 aircraft operated by the Israeli military. Researcher Shir Hever, who has written extensively about Israel’s military industrial complex, told the newspaper that evidence connecting Rotax engines with the Hermes 900 was strong.
When questioned by Falter, BRP’s Canadian headquarters said that its distributor had stopped supplying Rotax engines to Elbit Systems during 2024. The company cited an internal policy governing sales for military purposes, particularly in countries involved in active conflicts.
“In this context, upon our request, our distributor has stopped the supply of Rotax engines to Elbit,” the company said.
Although framed as evidence of responsible corporate action, the statement also confirmed that engines had previously been supplied to Elbit. It therefore undermined suggestions that the appearance of Rotax products in Israeli military systems could be explained entirely by theft, diversion or unauthorised resale. Raimund Löw’s account of the Falter investigation
The available documentation does not reveal how many engines were supplied, which models were involved, when the relationship with Elbit began or how many Rotax-powered Hermes 900 aircraft remain in service.
Nor does the reported suspension of supplies in 2024 necessarily remove previously delivered engines from Israel’s fleet. Military aircraft can remain operational for many years, supported by existing stocks, replacement parts and maintenance networks.
Activists involved in the July 2026 occupation alleged that military-related deliveries were continuing, potentially through intermediaries. That claim has not been independently established. The strongest publicly available evidence confirms supplies to Elbit before the company’s reported intervention in 2024.
The Hermes 900 over Gaza
The Hermes 900, known within the Israeli military as the Kochav, or “Star,” is a medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft developed by Elbit Systems.
It has a wingspan of approximately 15 metres, can remain airborne for more than 30 hours and carries hundreds of kilograms of equipment. Depending upon its configuration, its payload can include cameras, infrared sensors, communications equipment, target-identification systems and weapons.
The drone made its operational debut during Israel’s 2014 assault on Gaza, before it had formally completed the Israeli military’s normal testing and integration process. It was subsequently incorporated into the Israeli Air Force’s operational fleet.
An investigation by the French nonprofit newsroom Disclose found that the Hermes 900 was one of the principal aircraft operated by Israel’s 166 Squadron during the war that followed 7 October 2023.
According to the investigation, the squadron’s drones were used to monitor Gaza, identify and track targets, and conduct attacks. The commander of the unit described unmanned aircraft as central to the war, while a Hermes 900 pilot explained that different weapons could be selected according to the intended target and the desired lethal radius.
Disclose documented at least eight deadly Israeli drone attacks affecting civilians or civilian infrastructure in Gaza after October 2023. Its investigation concluded that Hermes 900 aircraft were being used to bomb the territory, although publicly available evidence did not identify the platform responsible for every individual attack. Disclose
This distinction is important. There is firm evidence that Rotax engines were installed in Hermes 900 drones, and there is strong evidence that Hermes 900 aircraft participated in Israel’s armed operations over Gaza. What remains difficult to establish is whether a particular attack on a named family, journalist, medical worker or civilian building was conducted by a particular Rotax-powered aircraft.
Israel’s secrecy surrounding its armed drone programme makes such attribution exceptionally difficult. The military rarely discloses the model of aircraft involved in a strike, the serial number of the aircraft, the engine installed inside it or the precise weapons released.
The absence of that information should not be confused with evidence that the aircraft played no role. It means the final stages of the supply chain remain concealed from public scrutiny.
Israeli drones over Lebanon
The Hermes 900 has also been documented operating inside Lebanese airspace.
On 10 June 2024, the Israeli military acknowledged that one of its unmanned aircraft had been struck by a surface-to-air missile and had fallen inside Lebanon. Hezbollah identified the aircraft as a Hermes 900. Reuters described the platform as an Israeli-manufactured reconnaissance and attack drone. Reuters
Another Hermes 900 was reportedly brought down over southern Lebanon on 1 June 2024. The Israeli military confirmed the loss of a drone, while Hezbollah identified the aircraft and said that such platforms had been used to attack militants and civilian homes.
These incidents establish that Hermes 900 aircraft were participating in Israeli operations over Lebanon. Israeli drone attacks during the conflict killed and injured civilians, alongside members of Hezbollah and other armed groups.
As with Gaza, however, the publicly available record does not conclusively connect every civilian death with a Hermes 900, still less with an individually identifiable Rotax engine. The most accurate conclusion is that Rotax powered a type of attack drone deployed by Israel in theatres where drone strikes caused documented civilian casualties.
The export-control gap
The controversy has exposed a significant gap in Austria’s export-control system.
In its November 2025 parliamentary response, the Austrian Ministry for Economic Affairs classified the Rotax engines as dual-use goods, meaning that they could have both civilian and military applications.
The ministry nevertheless concluded that the engines did not meet the technical thresholds for inclusion in Annex I of the European Union’s Dual-Use Regulation. Consequently, their export did not require the type of licence that would normally trigger a formal assessment of the destination, recipient and intended end use.
The government also disclosed that no export licences had been issued for Rotax engines sent to Israel during the preceding ten years.
That answer could easily be misunderstood. It did not establish that no engines had been exported. It meant that the Austrian authorities considered the products outside the relevant licensing requirement.
The ministry explained that additional reporting obligations can apply when an exporter knows or suspects that dual-use products are intended for military use in a country subject to an arms embargo. Israel, however, was not treated as an arms-embargoed state under the relevant provision.
Critics argue that this interpretation concentrates on the engine’s technical specifications and civilian marketing while overlooking the system into which it is ultimately incorporated. An aircraft engine installed in an armed military drone, they contend, should be considered a component of a military aircraft rather than an ordinary civilian export.
Criminal complaint filed in Austria
On 26 January 2026, lawyer Astrid Wagner submitted a criminal complaint on behalf of the Working Group for Conscientious Objection and Nonviolence, the Palestinian Community of Austria, Solidarwerkstatt Linz and the Styrian Peace Platform.
The complaint alleged possible violations of Austria’s War Material Act and Foreign Trade Act. It argued that engines intended for military aircraft are classified as war material under Austrian law and cannot legally be exported without government approval.
The complainants also alleged that Rotax management had knowingly allowed engines to reach military manufacturers, including Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries, directly or through intermediaries.
These remain allegations rather than judicial findings. The complaint is not an indictment, and there has been no publicly confirmed ruling that BRP-Rotax or members of its management violated Austrian law. Campaigners said the case was transferred to the public prosecutor’s office in Wels, but the status of any investigation has not been officially disclosed.
The Austrian government and Rotax maintain that the company’s activities complied with the applicable regulatory framework.
A second occupation
The July 2026 rooftop action followed an earlier protest at the same factory on 22 August 2025.
During that demonstration, nine activists associated with Solidarwerkstatt Österreich blocked entrances, climbed onto a factory building and displayed Palestinian flags and banners. The company described the first action as peaceful, and police eventually removed the protesters.
The second occupation was more confrontational in its symbolism. Red paint covered corporate signs, protesters chained themselves to a gate and banners directly accused the company of responsibility for the deaths of children.
The activists also appealed to Rotax employees, arguing that protecting jobs did not require participation in military supply chains. They called for production to be redirected exclusively towards civilian applications, an argument intended to separate opposition to the company’s military business from hostility towards its workforce.
Responsibility concealed within the supply chain
The Rotax controversy illustrates how modern warfare depends upon components produced far beyond the territory in which attacks take place.
A drone identified with an Israeli arms company may contain an Austrian engine, French communications equipment, imported electronics and materials shipped through several countries. Each supplier can describe its contribution as a component rather than a weapon, while every government can point to another jurisdiction, distributor or end user.
By the time the completed aircraft appears over Gaza or southern Lebanon, responsibility has been divided across a network of manufacturers, exporters, brokers and regulators.
BRP-Rotax can accurately state that most of its engines are civilian products and that the company reportedly ordered its distributor to stop supplying Elbit in 2024. It can also point to the Austrian government’s conclusion that the engines did not require export licences under the applicable European technical thresholds.
The protesters can point to another set of established facts: Rotax has acknowledged that its engines were installed in Hermes 900 drones; the company’s parent admitted that a distributor had supplied Elbit; and the Hermes 900 has been deployed by Israel for armed operations over Gaza and Lebanon.
What cannot yet be reconstructed from the public record is the complete journey of every engine and its connection with every attack. That uncertainty is not merely an evidentiary accident. It is a consequence of a military and commercial system in which aircraft specifications, component sales, operational records and strike data are protected from meaningful public scrutiny.
The activists on the Gunskirchen roof attempted to make that concealed relationship visible. Their banners reduced a complicated multinational supply chain to a direct accusation: engines manufactured in Austria were helping Israeli military aircraft remain in the sky while civilians below lived with the consequences.
Whether Austrian prosecutors will accept the activists’ legal argument remains unresolved. The underlying political question is harder to avoid: when a company knows that its ostensibly civilian technology has been incorporated into an armed drone, where does its responsibility for the eventual use of that aircraft begin and end?