Recently, anti-Israel advocacy organizations have begun a new push in the Bay Area to distort impact investing (sometimes discussed as socially responsible or ethical investing) into a tool for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. Just last week, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and San Francisco State University (SFSU) held separate, internal discussions about whether or not to adopt new investment policies. In both cases, BDS proponents celebrated these as advancements of their priorities. In response to these developments and in anticipation that this debate will reach new jurisdictions in early 2025, JCRC has prepared the below guidance on where the Jewish community stands on this issue:

JCRC Bay Area, representing the largest collective voice of Bay Area Jews, understands the importance of public and private entities pursuing an impact investment approach to their finances – aligning their institutional values with their investment portfolio. Where we become concerned is when the Jewish and democratic state of Israel, Israel-based companies, or companies providing services or products to Israel are singled out – in direct opposition to our community’s consensus opposing divestment from Israel.

In the cases of Alameda County and SFSU, Israel was not named. Therefore, companies based in Israel that operate in sectors favored by impact investing, such as renewable energy and sustainable agriculture, should still qualify for funding under these guidelines. Conversely, Israel-based companies involved in industries that impact investing policies typically avoid, like oil and gas or weapons manufacturing, might be excluded from receiving funds.

Anti-Israel activists are nonetheless pursuing this largely hollow strategy because they recognize that explicit BDS proposals remain widely unpopular and are unlikely to pass in most forums. To call this a victory for BDS is a stretch. It may remove some BDS-targeted companies from possible investment, but it may also open doors for new investments. On the whole, the effect is of negligible, if not zero, consequence for Israel’s economy and decision makers.

However, we are wary of the gap between intent and impact. Last year’s performative ceasefire resolutions brought ugly antisemitism into our city halls and university campuses, while having zero impact on the humanitarian situation of the hostages captured by Hamas or the Palestinian civilians in Gaza. This push is likely to result in further damage to the public safety of Bay Area Jews.

The Jewish community is calling on entities pursuing impact investing to adhere to the following guardrails:

  • Leaders must demonstrate publicly that their pursuit of impact investing is coming from a place of advancing shared community values and not merely an enactment of BDS against the Jewish state of Israel.
  • Singling out Israel in an impact policy is deeply problematic. With dozens of international conflicts abroad, from Syria to Iran and China to Russia, many in our community consider efforts to hold the Jewish state of Israel to a different standard to be a form of antisemitism.
  • All possible measures must be taken to ensure the Jewish community’s safety – which has been significantly degraded since October 7, 2023 – especially in public meetings when these items are considered. We urge elected and education leaders to affirm Jewish and Israeli American belonging in their communities.

About Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS)

  • The BDS Movement contributes to a climate that fosters antisemitism by promoting intolerance for other viewpoints and use of inflammatory rhetoric.
  • When BDS and other anti-Israel resolutions are brought to college campuses, city councils, and elsewhere, a hostile environment for Jews and incidents of antisemitism often follows.
  • Read more here.