July 14, 2023

Since the beginning of 2023, twenty eight Israeli citizens were brutally murdered in Palestinian terrorist attacks. More than two hundred and seventy Israeli citizens were injured. The various methods used for attacking Israeli civilians included car rammings, drive by shootings, the launching of rockets, to stabbings. The common aspect is that they target uninvolved Israeli civilians, using innocent Palestinians as human shields, constituting a double war crime.

In this context, there was a sharp increase in the attacks emerging from Judea and Samaria and from Jenin in particular. The district of Jenin was responsible for more terror attacks than any other district in the West Bank.

Further manifestations of the Jenin terror machine, were additional incidents.

On May 26^th two rockets were launched from the city of Jenin. The rockets fell short and exploded within the territory of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The rockets launched reflected an ongoing effort by terrorist organizations, operating in northern Samaria and Jenin, to upgrade airborne projectiles for attacking Israelis.

On June 19^th, an IDF and Border Patrol’s operation to arrest terrorists in Jenin was met with heavy fire, including a large number of explosive devices, fired at the forces and placed underground ahead of time. This was further proof that the district known as the Jenin refugee camp – housing thousands of residents in a very densely populated area – had become an epi-center for terror activity.

For these reasons, the Israeli government launched a counter-terrorism effort in Jenin.

During this brief operation, twelve Palestinian terrorists were killed, and a large part of the terror infrastructure in Jenin was diminished. There were zero civilian casualties. Despite it being a densely civilian populated area, chosen by the Palestinians terrorists as their home base, Israeli forces made a conscious effort to avoid harm to innocent Palestinians, bringing civilian casualties down to zero.

A few points are worthy of stressing. Firstly, the Israeli forces have no interest in entering the Palestinian Authority areas. They do this out of necessity, to prevent the murder of Israeli citizens. It is incumbent upon every country to act in self-defense to prevent the murder of citizens. If there was no terrorism emanating from the PA, then there would be no Israeli incursions.

Israel makes a clear distinction between militants and innocent Palestinian civilians. Even while the operation was taking place, the entry of Palestinian laborers into Israel continued and the routine of civil activity throughout Judea and Samaria was maintained.

The current wave of terrorism reflects the weakness of the Palestinian Authority. The terrorist organizations, PIJ and Hamas, are taking advantage of the unstable governance of the PA and its refusal to act against the terrorist entities. These proxy forces are supported by Iran, which does not have the good interests of the Palestinian people or the PA at heart.

An additional point relates to the role of the media and some in the International community. While many recognize Israel’s right of self-defense, others do a disservice to regional peace, to Israelis and even to the interests of the Palestinian people. There is no moral equation between the Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israel’s actions of self-defense. Israel’s actions are not random raids. The blind support extended to the PA, and knee jerk opposition to Israeli actions, does not serve truth, justice or even the Palestinian interests. Rabbi Lee, who lost his wife and two daughters in a terrorist attack, wrote an article about the “silent Palestinians” who despise the terrorists and wish for their removal, just as much as the Israelis.

The citizens of Israel do query why the basic right of self-defense, extended to every country in the world, is questioned or denied in relation to Israel.

Those who truly aspire to co-existence in the Middle East, should draw conclusions from the Abraham Accords, signed between Israel and four additional Arab states. This normalization proved once again that the obstacle to peace in the Middle East has always been the rejection of Israel and the lack of willingness to come to terms with Israel’s existence as a state, in any borders. Once they were willing, we had normalization. That is also the key issue with the Palestinians. The problem is not Israel’s recognition of them, but their willingness to come to terms with Israel’s existence. The cry “from the river to the sea” is not a call for the two state solution, but for the annihilation of Israel.

Under the Oslo accords, the idea promoted was “territories for peace”. It failed, because Israel, time and time again, relinquished territories, yet received no peace. Due to endless blind support, pampering and indulgence offered to the Palestinians, they understood that there was no demand of accountability for their actions.

Those aspiring for peace and co-existence between Israel and the Palestinians, should encourage Palestinian acceptance of Israel as an entity in the region. They should join Israel in condemning Palestinian incitement, terrorism and PA direct and indirect support of violence.

It is time for the Palestinians to take responsibility, and for the International Community to demand such accountability.

Hillel Newman is the Consul General of The Consulate General of Israel in Los Angeles.

The Jewish News Syndicate (JNS) last week reported that Morningstar Sustainalytics – the environmental, social, governance (ESG) ratings arm of Morningstar, Inc. – had removed negative “controversy” ratings from 19 Israel-based companies. Sounds positive at first until you hear the “but.” Morningstar, sadly, also reaffirmed negative ratings for seven Israeli firms due to their operations in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, or their support for Israeli counterterrorism operations. Now it’s up to governors, attorneys general, and treasurers to rid this company of Israel boycotts once and for all.

According to Morningstar, B Communications, Bezeq, Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles, Elbit Systems, Elco, Electra, and Shapir Engineering and Industry remain flagged with ESG controversies in connection with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These controversy ratings often serve as the guidepost for ESG investor decision-making – avoiding investments in or even divesting from companies carrying such negative labels.

Bezeq and its largest shareholder, B Communications, are reportedly subject to human rights controversies for providing telecommunications infrastructure to Jews living in Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank – land that is also claimed by the Palestinians.

“Many international organizations have reported that the development of infrastructure and the provision of services that contribute to the maintenance and expansion of settlements might reduce the land available to Palestinians, negatively affecting their livelihoods and restricting their right to equality and non-discrimination and freedom of movement,” a Morningstar spokesperson told JNS. “Our rating reflects the fact that these allegations create risk for the company.”

Rather than remain neutral in what is arguably the most complicated geopolitical dispute in history, Morningstar’s ratings align with the boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS) campaign that punishes companies for supporting any Jewish presence in these territories. Morningstar is using tools of economic warfare to pressure Israel to make unilateral concessions to the Palestinians outside the framework of a negotiated settlement.

Spain-based Construcciónes y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (CAF) is also subject to a human rights controversy rating because it builds and operates trams in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. While Palestinians claim eastern Jerusalem as disputed territory, the United States recognizes Israel’s sovereignty over all of Jerusalem and moved the U.S. embassy there in 2018. Morningstar said CAF, like Bezeq and B Communications, was contributing to the maintenance and expansion of settlements – suggesting it is company policy to consider eastern Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, to be an Israeli settlement rather than Israel’s capital. Morningstar’s spokesperson also compared CAF helping Israel to expand light rail access for Israeli-Arabs in Jerusalem to involvement in “rail projects that support Myanmar’s junta as it uses trains to move its troops, arms and other supplies.”

Morningstar applies negative controversy ratings to three other Israeli companies for similar work. Shapir Engineering reportedly gets a controversy rating for operating and expanding the Jerusalem Light Rail system, which would connect it to Jewish communities in eastern Jerusalem. Electra and its major shareholder, Elco, are reportedly flagged for human rights risks for building tunnels in Jerusalem to help alleviate traffic – one of which would allow better road access for Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

In all these cases, Morningstar makes no allegation that these companies are involved in any violation of human rights. Instead, the alleged violation is merely providing non-controversial services or infrastructure in specific territory controlled by Israel – Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. This could trigger divestment and contracting bans in certain U.S. states, whose laws consider differential treatment of companies operating in Israeli-controlled territory to be a form of boycott.

The seventh Israeli company blacklisted by Morningstar’s ESG ratings is reportedly defense contractor Elbit Systems, which also remains on Morningstar’s Global Standards Screening (GSS) watchlist – a de facto “do-not-invest” list. Morningstar assigns Elbit a controversy rating due “to some minor reputational risks following allegations of delivering weapons that are used by the Israeli military and have caused civilian casualties.” Morningstar apparently ignores the fact that Israel, like the United States, is a democracy with a military that adheres to laws of war and goes to greater lengths than any country to minimize civilian casualties. Indeed, in other controversy reports, Morningstar lumps Israel in with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Oman, and Qatar as “countries which have been recognized as a high risk of violence against civilians.”

The United States military, of course, has faced similar allegations due to civilian casualties sustained during strikes on Al Qaeda and other terrorist targets around the globe. But there is no evidence either the United States or Israel targets civilians in counterterrorism operations. Punishing Elbit for unintended civilian casualties in such legitimate and defensive strikes is an assault on Israel’s inherent right to self-defense.

More than 35 U.S. states have adopted laws or executive orders intended to deter companies from engaging in boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS) activities targeting the Jewish state. Some states prohibit contracting with companies that boycott Israel, while others mandate divestment of state funds, including pension fund investments, from such companies. Several states enforced these laws after Unilever subsidiary Ben & Jerry’s announced a boycott of its Israeli licensee.

Last month, JNS reported that the State of Florida opened a formal investigation into whether Morningstar may be violating its state’s updated anti-BDS statute, that specifically calls out ESG ratings. That follows an investigation opened by Arizona’s state treasurer last year. JNS also revealed new investigations launched by attorneys general in Montana and Kentucky.

State officials investigating Morningstar should request copies of all controversy reports or GSS watchlist reports related to the seven companies profiled in this analysis to determine whether Morningstar is violating state anti-BDS laws. In the case of Elbit, officials should also request controversy and watchlist reports for American defense contractors whose weapons systems may have resulted in unintentional civilian casualties during counterterrorism operations launched by the United States to compare Elbit’s treatment.

It’s certainly welcome news that Morningstar was able to remove controversy ratings for 19 Israel-based companies in the last few weeks without first hiring any independent “experts,” as the company had previously suggested might be necessary. That list included all of Israel’s banks and cell phone companies targeted for providing services to Jews living in disputed territories, which prompts an obvious question: Why is Morningstar applying a different standard to the seven Israeli companies still blacklisted?

For a firm whose brand depends on investors believing its financial research and ratings are objective and consistent, Morningstar’s ESG ratings related to Israel have proven to be anything but. To rescue its reputation, now is the time for the company to fully uproot the BDS infrastructure within its ESG subsidiary and remove the remaining seven companies from its blacklist. If C-suite leaders delay any further, state officials should hold them accountable.

Richard Goldberg, a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, is a former National Security Council official, US Senate aide, governor’s chief of staff and Navy Reserve Intelligence Officer.