When you read the actual report, the investigators did not find a thing. But why waste all those hours of painstaking research? So they spun what they found and framed it as a major news story.
The ICIJ headline says:
Inside the sophisticated sales operation funneling billions from US state and local governments to Israel
Thousands of pages of email records obtained by ICIJ reveal Israel Bonds’ campaign to court senior U.S. financial officials with highly personalized sales pitches and pro-Israel messaging.
So Israel Bonds is guilty of ....being good at marketing and supporting Israel.
The Guardian editors, perhaps noticing that this is not a story, changed the focus from Israel Bonds sales tactics to implying that US state officials who have purchased Israel Bonds were, maybe, crossing an ill-defined ethics line:
Revealed: US officials are investing public funds in Israeli bonds in deals that raise ethics concerns
The headlines tell you what you need to know about the story. The investigators found very little but try to inflate the importance of what they did find.
For example:
In March 2023, the organization hosted a conference in Washington, D.C., to commemorate Israel’s 75th anniversary. In an email message to [Ohio treasurer Robert] Sprague’s office, a sales executive for Israel Bonds said he had reserved a hotel room for Sprague at the four-star Grand Hyatt.The Washington event featured a cocktail reception, dinner and a Q&A with Sprague and Illinois Treasurer Michael Frerichs....Three months later, Sprague’s office reimbursed Israel Bonds $727 for his hotel and meal expenses at the event.
So...no ethics violations. Sprague paid back the expenses.
All the examples are similar.
Some state treasuries invest tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions, into Israel Bonds along with their tens of billions in other investments. The investments increased after October 7 in a show of solidarity with Israel, and this is obviously terrible to these journalists.
Israel Bonds has been in the crosshairs of anti-Israel groups since October 7, with several lawsuits to force states to divest from those investments. The article is written with sympathy towards those lawsuits and critically of the state treasurers who invest in Israel Bonds.
Whether Israel Bonds is a good investment altogether is not addressed, outside quoting the officials who say it is. The investigators don't bother checking those facts.
Indiana's treasurer announced an increase in purchases of Israel Bonds in May, and his office told the Indiana Capital Chronicle that their November investment was at a bond rate of 5.28%.16 basis points higher than comparable notes from the US Treasury, and that the more recent purchase had a three-year term at 5.5%, or 65 basis points over US Treasury notes.
Which makes Israel Bonds sounding like a good and safe investment for state funds, which should be the primary consideration for treasurers.
The article implies that Israel Bonds facilitating meetings between investors and Israeli officials is an unethical perk, but investment firms routinely hold conferences and roadshows where investors can meet with and ask questions from experts to understand what their money is being invested in. True, they don't usually hold gala dinners, but Israel Bonds tries to appeal primarily to proud Jews and that is how to reach them.
Every investment vehicle markets itself, Israel Bonds' marketing techniques are more like those of a Jewish charity than a hedge fund, because of its primary target audience. I don't think Fidelity will be hosting a challah bake event anytime soon. There is nothing unethical about it.
If state treasurers are violating their own laws and policies, by all means, report them. This article does not find one example of that, instead relying on innuendo, "experts" saying that ethical lines "may have" been crossed, and a general anti-Israel focus.
(h/t MtTB)
