Cutting Aid Won’t End the Campaign Against Israel
It is entirely legitimate to question U.S. foreign aid and weapons sales to Israel, or to criticize Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza.
But some campaigns go much further, challenging the legitimacy of a Jewish state itself and trying to cripple it economically through boycotts and sanctions. This is rapidly advancing into a sphere the Jewish community too often overlooks: the corporate arena and even small business.
This past Sunday, on the eve of the Kristallnacht anniversary, activists in Philadelphia staged a “Boycott Ride” past Jewish-owned restaurants. Their fliers declared, “No business for Zionists! These Zionist establishments must go!” The echo of the 1933 slogan “Don’t buy from Jews” is chilling. Philadelphia answered this one, with lines of customers around the block at the targeted businesses and bipartisan condemnation. But the openly ugly version is the easy one to see and reject. The one dressed up as principle is harder to name, and it is the one that keeps advancing.
BDS campaigns are not quiet. Organized and well-funded, they run through corporate boardrooms, where we at JLens spend each proxy season. In spring 2025, shareholders at Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and Intel faced proposals challenging their business dealings with Israel. JLens urged votes against them, as did the proxy advisers ISS and Glass Lewis.
According to our research, more than 75 of America’s 500 largest companies have faced pressure to cut ties with Israel since October 2023. Next month, Microsoft and Cisco face proposals that name a few other countries but focus overwhelmingly on Israel.
The current debate over U.S. foreign aid to Israel is also muddling the distinction even more.
Let’s be clear: BDS campaigns against American companies have nothing to do with U.S. foreign aid. They target a company’s business with Israel, not any government check. The stakes run past any single company to Israel’s access to capital, and to the weapons and technology that keep it secure. Washington’s foreign aid may be winding down, but JLens, the Jewish investment group I lead, believes that the pressure in the markets is only building.
The Israeli economy is the target precisely because it is one of Israel’s strengths. Israel has become a technological powerhouse, a democracy with a formidable military and an economy capable of financing its own defense. American assistance now covers about a tenth of Israel’s defense budget, down from about a fifth 15 years ago, as Israel’s own military spending has surged. But Israel still needs access to American weapons and technology.
Ending the U.S. foreign aid subsidy and imposing an arms embargo therefore are profoundly different propositions.
Consider the economics. Most of Israel’s $3.8 billion in annual assistance is spent in American factories, supporting American jobs, as the agreement requires; its missile-defense programs alone are built across more than 100 companies in 34 states. Ending foreign aid would eliminate a subsidy; an arms embargo would go further, threatening future orders for American defense manufacturers.
Meanwhile, America spent some $34 billion over four years keeping forces in Japan and South Korea, about $16 billion of it even after those allies paid their share. Israel’s neighbor Egypt receives roughly $1.3 billion a year in military assistance despite repeated human rights concerns. These are different kinds of security commitments, but they put Israel’s assistance in perspective. None has drawn a demand to halt arms sales, or an economic isolation campaign, of comparable breadth.
Imagine Israel a decade from now, building every weapon it needs down to the last screw and bolt. Would the boycott campaigns fold their tents? Of course not. They already operate in courts, universities, cultural institutions and financial markets, where pressure on companies and pension funds requires neither congressional approval nor an American subsidy.
Not everyone who opposes aid or arms sales opposes Israel’s existence. But some activists reject the legitimacy of a Jewish state itself, and no concession can answer that objection. Acknowledging the distinction does not put Israel beyond criticism; it helps identify what is actually at stake.
For too long, the Jewish community’s pro-Israel advocacy has concentrated largely on Congress, statehouses and city halls. Those arenas remain essential, but they are no longer sufficient. Corporate boards and institutional investors now make decisions that shape Israel’s economic and technological relationships.
The next time a shareholder resolution seeks to turn your pension fund, endowment or portfolio into an instrument for that campaign, take its argument seriously, but recognize that for some who advance it, the target was never Israel bonds, Israeli equities, or the American companies that supply its weapons or technology.
It is the State of Israel itself.
Ari Hoffnung is Managing Director of JLens. He is a former New York City Deputy Comptroller. The views expressed are his own.
Disclosure: The views expressed in this article reflect the author’s and JLens’ perspectives regarding advocacy on issues affecting Israel and the Jewish community. JLens and its affiliates may engage in advocacy, corporate engagement, proxy voting, and investment advisory activities. Any investment advisory services, proxy voting recommendations, or stewardship activities are conducted pursuant to applicable fiduciary obligations, client mandates, and established policies and procedures.
