How Philanthropy Can Divest from
Genocide in Palestine and Beyond

There can be a temptation to default to the idea that it is impossible to change anything. You may hear people say that “everything we invest in is hurting someone” or “its impossible to have a violence-free portfolio.” This kind of response can come from genuine frustration over the pace or possibility of change. However, it also can be deployed to block internal agitation or self-introspection about ways your organization’s investments or policies may not live up to its stated values. It can cause discomfort to note these discrepancies and therefore, making it easier to discourage conversation about what IS possible.

The logic behind this question suggests that people should give up on doing anything if they are not doing everything. But organizing requires taking first steps that lead to other steps, and coming up with creative ways to overcome what can seem like insurmountable problems.

Organizations with even relatively small investments can make a difference through solidarity power, narrative power, and economic power.

The power of solidarity lies in how as a funder you relate to your grantees, and they to you. By taking steps toward divestment you are showing that you are putting your money where your mouth is, which can build trust and the possibility for deeper collaboration. Even small steps show a willingness to take concrete action, rather than just offer rhetoric. In addition to grantees, if you have staff or communities who are personally affected by the genocide and the struggle for Palestinian freedom, seeing your organization take action can be profoundly meaningful.

Right wing Zionist institutions know the power of keeping investment dollars flowing to these companies and are investing significant money and power to try to limit the screening out of these companies and fight shareholder advocacy in the financial sector. This is not a neutral space where companies and advisors are ignorant of what they are doing. They are being actively lobbied and pressured to keep the status quo and claw back the advances that have been made in placing limited restrictions on these companies.

The power of narrative is that it helps build a public case about how different institutions in public life are willing to take action. In earlier social movements, including those which used divestment as a tool, philanthropic sector actions were seen as an indicator of broader engagement in particular social movements and gave legitimacy for other institutions and sectors to take action. The movement of the whole sector may start with individual investors, smaller foundations, and the most socially conscious institutions, but the more actors that take steps toward divestment, the more pressure there is for larger, more well-known institutions to engage.  Making moves toward divestment can also prompt much needed public discussion and debate about the reasons for divestment. The history of previous divestment efforts are helpful here, as they make people aware of divestment as an effective and strategic tool that is required when issues of enormous importance are inadequately addressed by governments.


Finally, even small organizations and their decisions have economic power. Any organization that engages in divestment increases the likelihood of sanctions, broader divestment campaigns, consumer backlash, and legal liabilities for Israel—all of which can erode long-term investment outlooks. Investors around the globe are recognizing that human rights risks are material financial risks, and each foundation or organization or individual who takes action toward divestment strengthens that case.

In other words, your foundation or organization is part of a larger story and movement, and every bit counts!

Yes! Here are some great examples.

1. The Anti-Apartheid Movement
One of the most powerful examples is the global movement to end apartheid in South Africa. Starting in the 1950s, decades of resistance by Black South Africans and international allies led to the eventual end of apartheid. They used coordinated boycotts, sanctions, and divestment strategies to turn South Africa into a pariah state. The economic pressure became undeniable:

- By the mid-1980s, 1 in 4 Britons were boycotting South African goods.

- Barclays Bank, under sustained public pressure that was largely student-led withdrew from South Africa.

- The Free South Africa Movement, a broad coalition of universities, unions, and community groups across the US, helped build a base that pushed for structural action. These efforts led to the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, which imposed U.S. sanctions and helped hasten the collapse of this regime.

2. Private Prisons
- Campaigns like #DefundThePolice, rooted in the Invest/Divest framework developed by the Movement for Black Lives, have led to significant policy and institutional shifts.

- In 2015, Columbia University and the University of California divested from private prison companies like GEO Group and CoreCivic after sustained student pressure. Columbia became the first U.S. university to permanently ban future investments in the prison-industrial complex.

- In 2017, The New York City Pension Fund was the first public retirement system to fully divest from private prisons.

Both the anti-apartheid movement and divestment from private prisons remind us of the inherent power of people. People created these oppressive systems and regimes, and people also have the ability to dismantle, then reimagine just societies.

A wealth manager designs, executes, and manages a client’s investment portfolio in line with both financial goals and personal values. While wealth managers work in service of a client’s goals, they can become an obstacle if they are unwilling to accommodate divestment and investment requests—whether out of their own personal values, convenience, or the institutional relationships they hold.

Authority: While wealth managers may act as gatekeepers, the client ultimately holds the authority to make investment and divestment decisions. Wealth managers are responsible for carrying out client directives—whether that means excluding Israeli government bonds, removing companies complicit in the Gaza offensive, or redirecting capital into neutral or socially supportive alternatives. The wealth manager’s role is not to decide whether divestment is possible, but rather to provide options that implement it while advising on the financial implications of each option. A responsive wealth manager should be able to introduce a variety of investment vehicles to support a client’s vision, including impact funds, screened exchange-traded funds, or separately managed accounts that already exclude companies or governments tied to human rights abuses. They can also negotiate with fund managers to request specific screens if off-the-shelf options do not exist. Their expertise helps ensure that divestment or investment decisions do not expose the portfolio to unnecessary risk, but the decision to divest or invest is held by the client.

In philanthropy making money is frequently valued over values or altruism. One clear example is the Ford Foundation. The five highest-paid employees are all investment officers, each earning between $1.6 and $4.5 million—compensation that far exceeded the $1.28 million salary of President Darren Walker. Pay structures like these reinforce the perception that financial expertise is more valuable than programmatic or leadership expertise, deepening the imbalance of power between advisors and the organizations they serve. Learning the language of wealth and investment managers helps to be able to effectively communicate investment choices.

Fiduciary duty: While the moral imperative for divestment is clear, it may be helpful to position the case for divestment as risk mitigation when encountering a resistant wealth manager so that the case for change is aligned with a wealth manager’s professional obligations. Wealth managers have the responsibility to help translate an institution’s moral commitment into a concrete portfolio strategy and a fiduciary duty to act in the best financial interest of their clients. As discussed in other sections of the guide, there is growing evidence that companies tied to Israeli human rights abuses in Gaza are facing heightened reputational and legal exposure, potential sanctions, consumer boycotts, and long-term instability—all of which can hurt returns. Therefore, it’s incumbent upon wealth managers to take divestment and investment requests related to human rights abuses seriously.

If a wealth manager continues to be resistant, a client is within their right to direct the wealth manager to present options that screen out Israeli government bonds and companies directly benefiting from military aggression, and instruct them to identify alternatives, many of which have net neutral or even higher returns. If resistance continues, a client can request a “restricted list” of investments or a shift to separately managed accounts or custom portfolios that allow greater control over asset selection. These vehicles let clients dictate exclusion screens and directly impact investing priorities.

Accountability: If a wealth manager remains unwilling to support their client’s investment vision, it may be necessary to escalate within their company infrastructure or replace them. Clients can explore firms and managers who specialize in values-aligned or impact investing, many of which already offer screened portfolios that emphasize human rights. By signaling that the management relationship itself depends on responsiveness to your values and actively exploring alternative managers, you can avoid dependence on an intermediary whose priorities conflict with your ethical and financial goals. By holding wealth managers accountable, not only does divestment become possible for your individual institution, but your actions could help align the field of wealth stewardship with the values of human rights more broadly as wealth manager resistance becomes bad for business.

Divesting from Israeli bonds and companies that profit from human rights abuses in Gaza is not only a moral imperative for any philanthropic institution that has a social change mission—it is also a prudent financial decision aligned with fiduciary duty and long-term risk management.

A fund's investment decisions, just like its grantmaking, send a clear message about its values. If a foundation claims to support justice, equity, or the dignity of all people through its grantmaking, its financial practices on the front end must also reflect that commitment. Reallocation of investments from harmful actors is not a radical departure from fiduciary norms, it is a conscientious strategy that seeks to leverage capital as a tool for accountability and social change.

Historically, the argument that divestment compromises returns has not withstood scrutiny. Numerous studies on values-aligned investing—whether in the context of fossil fuels, tobacco, or apartheid-era South Africa—have shown that portfolios screened for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors perform comparably, if not better, than traditional portfolios over time. In the case of Israeli bonds and firms profiting from ongoing violations of international law in Gaza, the exposure is often marginal. Israeli government bonds represent a negligible share of most diversified institutional portfolios. According to Bloomberg data, as of Q1 2024 Israeli sovereign bonds account for just 0.14 percent of the JPMorgan Emerging Market Bond Index (EMBI Global). For U.S.-based foundations invested in global fixed income markets, the exposure is even smaller—often under 0.05 percent of total assets. Divesting from Israeli bonds poses no meaningful threat to expected returns. In addition, Israeli bonds do not offer a unique or irreplaceable market advantage. Many countries and corporate issuers offer similar or better returns at comparable or stronger credit ratings, without entanglement in active conflict or international law violations.

Moreover, values-aligned investing often meets or exceeds the performance of traditional strategies. A 2023 Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing study found that sustainable equity funds performed in line with or better than their conventional peers in 62 percent of cases, with on average lower volatility. Similarly, an analysis of more than 1,000 ESG studies published in the Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment revealed that 90 percent of studies showed neutral or positive relationships between ESG integration and financial performance.

While the financial incentive is minimal, maintaining exposure to companies profiting from Israel's military campaign in Gaza—such as arms manufacturers, surveillance tech firms, or institutions enabling illegal settlement expansion—carries massive material and reputational risks. The U.N. Human Rights Council and multiple legal experts have warned that such companies may be complicit in violations of international law, including war crimes. These associations increase the likelihood of sanctions, corporate boycott or divestment campaigns, consumer backlash, and legal liability—all of which can erode long-term shareholder value and trust. Ultimately, staying invested in such companies exposes foundations to risks that are simply bad for the bottom line, as investors are recognizing that human rights risks are material financial risks.

For philanthropic institutions, these risks are compounded by mission misalignment, as profiting from or tacitly endorsing state violence through investment decisions undermines both credibility and community trust. Divestment provides an opportunity to reallocate investments toward companies and governments that demonstrate a measurable commitment to human rights.  Such actions are not only consistent with philanthropic values—they are a powerful conduit to a more just world. Isn't that the ultimate goal of social justice philanthropy?

There is no doubt that standing with Palestinians can be risky and have consequences. Every single social movement of any weight in history was risky at the time. Doing the work of civil rights, against the death penalty, for gay marriage, or against apartheid, just to name a few examples, required people to work through their fears and anxieties despite the potential for real consequences.

As funders or employees of funding institutions, you are more protected than people with less power and fewer resources.  By taking on some degree of risk, you make it easier for others with less power to do so as well. Often, those people are your movement or nonprofit partners, and they are already speaking out or taking action on Palestine. By standing with them, you are helping to diffuse risk, making it safer for everyone. Even if/when a backlash arrives, the more people you organize to stand up together, the easier it will be to withstand.

Especially in the current political climate, there may be legal threats to weather or challenge.  Challenging unjust or unconstitutional laws is an essential part of resisting authoritarianism and fascism. Complying in advance in anticipation of legal action only deepens the systems of control that are currently threatening political independence in every sector.

In the case of Palestine, accusations of antisemitism have a particular weight. These accusations have been weaponized against Palestinians and those who support them as a linchpin of the battle for control over narrative and action. These accusations are used to bully, harass, intimidate, fire, and silence voices for Palestinian rights. Over the last several decades, right-wing forces, with the active participation of the Israeli government, have worked to redefine antisemitism to include criticism of Israel, and in particular to define anti-Zionism as antisemitism. But the call to divest is directed at the actions of the Israeli state, not Jewish people.

Keep in mind that the Jewish community is not a monolith! Jews in Philanthropy have spoken out against weaponization of accusations of antisemitism since October 2023. Jewish organizations including Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow, Rabbis for Ceasefire, Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, and more have consistently spoken out against the weaponization of antisemitism and the need to act against the genocide and for Palestinian liberation.

To present what’s happening in Palestine as an “international issue” is a false dichotomy. The movement for Palestinian liberation is an intersectional one, bringing together issues of gender justice, racial justice, climate justice, migration, anti-war/militarism, state violence, and indigenous rights—all of which are not only global issues but domestic ones as well. The fight for Palestinian liberation is one that encompasses all of us, which is why it’s being targeted. We cannot pick and choose when we stand with these issues if we are to have integrity in our work and lives.

Palestine is also squarely a domestic issue, as the United States is the largest funder of Israel and deeply complicit in what is happening in Gaza.  The United States sends an annual average of $3.8 Billion of our taxpayer dollars to Israel (over $12.5 Billion since October 7, 2023, alone). If we value and fight for public resources such as housing, healthcare, HeadStart, jobs, and education, then we need to understand that our government is prioritizing resourcing Israel’s occupation of Palestine over providing essential care and services to our own people. According to the National Priorities Project, the amount sent to Israel each year could provide 398,743 public housing units per year, just to provide one example. Click here  or here for more examples of trade-offs for funding Israel.

We also must understand the link between the fight for Palestinian liberation and upholding our democracy. The weaponization of anti-semitism is an issue of free speech: it’s a fight for democracy and for access to higher education and other institutions that allow for the free exchange of ideas.

The idea that divestment is too complex to implement often overstates the challenges and underestimates both the tools already available and progress already made. Foundations and nonprofits have long employed investment screens to avoid exposure to industries such as tobacco, private prisons, and fossil fuels. For portfolios with diversified holdings, especially those with external managers, clear mandates and reallocation strategies can be executed over a realistic and responsible timeframe.

When it comes to less liquid investments, such as private equity or hedge funds, divestment may not be able to take place immediately, but that should not be a barrier to starting the process. Most illiquid investments have defined terms. Foundations can take a phased approach: begin with liquid assets, establish a long-term timeline for winding down implicated holdings, and shift future investments away from funds that conflict with the institution’s mission. The presence of lock-up periods is not a justification for inaction—it’s an opportunity to signal commitment and make responsible, values-aligned decisions about where future dollars will be allocated. In some cases, liquidating certain holdings may result in short-term losses, but these can be offset by longer-term benefits, including increased community trust.

The goal is not whole and complete divestment on day one, but a commitment toward responsible progress and clarity over time. Through divestment from misaligned holdings and investment in human rights-focused alternatives, foundations can safeguard their financial health while upholding their values in a time of global crisis.

While self-education is a vital first step, organizing blossoms when awareness turns into action. Building a base of support among team members in your organization is a natural and powerful next iteration of what progress looks like. In this toolkit, we shared a number of principles and tactics that can be used to build power and create change from a base. We discussed how we can collectively understand and claim our agency and power by breaking silos, connecting with peers, listening, finding shared pain points, and creating a cohesive, concerted agenda for change that is clear, concise, actionable, and focuses on common ground. Achieving this creates a buzz in the organization where there was likely a deafening silence before.

Base building starts with the heart of it all–people. Finding your people marks the beginning of institutional rather than individual change, and opens the door to substantive shifts in policy and practices.

If all goes well, progress in your organization will advance from awareness-raising and base-building, to organizationwide advocacy. This is when your base starts to mobilize beyond itself and puts the issue on the table. Now you are calling for change in spaces where change starts to matter, in staff meetings and board rooms and—not just in echo chambers among the like-minded members of your base. This marks a major shift in the journey and requires both tact and a unified strategy amongst your base.

For this stage it is critically important to have a clear collective vision and proposal for change. Divergent pitches and asks coming from different members of your base to organizational leadership will cause confusion and be counterproductive to your growing success. As an example of how to make a clear collective ask, your base may request a review of your foundation’s Investment Policy Statement (IPS) as an opportunity to point out discrepancies and gaps when it comes to Palestine in your Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) framework. Another example is your base may ask to scrutinize a select number of companies in your institutional portfolio that are particularly egregious when it comes to complicity in Israel’s aggression against Palestinians and make a call for shareholder engagement with those companies.

Remember that taking the angle of Palestine as an integral part of a comprehensive values-aligned portfolio is not only strategic, but also fundamental and essential to genuinely aligning your organization with liberation and justice.

Another tier of progress is effecting changes in your organization’s key policies or operational protocols—such as its Investment Policy Statement, Investment Committee governance, asset manager choice—that can enable and empower values-aligned and Palestine-inclusive investment decisions. Such changes can result from the gradual growth of self-awareness, base-building, and time and again bringing the issue to the table. This change also may come about through other means, such as pressure from a key stakeholder, interest expressed by an ally in the organization’s leadership, etc.

Whatever the path, if your organization reaches the point where divestment is a part of policy setting discussions, you have made good progress. In this stage, your base, whether the initiating source or not, should leverage the conversation to push for explicit changes in policy that help etch divestment awareness into the blueprint of the organization. Here again, clear, concise, and specific asks are critical for achieving successful implementation. For example, you may draft model criteria for vetting securities to ensure their sustainability and values-alignment and ask your organization's Investment Committee to adopt them into the IPS. Perhaps you target Investment Committee and Board Member recruitment instead by drafting policy to add to the member selection process an assessment of potential candidates’ value systems—do candidates consider Palestine a part of a holistic ESG portfolio? What are candidates’ views on divesting for climate change, private prisons, and occupations such as Palestine?

If policy changes are a demonstration of intent to commit to change, then implementation is the change. If you have reached this form of progress, congratulate yourself and your comrades! You have not only shown interest and inclination towards investment with a conscience that includes Palestine, you have put it into action.

However, do not let your guard down or become complacent here. Do not assume that once policy is changed, implementation will flow naturally and without roadblocks. This stage takes a heightened level of monitoring and evaluation. It also requires an increased leaning-in of your base.

Policy change is a huge undertaking. It is easy to hit a slump after it is achieved and feel like, “we have done a lot”, and you have! However, policy is only as good as its consistent implementation and regular revision. Make sure as part of your policy change you create feasible processes and procedures for carrying out the proposed changes. For instance, adopting ESG criteria in your IPS that includes both divestment from Israel and a focus on Palestine should include specifics on who and how often the criteria is used to review portfolio holdings.

An ask for an asset manager change should include specific questions to ask for an RFP that assesses for Palestine and broader values-alignment. A policy for questionable or novel securities screenings should include how a security concern can be brought to the attention of the Investment Committee and who can bring it, as well as a timeline for having a final decision on divestment or other action taken.

Don’t lose sight of the fact that policy must have accountability and implementation built into it. Continue to meet and organize as a base, and set a periodic check-in on your calendars to scan the changes you set into motion. Repeatedly ask: are the policies we have developed being implemented as ideally as possible? Do we need to go back and amend or adjust certain policies to better respond to new developments or unforeseen challenges in implementation?

Remember that working toward justice and liberation requires long-haul commitment. Take note of your progress in each stage, using it to deepen your connection with your base and your collective commitment to sustained action.