Experts who follow financial movements to boycott Israel closely believe that a group of U.S. Jewish and pro-Israel organizations is being duped by international index provider MSCI, which says that it has taken steps to treat Israel more fairly.
JLens, the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Federations of North America stated on Sept. 10 that they support the “important steps” that MSCI took “to ensure neutrality and mitigate the risk of bias in its environmental, social and governance controversies products” and appreciate “the productive dialogue with MSCI.”
But Rich Goldberg, a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JNS that the company, which reported nearly $773 million in operating revenue in the second quarter of 2025, isn’t to be trusted.
“MSCI wants to paint itself as a useful idiot that simply passes along negative news coverage about companies, but the evidence makes clear it is a conveyor belt for the BDS campaign against Israel,” said Goldberg, who authored the first U.S. state law against the movement to boycott Israel, in Illinois.
The changes upon which MSCI and the Jewish groups agreed are “more cosmetic than systemic,” according to Goldberg. He added that MSCI only agreed to those changes under pressure of a multi-state investigation, which was launched following JNS’s reporting on the topic.
Anat Alon-Beck, an attorney at the National Jewish Advocacy Center who works with litigation about boycotts of Israel, told JNS that the changes to which MSCI agreed “may amount largely to cosmetic adjustments.”
There needs to be more evidence before Alon-Beck will believe that the company isn’t directing “disproportionate scrutiny and penalties” at Israeli companies and those who do business in Israel.
“True neutrality means applying standards consistently across all regions, without singling out Israel for treatment that undermines fair access to global capital markets,” she told JNS.
‘Concrete steps’
The coalition of Jewish groups stated that it doesn’t agree with all of MSCI’s approaches, but it “is satisfied that MSCI does not support or endorse the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, and it appreciates the concrete steps the company has taken.”
“Throughout the dialogue, the coalition emphasized its core objective: ensuring that Israel-related companies are treated no differently than companies in any other region, and it welcomed MSCI’s stated commitment to consistently and neutrally apply its methodology,” it said.
A source with knowledge of the discussions between the Jewish groups and MSCI told JNS that “these kinds of announcements and changes by big companies have an effect on the industry.”
“Like any company, they have a series of rules for how they talk about something,” the source said. “We pointed out a number of fallacies that they had in the way that they described the conflict, and that was changed. That changes the nature of decision-making.”
Critics have said that MSCI has relied disproportionately on anti-Israel sources, such as the U.N. Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch and Al Jazeera, which often report on boycotts and protests against Israeli companies and those doing business with Israel.
Those anti-Israel sources end up being cited in “controversies” that ratings firms assign to Israeli companies, which can lead would-be investors to avoid the companies with ties to Israel.
For example, MSCI assigned a “severe” controversy score to the U.S. construction equipment manufacturer Caterpillar based on a report in the Palestine Chronicle. (A different writer for that publication held Israeli hostages in Gaza.)
An official at a U.S. pro-Israel organization told JNS that it is “extremely disappointing” that MSCI still associates controversies with companies that do business with or in Israel. Rather than working with the coalition, the source’s organization is working behind the scenes to bring about more change at MSCI.
MSCI has agreed to archive and remove “several” Israel-related controversies from its reports if there are no new allegations and to exclude sources with known biases toward and linked to boycotts of Israel from its controversy ratings.
Companies assigned controversy ratings will also have the chance to rebut, and MSCI has committed to publishing such rebuttals in reports on the companies. MSCI will also note in controversy reports that the “controversies” reflect “publicly reported allegations, not findings endorsed or investigated by MSCI.”
“Neutral language” will also be required in describing controversies.
Goldberg fears that it is inevitable that MSCI will backslide, as mainstream news outlets cover boycotts of Israel, including by sovereign wealth funds such as Norway’s, which recently made news. (The White House decried the fund’s decision.)
The source with knowledge of the discussions between the coalition and MSCI told JNS that those who want to boycott Israel will find other ways to do so.
“A lot of the problems have come in from Europe. We certainly see a lot of divestment and boycott movements from large sovereign wealth funds come from there,” the source said. “That’s a real issue to tackle, and is something that will not be solved entirely with domestic efforts.”
