Uncategorized
As foreign investors warn over Israel’s future, ratings firm accused of anti-Israel bias says it’s not worried — for now
(JTA) — As much of the financial world increasingly eyes political developments in Israel with concern, a company that specializes in assessing investments based on social responsibility criteria made a special announcement Wednesday in which it declared Israel “a low-risk country.”
That designation is both a signal to investors that they are unlikely to get entangled in human rights abuses or other scandals if they put their money in Israel, and a reassurance intended for pro-Israel advocates who have accused the company of bias against Israel.
The announcement from the multibillion-dollar Chicago-based financial research firm Morningstar is the latest entry in a debate about how companies around the world should regard the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One side says that Israel should be treated as regular Western democracy and the other says that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians should put the country in the class of authoritarian regimes.
But another debate about Israel’s investment worthiness has emerged in recent months following the election of a new Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu, whose slim parliamentary majority relies on the support of parties with far-right platforms.
Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption, has vowed to overhaul Israel’s judicial system and rein in the independence of the courts. Many financial analysts consider a weakened judiciary a red flag for investors.
Sarah Wirth, a spokesperson for Morningstar, said that its analysis designating Israel a low-risk country does not yet account for recent developments in Israel.
“Some of the changes developing in Israel may impact their Country Risk Rating once we incorporate them into our analysis,” Wirth wrote in an email to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in reference to the judicial reform plan.
The latest warning about Israel’s place in the global economy emerged Friday with the leak of an internal report written by JPMorgan, one of the largest banks in the world.
The report compared Israel to Poland, which passed a similar judicial reform in 2016 and saw a downgrade to its credit rating, which was a major blow because national credit ratings can either attract or drive away investments from abroad.
JPMorgan analysts wrote that Israel’s credit rating still “stands comfortably in the investment grade bucket” but that Netanyahu’s plan could cause it to go down.
The report adds to a warning by another Wall Street giant, Goldman Sachs, which said last week that the Israeli shekel could be affected by “growing concern over domestic political developments.”
“The five most recent elections over the past three-year period have had typically limited read-through to financial markets,” Goldman Sachs economist Tadas Gedminas wrote in a report. “This is not to say that the current situation could not have a more meaningful impact this time around, and we will closely monitor ongoing developments.”
Netanyahu has rejected criticism of his judicial plan by saying that the proposed reforms are being misrepresented by his critics and that they would merely bring Israel’s courts in line with courts in other Western countries. The plan would limit the ability of the Supreme Court to rule laws and government actions as unconstitutional, give the government control over the appointments of new judges and end the independence of the position of legal advisor across various government offices, among other measures.
Netanyahu has also said that regardless of the warnings by analysts, international investors are excited about Israel and eager to acquire equity in Israeli companies. His latest pronouncement came from France where he said he met with 60 local business leaders.
“What they’re saying about investors running away is nonsense,” Netanyahu said. “We want to increase our investments in Israel.”
Some of Israel’s own business leaders are concerned enough about the country’s direction that they are choosing to decamp. The CEO of tech company Verbit, which was valued at $2 billion in 2021, announced Tuesday that he would leave the country to avoid paying millions in taxes as a protest of the judicial overhaul plan.
“Over the past few years, I’ve paid tens of millions of dollars in taxes and my company has paid hundreds of millions in taxes,” Verbit CEO Tom Livne said on Israel’s Channel 12. He encouraged others in Israel’s vaunted tech sector to do the same.
Livne’s announcement comes about a week after two Israeli tech firms, including one that was valued at $3.7 billion in 2021, said they would withdraw assets from Israel for the same reason.
—
The post As foreign investors warn over Israel’s future, ratings firm accused of anti-Israel bias says it’s not worried — for now appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ to Convene at WH on Feb. 19, One Day After Trump’s Meeting with Netanyahu
US President Donald Trump speaks to the media during the 56th annual World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 22, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse/File Photo
i24 News – A senior official from one of the member states confirms to i24NEWS that an invitation has been received for a gathering of President Trump’s Board of Peace at the White House on February 19, just one day after the president’s planned meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The meeting comes amid efforts to advance the implementation of the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, following the limited reopening of the Rafah crossing, the expected announcement on the composition and mandate of the International Stabilization Force, and anticipation of a Trump declaration setting a deadline for Hamas to disarm.
In Israel officials assess that the announcement is expected very soon but has been delayed in part due to ongoing talks with the Americans over Israel’s demands for the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip. Trump reiterated on Thursday his promise that Hamas will indeed be disarmed.
Uncategorized
If US Attacks, Iran Says It Will Strike US Bases in the Region
FILE PHOTO: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi meets with Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi in Muscat, Oman, February 6, 2026. Photo: Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs/ Handout via REUTERS/File Photo
Iran will strike US bases in the Middle East if it is attacked by US forces that have massed in the region, its foreign minister said on Saturday, insisting that this should not be seen as an attack on the countries hosting them.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi spoke to Qatari Al Jazeera TV a day after Tehran and Washington pledged to continue indirect nuclear talks following what both sides described as positive discussions on Friday in Oman.
While Araqchi said no date had yet been set for the next round of negotiations, US President Donald Trump said they could take place early next week. “We and Washington believe it should be held soon,” Araqchi said.
Trump has threatened to strike Iran after a US naval buildup in the region, demanding that it renounce uranium enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear bombs, as well as stopping ballistic missile development and support for armed groups around the region. Tehran has long denied any intent to weaponize nuclear fuel production.
While both sides have indicated readiness to revive diplomacy over Tehran’s long-running nuclear dispute with the West, Araqchi balked at widening the talks out.
“Any dialogue requires refraining from threats and pressure. (Tehran) only discusses its nuclear issue … We do not discuss any other issue with the US,” he said.
Last June, the US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, joining in the final stages of a 12-day Israeli bombing campaign. Tehran has since said it has halted uranium enrichment activity.
Its response at the time included a missile attack on a US base in Qatar, which maintains good relations with both Tehran and Washington.
In the event of a new US attack, Araqchi said the consequences could be similar.
“It would not be possible to attack American soil, but we will target their bases in the region,” he said.
“We will not attack neighboring countries; rather, we will target US bases stationed in them. There is a big difference between the two.”
Iran says it wants recognition of its right to enrich uranium, and that putting its missile program on the negotiating table would leave it vulnerable to Israeli attacks.
Uncategorized
My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France?
As a historian of modern France, I have rarely seen a connection between my everyday life in my adopted state of Texas and my work on my adopted specialization: the period we call Vichy France. Apart from the Texan boast that the Lone Star Republic is bigger than the French Republic, and the small town of Paris, Texas, which boasts its own Eiffel Tower, I had no reason to compare the two places where I have spent more than half of my life.
Until now.
Last week, professors and instructors at the University of Houston received an unsettling memo from the administration, which asked us to sign a statement that we teach rather than “indoctrinate” our students.
Though the administration did not define “indoctrinate,” it hardly takes a PhD in English to read between the lines. Indoctrination is precisely what our state government has already forbidden us from doing in our classes. There must not be the slightest sign in our courses and curricula of references to diversity, identity and inclusion. The catch-all word used is “ideology,” a term Governor Greg Abbott recently invoked when he warned that “Texas is targeting professors who are more focused on pushing leftist ideologies rather than preparing students to lead our nation. We must end indoctrination.”
This is not the first time in the past several months that I have been reminded of what occurred in France during the four years that it was ruled by its German occupiers and Vichy collaborators.
Very briefly, with Germany’s rapid and complete defeat of France in 1940, an authoritarian, antisemitic and collaborationist regime assumed power. Among its first acts was to purge French Jews from all the professions, including high school and university faculties, and to impose an “oath of loyalty” to the person of Marshal Philippe Pétain, the elderly but ramrod straight and clear-headed hero of World War I.
The purpose of the oath was simple and straightforward: By demanding the fealty of all state employees to the person of Pétain, it also demanded their hostility to the secular and democratic values of the French republican tradition. Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of teachers signed the oath —even the novelist and feminist Simone de Beauvoir, who needed her salary as a lycée teacher, as did the writer Jean Guéhenno, a visceral anti-Pétainist who continued to teach at the prestigious Paris lycée Henri IV until he was fired in 1943.
Vichy’s ministers of education understood the vital importance that schools and universities played in shaping citizens. Determined to replace the revolutionary values of liberty, equality and fraternity with the reactionary goals of family, work and homeland, they sought to eliminate “godless schools” and instill a “moral order” based on submission to state and church authorities. This radical experiment, powered by a reactionary ideology, to return France to the golden age of kings, cardinals and social castes came to an inglorious end with the Allied liberation of the country and collapse of Vichy scarcely four years after it had begun.
The French Jewish historian Marc Bloch — who joined the Resistance and sacrificed his life on behalf of a very different ideology we can call humanism — always insisted on the importance of comparative history. But comparison was important not because it identified similarities but because it illuminated differences. Clearly, the situation of professors at UH is very different from that of their French peers in Vichy France. We are not risking our jobs, much less our lives, by resisting this ham-handed effort to demand our loyalty to an anti-indoctrination memo.
But the two situations are not entirely dissimilar, either. Historians of fascism like Robert Paxton remind us that such movements begin slowly, then suddenly assume terrifying proportions. This was certainly the case in interwar France, where highly polarized politics, frequent political violence and a long history of antisemitism and anti-republicanism prepared the ground for Vichy. In France, Paxton writes, this slow, then sudden transformation “changed the practice of citizenship from the enjoyment of constitutional rights and duties to participation in mass ceremonies of affirmation and conformity.”
As an historian of France, I always thought its lurch into authoritarianism was shocking, but not surprising. After all, many of the elements for this change had existed well before 1940. But as a citizen of America, I am not just shocked, but also surprised by official demands for affirmation and conformity. One day I will find the time to think hard about my naiveté. But the time is now to think about how we should respond to these demands.
The post My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France? appeared first on The Forward.