Palestine & Occupied Territories
We exclude companies that profit from Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories — settlement construction, military technology, surveillance infrastructure, discriminatory resource arrangements. The ICJ ruled this occupation unlawful in 2024. We don't wait for political resolution to stop funding what international law has condemned.
Rawls called this the veil of ignorance: design the rules of a society without knowing where in it you'll land. A system that confiscates land by ethnic group, allocates water by ethnicity, and locks those arrangements in place with military force fails that test immediately.
Israel has one of the world's most productive startup ecosystems. The TASE closed 2024 at $344–385 billion market cap. The Palestine Exchange: a fraction of that. The asymmetry is not, in itself, a moral argument — but it determines how we assign accountability. Decisions made from that kind of economic strength are decisions made from strength. Accountability scales with capacity.
For any multinational in this screen: why is this company here? Not weapons manufacturers — excluded regardless. Consider companies listing settlement properties or supplying demolition equipment. In nearly every case, the revenue is marginal. If the revenue is marginal, staying is strategic, not financial. Management has decided the conflict theater is a growth vector. We dislike that bet and its premise.
The international legal record supports our position. On July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice declared Israel's 57-year occupation unlawful. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem have each independently concluded these practices constitute apartheid. The ICC has issued arrest warrants.
We are signatories to the Apartheid-Free Pledge. We excluded these companies before the ICJ ruled. The court caught up. This is not a statement about the existence of any state. It is a refusal to fund what the legal record, the humanitarian record, and our own analysis condemn.
— Sloane Ortel, Founder & CIO
See § 3.3 of our screening policy for the full criteria.
What we exclude
- Companies operating in occupied territories that entrench or profit from the occupation
- Defense contractors providing weapons, surveillance equipment, or security services to occupying forces
- Firms providing financial, legal, or infrastructure support that entrenches the occupation
- Companies benefiting from systematic discrimination
- Business operations in or support of active conflict zones
- Violations of indigenous community rights and sovereignty
This is also a financial position
Companies embedded in prolonged armed conflict carry material risk: sanctions, divestment campaigns, contract cancellations as governments shift policy, reputational damage that takes years to price in. We treat preventable harm as a leading indicator of financial risk — not a separate consideration.
Defense contractors with concentrated government client bases in politically contested theaters face the same stranded-asset dynamic we've seen in fossil fuels: the thesis holds until policy shifts, and by then the capital is deployed.
Excluded Companies (0 total)
Showing 0 of 0 companies excluded under this screen.
No companies currently excluded under this screen.