Report comment

It's a pity no comment is asked from ICCO, Oxfam and PAX while they are accused to be 'anti-Israel' in this article.

Secondly the journalists use the frame of "anti-Israel versus pro-Palestine in this article. If more attention in this article had been given to the arguments of PFZW (and pension funds in Luxembourg, Norway and Danish and German banks) know that this decision for divestment was not focused on Israel as such, but focused on the occupation of the Palestinian territories and the settlements. An issue on which governments worldwide have a clear stance; that they are illegal and in breach of international law (interesting to note is that The Centre for Information and Documentation on Israel, quoted in this article is also opposed to the settlements).

The decision for divestments by PFZW and other institutional investors worldwide was not based on political views, but was based on judgments of the International Court of Justice. This so-called advisory opinion has its implications for institutional investors such as pension funds who follow guidelines such as the UN Global Compact and the OECD Guidelines.

All these points are not touched upon in this article, instead focusing on the frame "pro-Palestine versus pro-Israel" which is a clear simplification and therefore missing relevant points for institutional investors.