NYC Comptroller Brad Lander Faces Accusations of Quiet Divestment from Israel Bonds

NYC Comptroller Brad Lander Faces Accusations of Quiet Divestment from Israel Bonds

Edited by: TJVNews.com

In what critics are calling a politically charged shift in financial strategy, New York City Comptroller and current mayoral candidate Brad Lander is under scrutiny for allegedly divesting city pension funds from Israel Bonds — breaking a long-standing bipartisan tradition upheld by his predecessors and contrasting sharply with the actions of his state counterpart.

According to report that appeared on Sunday in The New York Post, the controversy centers around a quiet but consequential deviation from a decades-old investment strategy. The city’s commitment to investing in Israel Bonds dates back to 1974, when then-Comptroller Harrison Goldin initiated a $30 million investment in State of Israel Bonds through the Teachers Retirement pension system — an early show of solidarity and financial partnership with the Jewish State.

Over the years, successive city comptrollers, including Bill Thompson, John Liu, and Scott Stringer, reaffirmed this commitment. As older bonds matured, they were reinvested — reinforcing both financial returns and symbolic support for Israel. According to The New York Post report, Israel Bonds have proven to be a solid investment, averaging approximately 5% returns annually.

However, under Lander’s tenure, the city’s position in Israel Bonds has markedly dwindled. Only one city pension fund — the Police Pension Fund — currently holds a modest stake of $1.17 million in Israeli Yankee bonds. That figure represents a dramatic decline from past levels and has raised red flags among pro-Israel investors and political observers alike.

Lander’s office has responded by claiming that the city’s pension funds do not directly invest in foreign sovereign debt — a statement that critics immediately challenged. As The New York Post report pointed out, this explanation appears inconsistent with historical practice, as previous comptrollers did invest in such instruments, particularly in Israel Bonds.

One of the most vocal critics of Lander’s approach is Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a former trustee of the City University of New York (CUNY) and a longtime Israel bond investor. In comments reported by The New York Post, Wiesenfeld accused Lander of engaging in what he called a form of “passive divestment” — allowing bonds to expire without reinvesting in new ones, effectively reducing financial support for Israel without a formal divestment declaration.

“Lander is divesting from Israel for political reasons. He wants to be allied with his pro-Jihadi, anti-Israel contingent,” Wiesenfeld charged, in a sharp rebuke of the comptroller’s motives. He further argued that Lander’s actions may violate his fiduciary responsibilities, noting that Israel Bonds remain financially sound and continue to deliver positive returns.

In contrast, Wiesenfeld praised New York State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli for maintaining the state’s investment commitment to Israel. Under DiNapoli’s stewardship, the state pension system holds a substantial $363.9 million in Israel Bonds — a clear and deliberate show of continued financial and moral support.

“I and many Republicans admire Tom DiNapoli for his personal fairness and decency, attributes that make him unique in New York politics. He’s a special mensch,” Wiesenfeld told The New York Post, hailing DiNapoli’s stance as commendable, particularly amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

The issue has taken on significant political implications, especially as Lander faces a mayoral primary challenge from former Comptroller Scott Stringer, who has refrained from commenting on the controversy. The investment—or lack thereof—in Israel Bonds could influence the votes of both pro-Israel Jewish constituents and critics of the Jewish state in the upcoming Democratic primary.

While New York City’s position in Israel Bonds has drastically declined under Lander’s tenure, New York State has maintained and even expanded its investments. State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, who serves as the sole trustee of the state’s pension fund, has invested a substantial $363.9 million in Israeli bonds. This includes $327.1 million in Development Corporation for Israel bonds and $36.8 million in Public State of Israel debt, a clear sign of financial confidence in the Jewish state’s economy.

By contrast, The New York Post reported that New York City’s pension funds were previously invested in Israeli bonds as part of the global fixed portfolio strategy under former Comptroller Scott Stringer. However, under Lander’s leadership, the city’s stake in Israel Bonds has dwindled to a mere $1.17 million, limited to a small holding in the Police Pension Fund. This drastic shift has raised concerns among pro-Israel advocates and financial analysts alike, particularly given the historically strong returns from Israel Bonds, averaging 5% per year.

Lander’s handling of the controversy has only fueled further speculation. As reported by The New York Post, when asked whether he and his representatives on pension boards deliberately chose not to reinvest in Israel Bonds when existing ones matured, Lander’s office declined to comment. This silence has led many to suspect that his actions amount to a passive divestment strategy.

At the same time, Lander has insisted that he does not support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate Israel economically and politically. A spokesperson for Lander emphasized that his office continues to invest in Israeli-owned companies, similar to investments made in businesses owned by Americans, Canadians, Chinese, Saudis, and others.

“Comptroller Lander does not support – and has never supported – boycott, divestment, or sanctions against Israel,” the spokesperson told The New York Post.

However, critics argue that actions speak louder than words. If Lander truly opposed BDS, they say, his office would have continued the longstanding policy of reinvesting in Israeli bonds, as was done under Stringer and prior comptrollers.

The controversy escalated further after comments Lander made at a mayoral forum hosted by the New York Progressive Action Network on February 5. When asked about investing in Israeli bonds, Lander appeared to dismiss the notion outright.

“We don’t have any Israeli bonds because that’s just, that’s a category of investments that we don’t currently, that we don’t have,” he said at the event, as reported by The Daily News and later highlighted by The New York Post.

This statement raised eyebrows, as it contradicted historical precedent and failed to acknowledge that the city had previously maintained investments in Israel Bonds for decades before his tenure. It also reinforced suspicions among pro-Israel advocates that his lack of reinvestment in Israeli bonds was a politically motivated decision rather than a purely financial one.

Lander’s handling of the Israel Bonds issue could prove pivotal in his bid for the mayor’s office. With Scott Stringer now running against Lander in the Democratic primary, the decline of city pension investments in Israel Bonds under Lander could become a key campaign issue. Stringer, who oversaw these investments during his tenure as comptroller, has remained silent on the matter, perhaps waiting to see how the controversy unfolds before weighing in.

Meanwhile, the votes of New York City’s large Jewish population—many of whom are strong supporters of Israel—could be swayed by this issue. As The New York Post report indicated, both pro-Israel voters and critics of Israel could play a decisive role in determining the Democratic nominee for mayor.

At the heart of this controversy lies a broader debate about the role of financial investments in global politics. While DiNapoli has made clear his commitment to Israel Bonds, Lander’s passive approach suggests a deliberate shift away from such investments, despite their historically solid returns. Whether this shift is driven by political ideology or a reassessment of investment strategies remains unclear.

It is evident that Lander’s handling of Israel Bonds will remain under intense scrutiny, particularly as the mayoral primary approaches. With the potential to influence both Jewish voters and broader pro-Israel constituencies, this controversy could prove to be a defining issue in Lander’s political future.