The actions and support of senior Israelis in the high-tech industry in the context of withdrawing funds and activities from Israel are problematic in several aspects.
They mention the calls and actions of the BDS movement.
I am writing this against the background of many years of living, working and promoting Israeli high-tech in the West and the East, where we have often encountered boycotts due to what was defined as a response to the policies of the Israeli regime.
Since 2005, 170 anti-Israel organizations have been operating with the goal of taking money out of Israel and preventing organizations and people from operating in Israel.
These succeeded in their mission when they reached more than 1,000 companies and organizations.
The activists there are convinced to the depths of their souls that they are working in the name of a noble cause of human rights, social justice and disaster prevention.
In our funds, we encountered European pension bodies that prevented investments in our funds or companies, and also attempted to withdraw from the agreements.
That's why the joining of Israeli hi-tech companies, funds and Israeli investors in operations in the direction of confiscation is painful.
The actions not only cause damage to the banks in Israel, to the workers and to the image of the state - they encourage the BDS movements that have already begun to ride on the new phenomenon in Israel of self-harm: "The Israelis are also boycotting the Zionist regime" - thus doing more harm than good.
It is legitimate to fight the government and its plans, and perhaps necessary, but the tools should not include using investors' money and creating a snowball that not only helps the enemies of the state, but also sins against the goal.
First, the actions alienate some of the liberal-Zionist audiences who are not in a hurry to align themselves with preventive moves.
Second, managers lose their own power by abandoning the arena.
It would be more correct to increase the entry of investors and funds into Israel within contractual stipulations and flexible mechanisms in the management of funds, appropriate for investment in an environment of regulatory-legal risk - to the extent that it is estimated that there is an increasing risk to funds, mechanisms and business models can be introduced into the agreements that allow the movement of funds and registration in light of changes in practice.
For example, a sleeve reversal model that creates a corporate registration change.
Moves of intimidation and public spending of money, as many of my friends in high-tech advise, will very likely achieve the opposite goal.
There is no vacuum in the investment world, and Israel has a successful ecosystem with great talent that creates a high perceived return.
Therefore, instead of investors and funds leaving - new investors and funds will enter that will be less liberal and less attentive to civil rights.
Damage to the economy by leaving Israel will mainly change the composition of the ecosystem to a less liberal composition, and those who will be harmed in the end will be the weak layers.
Finally, I will address the moral aspect.
The start-up and innovation scene in Israel grew thanks to the state institutions, the army, the Jewish communities, branding, and immigration to Israel.
The managers who are now withdrawing money from Israel benefited from this, they acted at the right time and in the right place and succeeded.
The use of force, and the damage to the state - subject to moral debate, even if the purpose of the move is extremely important.
On the other hand, attracting new forces in with flexible business models, along with appealing to new audiences in the public to join an innovative approach, will be both efficient and ethical.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us