Residents urge Palm Beach County to stop investing in Israel bonds, cite legal and financial risks

Dozens of speakers at a Palm Beach County Commission public comment period on April 23 called on the county to stop investing public funds in Israel bonds, arguing the purchases support human-rights abuses abroad and concentrate the county’s portfolio in a single foreign issuer.

Residents pressed commissioners with moral and financial arguments, urging an ordinance to bar investments in entities “engaged in genocide or occupation.” Christine Stapleton, a county resident who identified herself as an investigative reporter, told the board the county’s written investment priorities are safety, liquidity and return and argued Israel bonds sit “far outside the risk curve” because they are unlisted and have limited secondary-market liquidity.

Why it matters: Speakers said the county’s holdings represent both a reputational and financial risk that could limit the county’s flexibility in an emergency. Several commenters asked the board to redirect funds toward local priorities such as affordable housing and mental-health services instead of overseas bond purchases.

Speakers repeatedly disputed the size and legality of the holdings. One speaker said, “I was stunned to learn Palm Beach County is the largest holder of Israel bonds in the world,” and called that concentration “an appalling amount of risk.” Les Gomez and others alleged the county comptroller violated local percentage limits and traced a series of limit increases they said raised the county’s allowable exposure to Israel bonds to about 18 percent of certain pools.

County officials responded. Joseph Abruzzo, Palm Beach County administrator, told the board the money invested in Israel bonds is part of the county’s investment income pool rather than dollar-for-dollar appropriated project funds and said it is the board’s responsibility to determine allocation of investment income. Abruzzo also said state law explicitly allows local governments to invest in Israel bonds and said those bonds “have never missed a payment on principal or interest.”

Board counsel and county legal staff also answered procedural questions and noted the county’s authority to set percentage exposure under its investment policy. The county did not take a formal vote during the session.

Claims and possible next steps: Commenters sought an ordinance to ban investments in entities engaged in the alleged abuses and asked the commission to remove a named official from the Investment Policy Committee. The mayor said the board will discuss whether to consider changes to the public-comment card and whether to pursue policy options; no ordinance or vote was taken at the meeting.

The commission adjourned after public comment. Commissioners and staff indicated they would consider follow-up actions and legal options but did not commit to a specific timeline for any policy change.