Australian super funds quietly fuelling Israel’s war machine

Beneath the moral posturing, Australian pension funds are helping to keep Israel’s war economy alive, writes Jemma Nott.

WHEN HESTAAustralia’s healthcare worker super fund announces separation from linked companies Israel’s illegal settlementsIts members applauded a moral stance.

hostplus equally applauded getting rid of nuclear weaponsIt remains determined in other military industry investments.

But both of these pension funds have something in common with almost all superannuation funds in Australia: their members’ funds still directly fund operations in Israel.

Israel took responsibility for the genocide in Palestine several significant debtscontinued to finance the war. Naturally, Israel’s military spending also increased, with war expenditures alone reaching 1 billion shekels (AU$468.2 million). The government said the new bond issue was not only to continue to cover the cost of the war, but also to the budget deficit itself.

Therefore, Israel has to borrow in foreign currency to support the local debt market. On 12 March 2024, Israel issued US$8 billion (AU$12.3 billion). SEC registered bonds. Among the insurers of these loans, BNP Paribas, German Bank And Goldman Sachs.

Before that, they issued US$5 billion (AU$7.7 billion). US denominated loans signed by Bank of America, citigroupDeutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. These banks and financial institutions have since become the most common insurers directly financing the genocide against Palestinians. 7 October.

These are also banks that are deeply embedded in the financial infrastructure of the Australian economy. There has been a lot of interest in Australia in recent months in superannuation funds investing in arms manufacturers. But many of these pension funds also have custody agreements with the same banks that have significant financial interests in Israel.

HESTA over and over again JP Morgan was appointedAustralia’s largest custodian is the global custodian, a third-party manager of the superannuation fund’s investments. Similarly, hostplus And TelstraSuper They appointed JP Morgan as executor.

UniSuper BNP appointed Paribas as guardian. So even in the case of Hostplus or HESTA, even though a pension fund is ostensibly separated from the arms manufacturers, they are providing custodial fees directly from Australian pension funds to the exact same financial institutions that are the primary reason for the survival of the Israeli war machine.

JP Morgan securities services income, including custody increased by 7 percent It will exceed 5 billion dollars in 2024. When we look at this figure, we can begin to get a bigger global picture of how functionally involved not only Australia but also global pension funds are in the financing of Israel’s military activities.

US President Donald Trump‘s “Gaza Peace BoardEssentially designed to divide Gaza and build luxury real estate along the Riviera with support from Gulf states, the proposal includes the former British Prime Minister Tony BlairHe was a senior advisor at JP Morgan.

CEO of JP Morgan Jamie Dimon Shifted closer to Trump after 2025 Davos economic forumTrump told CNBC:true in a wayOn a range of topics.

Dimon would be an incredibly important key to the broader vision of a major project like the Gaza plan. JP Morgan is restructuring investment funds and investing in larger port projects. Jared Kushner‘s Affinity Partners Invest in luxury real estate. Of course, where the US provides loan guarantees, once again, it is US taxpayers who bear this risk, not JP Morgan.

Hostplus recently announced a partnership Apollo Global Management For Asia Pacific credit strategy. President of Apollo Management, Marc Rowan – a vocal Zionist – who is also floated On behalf of the “Gaza Peace Board”. This includes Apollo Management’s investments in Israel, although this has never been confirmed by Rowan. Phoenix Holdings Ltdan Israel-based insurance, asset management and finance group.

According to the agreement, Pheonix will be able to co-invest with Apollo Management and participate in investments of up to $2 billion.

Ultimately, the question remains: What is the concrete meaning of a fund’s ethical policy, given that custodial banks are directly financing the conflict and private equity partners are already envisioning a future for Gaza that prioritizes investor returns over human rights? Is this a genuine commitment or just a marketing strategy that collapses when it comes into contact with the global financial architecture?