In my previous article, I wrote about Michigan’s Israel Bonds investment based on the information available at the time. Public records showed that prior bonds had matured, and there was no clear, publicly accessible confirmation that reinvestment had taken place. At the same time, divestment activists were openly claiming victory, framing the bond maturity as evidence that their pressure campaign had succeeded. No official clarification was issued by the State to contradict that narrative.

That was the factual landscape when the article was published.

For members of Michigan’s Jewish community, this was not an abstract financial question. Israel Bonds have long represented more than just an investment vehicle. They have symbolized an institutional relationship between the State of Michigan and Israel—one rooted in mutual economic confidence and shared democratic values. When that relationship appeared, at least publicly, to be in question, it raised understandable concern.

In response, Rabbis and community leaders across Michigan were contacted and invited to sign an open letter calling for clarity. The purpose was straightforward: to determine whether Michigan had in fact allowed its investment to lapse, and if so, to urge reconsideration. The letter was not framed as an accusation, but as a request for transparency at a moment when public narratives were forming in the absence of clear documentation.

Shortly after the article was published and the outreach effort began, conflicting information started to surface. We began hearing claims that reinvestment may have occurred, but no documentation was initially provided to substantiate those claims. Rather than continue escalation based on incomplete information, the decision was made to pause and seek independent confirmation.

That confirmation has now been obtained.

Documentation shows that on December 15, 2025, the State of Michigan executed a $7,000,000 purchase of Israel Bonds, with a maturity date of December 1, 2027. This establishes clearly that Michigan did reinvest and that its financial relationship with Israel remains intact.

This is welcome news.

It is also important to acknowledge what this process revealed. The original concern arose not from rumor, but from the absence of publicly accessible confirmation at a time when divestment activists were publicly celebrating what they believed to be a successful outcome. In that environment, silence creates uncertainty, and uncertainty creates space for narratives that may not reflect reality.

In the course of this process, it also became clear that Michigan has legal and fiduciary frameworks designed to prevent politically motivated divestment, including policies opposing participation in the economic boycott of Israel. These protections exist to ensure that state investment decisions are guided by financial prudence rather than political pressure. But laws and policies alone do not answer public questions. Transparency requires that documentation be accessible and that concerns be addressed directly when they arise.

Community leadership carries a responsibility in these moments. When members of the community raise legitimate concerns—especially concerning issues tied so closely to Jewish security, identity, and continuity—those concerns must be taken seriously. They must be pursued until clear answers are obtained. That is not alarmism. It is stewardship.

I again want to thank the Rabbis and community leaders who signed the original letter. They acted in good faith, based on the information available at the time, and out of a sense of responsibility to the community they serve:

Rabbi Nadav Caine, Beth Israel Congregation, Ann ArborRabbi Shalom Kantor, Congregation B’nai Moshe, West BloomfieldRabbi Asher Lopatin, Kehillat Etz Chayim, Oak ParkEugene Greenstein, Past President, Zionist Organization of America – Michigan Region, SouthfieldRabbi Dorit Edut, Detroit Interfaith Outreach Network, Huntington WoodsRabbi Michele Faudem, Beit Faudem, West BloomfieldRabbi Betzalel Alpert, Partners Detroit, Southfield

Their willingness to step forward reflected leadership at a moment when clarity was needed.

In this case, pursuing those answers led to confirmation that Michigan’s investment relationship with Israel continues. That confirmation now belongs in the public record, alongside the questions that led to it.

Transparency is not about proving suspicion right or wrong. It is about ensuring that facts are known. The facts are now clear.

Michigan did reinvest.

And the record should reflect that plainly.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)