Debating Divestment: Student Demands to Cease Investments and Academic Ties with Israel in US Universities

A report by Dana Nasr, English adaptation by Nadine Sassine 

"Ceasing Investments and Academic Partnerships with Israel”

This is the campus student groups' top demand in US universities.

A significant contradiction underpins the figures presented by both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli sides. 
What are these investments' scale?

Student groups assert the existence of massive investments in universities, estimated in tens of billions of dollars. 

However, certain universities, backed by major media outlets, deny the existence of investments of such magnitude. In fact, according to some US newspapers, Israeli grants to 100 universities over the past two decades do not exceed $375 million.

The student groups inquire: If investments are so minimal, why is there difficulty in relinquishing them? Why the fear of Jewish donors withdrawing support, especially after the World Zionist Organization's call to action?

Students from the University of Michigan claim that their university alone sends over $6 billion to Israeli beneficiaries. They have documented evidence of their university's investment in Israeli aircraft production and military surveillance equipment.

In contrast, the University of Michigan denies any direct investments of this nature, stating that investments with Israel are only indirect and represent less than 1% of its total donations, which exceed $18 billion.

 

Another group of universities and media outlets acknowledge investments in favor of Israel but refuse to respond to protesters' demands to relinquish these investments. Among these universities are Columbia, where arrests have begun, Brown, and Yale.

Yale University President Peter Salovey personally admitted investments in Israeli weapons manufacturing companies but refused to divest, claiming they have not yet reached the "threshold of social harm," a stance based on a report from the university's C.C.I.R. advisory committee responsible for investments.

Amid these contentious data points, some universities and supporting politicians pursue two approaches:

- The first is to delegitimize student movements. US media has discussed billionaire George Soros funding student movements, while politicians and other media have labeled protesters as terrorists.
-
The second approach is to claim that divestment from investments is difficult or not worthwhile. 

Protesters argue that divesting is not difficult and has been adopted previously, such as in the 1980s when over 150 universities ceased dealing with apartheid system companies in South Africa.

Divestment also occurred in 2022 when Princeton University divested from fossil fuel companies under student pressure to combat climate change.

Students propose investing instead in companies aligned with broader societal values.

Amid these contentious realities, some universities have chosen a diplomatic path, sending administrators to engage with students, though their effectiveness remains unproven. Others have opted to completely ignore the demands.

What is the truth amid these contradictions, and who will unveil it today?