The anti-Zionist Shut It Down (SID) party, which captured control of the University of Michigan’s Central Student Government (CSG) in May, has conceded defeat and voted to approve the fall budget it threatened to veto to force the administration into boycotting Israel, The Michigan Daily reported on Wednesday.

As The Algemeiner previously reported, dozens of SID candidates won election to Central Student Government in the spring by running on a platform which promised to sever the University of Michigan’s academic and financial ties to Israel. After assuming power, CSG president Alifa Chowdury (SID) defunded the school’s 1,700 student clubs by vetoing the summer term budget, which had been “unanimously” supported by the CSG Assembly, and vowed to block any spending bill that would fund them in the fall term. The measure was, in SID’s view, strategic. It argued during the campaign that crippling university operations would inexorably lead to a boycott of Israel.

“CSG merely serves as an extension of an institution that has perpetuated systems of oppression by maintaining the current status quo of neocolonial capitalism,” the party said in a manifesto issued in March. “Every dollar coming out of this university is blood money. Student government cannot operate as usual as we witness the systematic murder of Palestinians. Student life cannot continue as normal when our tuition and labor are being used to fund a genocide.”

However, the university earlier this month resolved to fund the student clubs over Chowduryand SID’s objections, effectively stripping the new government of the power of the purse. Explaining the intervention to The Algemeiner on Tuesday, university spokesperson Colleen Mastony said it was prompted by Chowdury’s “senior” colleagues in the CSG Assembly.

Now, Chowdury has retreated from her original position, the Daily has reported. When CSG met on Tuesday to vote on the budget for fall term, she withheld her veto, formalizing a policy the university had already enacted without her. Conducted by secret ballot, the measure passed 25-15. Addressing the assembly ahead of the vote, Chowdury, claiming to have acted in the interests of the student body, defended vetoing the summer budget as a strategy for advancing the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

BDS seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination. Leaders of the movement have repeatedly proclaimed that their goal is to destroy the world’s only Jewish state.

“I think by not funding student orgs, we are asking the university to step up,” Chowdury said, according to the Daily. “By asking the regents to not just divest from Israel and weapons manufacturing companies but to reinvest money from the $18 billion endowment to students and to make y’alls [sic] lives better.”

Student club leaders attended the meeting to say that Chowdury and SID’s policies would actually be injurious to campus life, the paper added.

“That money is really going towards safety — things like buses, things like athletic trainers,” president of the university’s rugby team Ryan Grover told the assembly. “When the university isn’t providing much for us, that SOFC money is so huge, and it’s really what keeps us operating and keeps us both safe and equitable … and without that funding, there are a lot of people who won’t be able to find their group. They’re going to be a lot worse off mentally. They’re going to be a lot worse off physically.”

Founded in the months after Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel, Shut It Down allegedly committed multiple election code infractions to amass its unprecedented power. According to the Daily, students banded together to contest their election victory, citing multiple instances in which they campaigned in proscribed areas and violated other rules regulating the use of posters and email communications. SID ultimately overcame the challenge following a controversial hearing which the student government, breaking precedent, conducted in secret.

Anti-Zionists at other universities have pursued different strategies for achieving their objectives. At Brown University, for example, the Brown Divest Coalition (BDC) starved themselves and ultimately occupied a section of the campus for weeks. Their behavior earned them a meeting with the university’s trustees in May and a promise that the trustees vote on their demands at its annual October meeting, according to The Brown Daily Herald.

The paper added that BDC has buttressed its case for BDS by citing a 2020 report by the university’s Advisory Committee on Corporate Responsibility in Investment Practices — now renamed the Advisory Committee on University Resource Management — which recommended “divesting [Brown’s] endowment from companies that enable and profit from the genocide in Gaza and the broader Israeli occupation.” Brown president Christina Paxson had previously refused to accept the report’s recommendation, arguing that it breached the body’s mission statement, but it is now the cornerstone of BDC’s case for BDS.

So far, Paxson has positively described discussions with BDC, saying in a letter to the campus community that “the members of the Corporation expressed appreciation to the students for sharing their views and perspectives.”

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.

The post ‘Blood Money’: Anti-Zionist-Controlled University of Michigan Student Government Abandons Spending Freeze Protest first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

US Vice President and 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris expressed “unequivocal” support for Israel’s defense during an interview with CNN on Thursday night but dodged a question on whether she would be willing to place an arms embargo on the Jewish state if she wins the White House in November.

CNN anchor Dana Bash mentioned that US President Joe Biden has “tried unsuccessfully” to end the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. Bash asked Harris if she would consider enacting some policy suggestions from the “progressive left,” such as enacting a weapons embargo against the Jewish state to end the war in Gaza. 

“Let me be very clear. I am unequivocal and unwavering in my commitment to Israel’s defense and its ability to defend itself, and that’s not going to change,” Harris said. 

“But, let’s take a step back,” Harris added, reflecting on Hamas’s Oct. 7 slaughter of roughly 1,200 people and systemic rape of women throughout southern Israel.

“As I said then, I say today: Israel has a right to defend itself. We will. And how it does so matters. Far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed, and we have got to get a deal done,” Harris continued. “We must get a deal that is about getting the hostages out. I’ve met with the families of the American hostages. Let’s get the hostages out. Let’s get the ceasefire done.”

Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists also kidnapped over 250 hostages during their Oct. 7 rampage. About 108 abductees, both dead and alive, still remain in captivity in Gaza.

Bash pressed Harris further on whether she would implement a “change in policy in terms of arms.” Harris seemed to dodge the question, quickly saying “no” before immediately changing the topic to the necessity of securing a ceasefire deal and working toward a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Kamala Harris says “far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed,” but that she would *not* change policy on withholding even “some” US weapons to Israel. pic.twitter.com/1zx2uaJg3w

— Prem Thakker (@prem_thakker) August 30, 2024

“No, we have to get a deal done. Dana, we have to get a deal done. When you look at the significance of this, to the families, to the people who are living in that region. A deal is not only the right thing to do to end this war, but will unlock so much of what must happen next,” Harris said. “I remain committed, since I’ve been on Oct. 8, to what we must do to work toward a two-state solution, where Israel is secure and in equal measure, the Palestinians have security and self-determination and dignity.”

Harris’s comments echoed her previous statements on the Israel-Hamas war since becoming the Democratic nominee for president. Though Harris has repeatedly issued nominal support for Israel, she harbors close ties to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which has become increasingly hostile toward the Jewish state. Harris has been under pressure from pro-Palestinian activists to break with the Biden administration by adopting a more adversarial posture toward Israel. Moreover, Harris does not have the decades-long relationship with Israeli leaders that Biden did.

In July, after holding a private meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Harris told reporters that “Israel has a right to defend itself and how it does so matters” and that she “will not be silent” regarding the humanitarian conditions in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

While delivering a speech to close out the 2024 Democratic National Convention (DNC), Harris stated that she “will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself.” She also emphasized that her administration would ensure Palestinians “realize their right to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination.”

Harris previously urged the White House to be more “sympathetic” toward Palestinians and take a “tougher” stance against Netanyahu, according to a Politico report in December. In March, White House aides forced Harris to tone down a speech that was too tough on Israel, according to NBC News.

Later, she did not rule out “consequences” for Israel if it launched a large-scale military offensive to root out Hamas battalions in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, citing humanitarian concerns for the civilian population.

Harris initially called for an “immediate ceasefire” before Biden and has often used more pointed language when discussing the war, Israel, and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

The post Kamala Harris Declares ‘Unequivocal’ Support for Israel’s Defense, Dodges Question on Implementing Arms Embargo first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

British lawyers have mounted a challenge against the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, demanding a review of the arrest warrant issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which they claim is based on “entirely false” allegations.

UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) has warned that if Khan, who is also a British barrister, does not re-examine the evidence supporting the warrant, the group will report him to the UK Bar Standards Board for potential misconduct.

UKLFI’s letter to Khan alleges that “highly relevant evidence” has emerged since the arrest warrant was issued against Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant which they claim undermines the charges. The new evidence has not been put forward to the judges, something that the lawyers argue “amounts to a serious lack of integrity.”

“Every phrase of every sentence of [Khan’s] published summary of his applications for their arrest is false. It is a travesty that would do credit to the prosecutor of Albert Dreyfus,” Jonathan Turner, the chief executive of UKLFI and one of the three signatories of the letter, told The Algemeiner in a statement.

Dreyfus was a French army officer falsely convicted of espionage in a landmark case that sparked antisemitic violence across France.

UKLFI’s letter was released a day after the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) published a report highlighting past remarks from Khan, prior to his appointment as the UN court’s top prosecutor, in which he sharply criticized the International Criminal Court’s prosecution for its inadequate standards of proof, going so far as to describe the court as “not seaworthy.”

The Algemeiner contacted Khan’s office for a response to the allegations but did not receive a reply.

The International Criminal Court (ICC), under Khan’s leadership, has actively pursued arrest warrants against officials from both Israel and the Gaza-ruling Hamas terror group, prompting outrage from Israel at the implied comparison between the sides.

The ICC has charged Netanyahu and Gallant with war crimes in Gaza, accusing them of actions such as using starvation as a method of warfare and intentionally targeting civilians.

The lawyers asserted that the ICC has failed to consider exonerating evidence and has presented a deeply misleading picture of the events. The 24-page rebuttal also disputes claims that Israel imposed a “total siege” on Gaza, arguing instead that humanitarian aid was allowed and that services like water and electricity were not intentionally cut off. In one instance, the prosecution relied on findings from a March report about famine in parts of the Gaza Strip. The report was discredited in a June review by the Famine Review Committee (FRC) as “implausible,” but the chief prosecutor did not update his arrest application accordingly.

In another instance, the UKLFI lawyers vehemently contested the claims that Israel intentionally disrupted essential utilities, arguing instead that Israeli forces undertook repairs on water pipelines, while Hamas was responsible for destroying nine out of ten power lines supplying Gaza from Israel.

Khan has come under fire for making his surprise demand for arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant on the same day in May that he suddenly canceled a long-planned visit to both Gaza and Israel to collect evidence of alleged war crimes. The last-second cancellation infuriated US and British leaders, according to Reuters, which reported that the trip would have offered Israeli leaders a first opportunity to present their position and outline any action they were taking to respond to the war crime allegations.

“This matters to more than just Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant. If the prosecutor can have the court issue arrest warrants on the basis of bogus allegations, no one is safe from the risk of arrest and possibly years of imprisonment in The Hague, even if eventually acquitted,” Turner said.

Only the prosecutor himself decides what information is provided to the court when it considers whether to issue an arrest warrant, Turner explained, putting him in a “very powerful position.”

“He is supposed to act impartially, seeking truth objectively, obtaining and providing evidence that shows innocence as well as guilt,” he said, but added that now he was seeking Netanyahu and Gallant’s arrests “on the basis of completely false information.”

One of the key points of contention is the killing of three humanitarian aid workers from World Central Kitchen by Israeli forces, which the ICC cited as a war crime. The UKLFI letter references an Australian-led investigation that found the Israel Defense forces (IDF) had mistakenly identified aid vehicles as threats, and those involved were disciplined — and in some cases, dismissed entirely — for failing to follow engagement protocols.

In a 43-page essay published in 2013, eight years before he began his ICC appointment, Khan described the court as “a think tank of a court divorced or unfamiliar with the realities of criminal investigations and courtroom litigation.”

ICC procedures, he asserted, allowed the prosecutor “to submit and rely on anonymous summaries of witness evidence that may be significantly lacking in substance, coherence, or both” and cited cases in which suspects were wrongly confirmed for trial.

Three years later, in a 2016 interview, Khan described the ICC as not “seaworthy.” The top UN Court needed to be “repaired significantly”; otherwise “international justice and the credibility of the ICC” was in jeopardy.

“You must get it right in the investigative stage,” he said.

“Like an alcoholic,” Khan went on, “the first step [is] to accept that there’s a problem.” International investigations, Khan said, were a “serious business” that should not be conducted in the glare of the CNN, BBC World, and Al-Jazeera news cycle — which he said is a “disaster brought to the ICC.”

He accused the Office of the Top Prosecutor, over which he would later preside, of submitting “dog’s breakfasts” of cases that “peddled lies.”

Khan was previously the defense counsel for then-Liberian President Charles McArthur Ghankay Taylor, who was later found guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, rape, slavery, and the use of child soldiers, becoming the first former head of state to be convicted for crimes against humanity by an international tribunal since the Nuremburg trials of Nazi leaders following World War II.

The post Lawyers Group Challenges ICC Prosecutor Over ‘Bogus’ Arrest Warrant for Netanyahu first appeared on Algemeiner.com.