RSS
US Colleges Reject Divestment Proposals Targeting Israel
Illustrative: Law enforcement clash with pro-Hamas demonstrators at the University of Michigan on Aug. 28, 2024. Photo: Brendan Gutenschwager/X
American universities are largely rejecting demands to divest from Israel and entities at all linked to the Jewish state, delivering further blows to the pro-Hamas protest movement, which students and faculty pushed with dozens of illegal demonstrations to coerce officials into enacting the policy.
“We have a fiduciary responsibility to preserve and grow the endowment, which directly supports the mission of the university,” Chapman University trustee Jim Burra said in a statement issued on Wednesday. “It is important that we make financial decisions based on risk and return.”
Late last month, the University of Minnesota provided similar reasons for not divesting from Israel, citing “fiduciary duty” and the extent to which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict polarizes the campus community. However, the university adopted a new policy for its investments, a so-called “position of neutrality” which insulates official business from the daily caprices of political opinion.
“For the past several months, we have sought expert analysis and a variety of perspectives on how the university invests its Consolidated Endowment Fund,” Board of Regents chair Janie Mayeron said in a statement. “We have reviewed how this fund operates, how it supports affordable education for students, groundbreaking research, and community engagement, and the possible financial challenges of divestment … In the end, it is clear our community is divided on the topic. After careful consideration of all this input, we believe today’s action honors our fiduciary duty and the long term needs of the university.”
Several weeks earlier, Oberlin College’s Board of Trustees voted against divestment after reviewing a proposal submitted by “Students for a Free Palestine,” a spin-off of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which has been linked to Islamist terrorist organizations.
“Accepting this proposal could substantially limit our ability to deliver on Oberlin’s mission, namely, by reducing our financial resources and restricting critical discourse, as described below,” the college said in a statement. “The burden it would impose on Oberlin could be substantial and out of proportion with the direct and indirect impact of divesting.”
Oberlin also explained that divestment would undermine its mission to create a space in which students “express contested views,” adding that adopting the divestment proposal “would be taking a clear institutional stand on one side of a fraught and contested issue that divides the Oberlin community.” It continued, “The board believes that doing so could constrain critical thinking, discourse, and debate on the subject, which would jeopardize the college’s mission.”
These colleges and universities are not the first to reject divestment from Israel, a core tenet of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate the Jewish state from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination.
Williams College’s Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (ACSR) rejected a proposal to divest from weapons manufacturers that sell their products to Israel in May, handing an early and substantial loss to the anti-Zionist movement in the final days of an academic year convulsed by pro-Hamas demonstrations. In addition to ruling out divestment as a possibility, ASCR declined to make itself a permanent standing committee or to recommend adopting controversial Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles which have been pushed by far-left groups aiming to use the market as an accelerator of social change.
ASCR cited a number of reasons why the move would be disadvantageous to the college, including that some of its funds are potentially “commingled.” Divesting from them, it explained, “could have a negative impact on investment performance out of proportion to the negligible impact on the targeted company.” It also said that the anti-Israel activists’ demands were “broad” and target companies such as Boeing, which “not only builds missiles, but also satellite systems and commercial aircraft.”
ASCR added that there is no “shared understanding” among scholars and experts, nor among its own community, about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would make divestment from Israel as morally cogent as divesting from South Africa in the 1980s or, more recently, fossil fuels.
Some colleges have embraced divestment or other policies approximating it, Inside Higher Ed reported earlier this month, noting that California State University-Sacramento has said it will not invest in companies which “profit from genocide, ethnic cleansing, and activities that violate fundamental human rights,” an ambiguous turn of phrase that does not specifically mention Israel. Additionally, the outlet added, Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York has committed to implementing “socially responsible investment screens” that prevent investments in companies “substantially and intractably benefiting from the war in Palestine.”
As The Algemeiner has previously reported, Brown University’s Corporation of trustees will soon vote on a divestment proposal submitted by a group which calls itself the Brown Divest Coalition (BDC). According to The Brown Daily Herald, Brown president Christina Paxson initially only promised the protesters a meeting with members of the Brown Corporation, but the students pushed for more concessions and ultimately coaxed her into making divestment a real possibility. If it becomes university policy, Paxson will expose Brown to “immediate and profound legal consequences,” two dozen US attorneys general warned in a letter late last month.
“It may trigger the application of laws in nearly three-fourths of states prohibiting states and their instrumentalities from contracting with, investing in, or otherwise doing business with entities that discriminate against Israel, Israelis, or those who do business with either,” the missive, written principally by Arkansas state attorney Tim Griffin, explained. “Adopting that proposal may require our states — and others — to terminate any existing relationships with Brown and those associated with it, divest from any university debt held by state pension plans and other investment vehicles, and otherwise refrain from engaging with Brown and those associated with. We therefore urge you to reject this antisemitic and unlawful proposal.”
Thirty-five states in the US have anti-BDS laws on their books, including New York, Texas, Nevada, Illinois, and California. Tennessee passed one in April 2023, and in the same year, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) issued an executive order banning agencies from awarding contracts with companies participating in the BDS movement. The justice system has repeatedly upheld the legality of such measures. In February 2023, the US Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Arkansas’ anti-BDS law, which argued that requiring contractors to confirm that they are not boycotting Israel before doing business with the University of Arkansas is unconstitutional. Several months later, a federal appeals court dismissed a challenge to Texas’ anti-BDS law, ruling that the plaintiff who brought it lacked standing.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post US Colleges Reject Divestment Proposals Targeting Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Some Progress in Hostage Talks But Major Issues Remain, Source tells i24NEWS
Demonstrators hold signs and pictures of hostages, as relatives and supporters of Israeli hostages kidnapped during the Oct. 7, 2023 attack by Hamas protest demanding the release of all hostages in Tel Aviv, Israel, Feb. 13, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Itai Ron
i24 News – A source familiar with the ongoing negotiations for a hostage deal confirmed to i24NEWS on Friday that some progress has been made in talks, currently taking place with Egypt, including the exchange of draft proposals. However, it remains unclear whether Hamas will ultimately accept the emerging framework. According to the source, discussions are presently focused on reaching a cohesive outline with Cairo.
A delegation of senior Hamas officials is expected to arrive in Cairo tomorrow. While there is still no finalized draft, even Arab sources acknowledge revisions to Egypt’s original proposal, reportedly including a degree of flexibility in the number of hostages Hamas is willing to release.
The source noted that Hamas’ latest proposal to release five living hostages is unacceptable to Israel, which continues to adhere to the “Witkoff framework.” At the core of this framework is the release of a significant number of hostages, alongside a prolonged ceasefire period—Israel insists on 40 days, while Hamas is demanding more. The plan avoids intermittent pauses or distractions, aiming instead for uninterrupted discussions on post-war arrangements.
As previously reported, Israel is also demanding comprehensive medical and nutritional reports on all living hostages as an early condition of the deal.
“For now,” the source told i24NEWS, “Hamas is still putting up obstacles. We are not at the point of a done deal.” Israeli officials emphasize that sustained military and logistical pressure on Hamas is yielding results, pointing to Hamas’ shift from offering one hostage to five in its most recent agreement.
Negotiators also assert that Israel’s demands are fully backed by the United States. Ultimately, Israeli officials are adamant: no negotiations on the “day after” will take place until the hostage issue is resolved—a message directed not only at Hamas, but also at mediators.
The post Some Progress in Hostage Talks But Major Issues Remain, Source tells i24NEWS first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump’s Envoy Witkoff Meets with Putin in Russia
Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers a speech during a session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Photo: Reuters/Maxim Shemetov
i24 News – Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff met for talks in St. Petersburg on Friday.
Witkoff flew to Russia on Friday morning for talks with President Vladimir Putin about the search for a peace deal on Ukraine, the Kremlin said, saying the two men might also discuss a Trump-Putin meeting.
Witkoff has emerged as a key figure in the on-off rapprochement between Moscow and Washington amid talk on the Russian side of potential joint investments in the Arctic and in Russian rare earth minerals.
Putin was also in St Petersburg on Friday to hold what the Kremlin called an “extraordinarily important” meeting about the development of the Russian Navy, which is in the throes of a major modernization and expansion drive.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov played down the planned Witkoff-Putin meeting, telling Russian state media the US envoy’s visit would not be “momentous” and that no breakthroughs were expected.
The meeting will be their third this year and comes at a time when US tensions with Iran and China – two countries with which Russia has close ties – are severely strained over Tehran’s nuclear program and a burgeoning trade war with Beijing.
Witkoff is due in Oman on Saturday for talks with Iran over its nuclear program after Trump threatened Tehran with military action if it does not agree to a deal. Moscow has repeatedly offered its help in trying to clinch a diplomatic settlement.
Putin and Trump have spoken by phone but have yet to meet face-to-face since the US leader returned to the White House in January for a second four-year term.
Trump, who has shown signs of losing patience, has spoken of imposing secondary sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil if he feels Moscow is dragging its feet on a Ukrainian deal.
The post Trump’s Envoy Witkoff Meets with Putin in Russia first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran, US End High-Level Talks in Oman, Agree to Resume ‘Next Week’, Tehran Says
Atomic symbol and USA and Iranian flags are seen in this illustration taken, September 8, 2022. Photo: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
Iran and the US held talks in Oman on Saturday and agreed to reconvene next week, the Iranian side said, a dialogue meant to address Tehran’s escalating nuclear program with President Donald Trump threatening military action if there is no deal.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi posted on his Telegram channel that his delegation had a brief encounter with its US counterpart, headed by Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, after they exited the indirect talks mediated by Oman.
“After the end of more than 2-1/2 hours of indirect talks, the heads of the Iranian and American delegations spoke for a few minutes in the presence of the Omani foreign minister as they left the talks,” Araqchi said.
He said the talks – a first between Iran and a Trump administration, including his first term in 2017-21 – took place in a “productive and positive atmosphere.”
“Both sides have agreed to continue the talks next week,” Araqchi wrote, without elaborating about the venue and date.
There was no immediate US comment on the talks.
Underlining the profound rift between the US and Iran, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei earlier said on X that each delegation had its separate room and would exchange messages via Oman’s foreign minister.
“The current focus of the talks will be de-escalating regional tensions, prisoner exchanges and limited agreements to ease sanctions (against Iran) in exchange for controlling Iran’s nuclear program,” an Omani source told Reuters. Baghaei denied this account but did not specify what was false.
Oman has long been an intermediary between Western powers and Iran, having brokered the release of several foreign citizens and dual nationals held by the Islamic Republic.
Tehran approached the talks warily, skeptical they could yield a deal and suspicious of Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to bomb Iran if it does not halt its accelerating uranium enrichment program – regarded by the West as a possible pathway to nuclear weapons.
While each side has talked up the chances of some progress, they remain far apart on a dispute that has rumbled on for more than two decades. Iran has long denied seeking nuclear weapons capability, but Western countries and Israel believe it is covertly trying to develop the means to build an atomic bomb.
Saturday’s exchanges appeared indirect, as Iran had wanted, rather than face-to-face, as Trump had demanded.
“This is a beginning. So it is normal at this stage for the two sides to present to each other their fundamental positions through the Omani intermediary,” Baghaei said.
Signs of progress could help cool tensions in a region aflame since 2023 with wars in Gaza and Lebanon, missile fire between Iran and Israel, Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping and the overthrow of the government in Syria.
HIGH STAKES
However, failure would aggravate fears of a wider conflagration across a region that exports much of the world’s oil. Tehran has cautioned neighboring countries that have US bases that they would face “severe consequences” if they were involved in any US military attack on Iran.
“There is a chance for initial understanding on further negotiations if the other party (U.S.) enters the talks with an equal stance,” Araqchi told Iranian TV.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on key state matters, has given Araqchi “full authority” for the talks, an Iranian official told Reuters.
Iran has ruled out negotiating its defense capabilities such as its ballistic missile program.
Western nations say Iran’s enrichment of uranium, a nuclear fuel source, has gone far beyond the requirements of a civilian energy program and has produced stocks at a level of fissile purity close to those required in warheads.
Trump, who has restored a “maximum pressure” campaign on Tehran since February, ditched a 2015 nuclear pact between Iran and six world powers in 2018 during his first term and reimposed crippling sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
Since then, Iran’s nuclear program has leaped forward, including by enriching uranium to 60% fissile purity, a technical step from the levels needed for a bomb.
Israel, Washington’s closest Middle East ally, regards Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat and has long threatened to attack Iran if diplomacy fails to curb its nuclear ambitions.
Tehran’s influence throughout the Middle East has been severely weakened over the past 18 months, with its regional allies – known as the “Axis of Resistance” – either dismantled or badly damaged since the start of the Hamas-Israel war in Gaza and the fall of Bashar al-Assad in Syria in December.
The post Iran, US End High-Level Talks in Oman, Agree to Resume ‘Next Week’, Tehran Says first appeared on Algemeiner.com.