Connect with us

World

Pro-Palestine protests: How some universities reached deals with students

Published

on

Pro-Palestine protests: How some universities reached deals with students

Many campus protesters have taken down Gaza solidarity encampments after colleges agreed to consider divestment from Israel.

College campuses around the world have exploded in recent weeks in protests by pro-Palestinian students and faculty members against Israel’s war on Gaza, in which more than 34,000 people have been killed.

In university after university, protesters are demanding that their schools sever any direct or indirect financial and academic links with Israel, including by divesting from companies with ties to Israel.

The protests have led to an array of different responses from universities. On Monday, Columbia University cancelled its main graduation or commencement ceremony. Many universities have called police and other law enforcement agencies on to campus. In the United States alone, more than 2,000 students have been arrested. Both protests and the campus crackdowns have also spread to other parts of the world – from Canada to Australia, and in multiple European nations. On Monday, students at Oxford and Cambridge in the United Kingdom also set up encampments.

Advertisement

Yet, even as tension continues to soar at several campuses, students and administrators in some universities have managed to negotiate agreements that have acceded to some of the demands of the protesters.

So how have these universities managed protests – and what deals have students and administrators struck in these cases?

What are the compromises universities and protesters have struck?

For the most part, the agreements that have helped calm tensions have revolved around a few common themes:

  • Some universities have agreed to divest from companies with links to Israel, while others have said that they will consider the demands and take them up with bodies in charge of overseeing their investments. In some cases, universities have agreed to demands to disclose their investments, without committing to divest.
  • Other universities, including some that have also conceded ground on divestment-related demands, have agreed to invest in setting up new centres or hiring new faculty in a bid to create greater awareness about Palestine.
  • In exchange, students on these campuses have agreed to end their encampments.
  • In some cases, universities have chosen to take no action to disperse encampments, allowing them to continue. These include Wesleyan University in Connecticut and the University of California, Berkeley.

Which universities have agreed to specific student demands?

  • Northwestern University, based in Illinois, US struck a deal with its protesting students on April 29 to take down most of the tents. It allowed them, however, to continue their protest – just not through an encampment – until June 1. The university promised to provide students with ways to engage with the Investment Committee of the Board of Trustees, including re-establishing an advisory committee on investment responsibility in the fall (autumn). The advisory committee could consider divestment proposals from university members. The institute agreed to disclose its investments through its endowment funds to “internal stakeholders”, which include current students, faculty, staff and trustees. Northwestern also agreed to cover education at the university for five Palestinian undergraduate students.
  • Brown University in Rhode Island agreed on April 30 that the Corporation, Brown’s highest governing body, would vote on divestment from companies affiliated with Israel during a meeting in October. In return, students cleared the encampments that had been in place since April 24.
  • Also on April 30, students and administrators at Evergreen State College in Washington agreed to a pact. Students removed a week-long encampment. The university set up task forces to assess – among other things – investment policies and the possibility of divestment, and look at whether the school’s policies regarding grants help governments engaged in illegal occupations abroad.
  • On May 1, the University of Minnesota announced a compromise under which it promised to provide protesters with information on public companies it has invested in. However, the university made it clear that non-disclosure agreements barred it from disclosing information about private companies that the school has invested in. It added that the administration had recommended to the University’s police department that it avoid arresting student protesters. However, the university said it will not ban employers from career fairs because it does not “support restricting student career opportunities”. Students had been demanding that firms with ties to Israel not be invited.
  • Student protesters from Rutgers University in New Jersey reached an agreement with the administration on May 2. The university agreed to create an Arab cultural centre and hire staff and instructors who have knowledge about Palestinian communities alongside naming Palestine, Palestinians and Gaza in future communications. It also agreed to work with students, faculty and staff to support 10 displaced Palestinian students to complete their education at Rutgers. No students, staff or faculty involved in the encampment will face retaliation, the university promised. The students’ request for divestment is also under review.
  • Goldsmiths University in the UK reached an agreement on May 3 after students set up encampments in the university’s library. Goldsmiths agreed to a new ethical investment policy. The protesting student group will have an opportunity to present their “evidence of Goldsmiths’ complicity with Israel” to the institute’s finance committee. Goldsmiths also agreed to name one of the media department’s lecture theatres after Shireen Abu Akleh, an Al Jazeera reporter who was killed by Israeli forces while she was on assignment in the West Bank. The institute will also conduct a review of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism which critics have described as so broad as to effectively bar most criticism of Israel.
  • The University of California, Riverside (UCR) issued a statement on May 3 saying an agreement has been reached to peacefully end the encampments. The university announced it would publish several details of its investments online. UCR’s School of Business has also discontinued multiple global programmes, including those in Israel. Students also want the university to ban the sale of Sabra Hummus, a packaged hummus brand owned by PepsiCo and the Israel-based Strauss Group, from campus. The university said it would review the demand.
  • Thompson Rivers University (TRU) in Canada’s British Columbia also saw an agreement on Saturday, May 4, following negotiations, making it the first Canadian institute to see a deal. TRU’s student group called the People’s University of Gaza at TRU did not have encampments and began their push towards divestment through an email sent to the administration on April 30, a TRU student protester wrote in a statement to Al Jazeera. The TRU administration has agreed to disclose their investments within 30 days of the students filing a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. A student at TRU told Al Jazeera that they have already filed the request. Once TRU discloses its investments, students will draft a divestment proposal. However, TRU has refused to publicly condemn and demand an end to “acts of genocide in Gaza,” which was one of the students’ demands. “We will continue to engage with the institution on this matter,” a press release by the People’s University of Gaza at TRU said.

What’s happening on other campuses?

Columbia announced on Monday that there will be smaller, school-level ceremonies during this week and the next, instead of a large commencement.

Also on Monday, pro-Palestine student protesters at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) resisted a university deadline to clear the encampment. This was after the institute’s president issued a warning letter to students where he asserted they would be suspended if they did not disperse voluntarily. Harvard authorities issued a similar letter to students on Monday, saying that the students who continue with the encampment “will be referred for involuntary leave from their Schools”.

 

Advertisement

Students at more than 100 universities are protesting across the US. Their counterparts in at least 20 campuses outside of the US are protesting and several of these protests are also encampments.

What are the reactions to the encampment deals?

While some students and those supporting them have welcomed the breakthroughs with university officials, others have criticised the deals as inadequate. Northwestern University is a case in point.

Immediately after the deal, two Palestinian students at the university said they were proud to “have a seat at a table that we’ve never had before,” student-run newspaper The Daily Northwestern reported. Similarly, the student protesters at Brown celebrated the deal after the encampment was dismantled.

However, not everyone has hailed the deals as a win.

The Daily Northwestern reported that some students were disappointed that the deal did not involve divestment.

On the other hand, critics of the pro-Palestine protests have also accused the universities of buckling under pressure in reaching the agreements.

On May 1, two graduate students and one first-year undergraduate student at Northwestern University sued the institute in a breach of contract lawsuit, saying that the university breached its own rules by allowing the encampments. The lawsuit also criticised the agreement for allowing student protesters to stay on campus until June 1.

World

Trump Says He Thinks He Will Remove Syria From US Terrorism Sponsor List

Published

on

Trump Says He Thinks He Will Remove Syria From US Terrorism Sponsor List
ANKARA, TURKEY, ⁠July ⁠8 (Reuters) – U.S. ⁠President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he thought ‌he would remove ‌Syria ⁠from ⁠the United States’ list of designated state sponsor of terrorism. “I think I will,” Trump told reporters in response ⁠to ⁠a question ⁠ahead of a meeting with Syrian …
Continue Reading

World

Trump says ‘Iran lies and cheats’ as IRGC emerges as dominant force in negotiations with US

Published

on

Trump says ‘Iran lies and cheats’ as IRGC emerges as dominant force in negotiations with US

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

As President Donald Trump voiced growing frustration Wednesday with Iranian negotiators, accusing them of lying and cheating, the latest escalation has exposed an even more fundamental problem for Washington: whether the officials at the negotiating table have the power to deliver an agreement — or whether anyone in Tehran does.

Advertisement

“I don’t know if we’re going to have a deal. We may just do it without a deal,” Trump said at the NATO summit in Ankara. “These people, they lie and they cheat.”

But Trump’s frustration with Iran’s negotiators is only part of the problem. Since the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it has become increasingly unclear who in Tehran has the authority to make — and enforce — an agreement.

TRUMP SAYS IRAN CEASEFIRE IS ‘OVER’ AFTER IRANIAN ATTACKS TRIGGER MASSIVE US RESPONSE

Tehran has deployed a new front on social media including an influence campaign to sway Americans and undermine President Donald Trump’s push for a nuclear deal.  (Hamed Malekpour / Middle East Images / AFP via Getty Images)

Mojtaba Khamenei succeeded his father as supreme leader after the elder Khamenei was killed in the opening U.S.-Israeli attacks on Feb. 28. But Mojtaba has not appeared publicly since the attack, and U.S. assessments cited by Reuters have described authority as dispersed among senior Revolutionary Guard commanders and powerful civilian officials.

Advertisement

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, a former IRGC commander who led Iran’s negotiating delegation, has emerged as one of the country’s most powerful surviving political figures.

Banafsheh Zand, an Iranian-American journalist and editor of the Iran So Far Away Substack, said power inside the Islamic Republic has fractured since the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, leaving the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as the country’s dominant force.

“The person who is negotiating with the U.S. is not necessarily someone who is endorsed by the others,” Zand told Fox News Digital.

She described Ghalibaf as one power center competing with figures including IRGC commander-in-chief Ahmad Vahidi, Quds Force commander Esmail Qaani and former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

Vahidi controls the IRGC’s overall military structure, while Qaani oversees its external operations and relationships with Iran-aligned armed groups across the region. Zarif, by contrast, remains closely identified with the more accommodationist political camp that previously championed negotiations and sanctions relief.

Advertisement

“The hardliners, in terms of their political presence, have also been pushed aside,” Zand said. “So really, it’s the IRGC. And within the IRGC, whoever signs the deal is not necessarily signing on behalf of everybody else. They’re signing on behalf of themselves.”

Her assessment reflects a central problem facing Washington: Iran’s negotiators, political institutions and military commanders may not share the same interpretation of what was agreed — or the same willingness to implement it.

US CLAWS BACK KEY CONCESSION TO IRAN AFTER FRESH ATTACKS ON COMMERCIAL SHIPS IN STRAIT OF HORMUZ

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi were greeted by Pakistan Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and Army Chief Field Marshal Gen. Asim Munir upon their arrival at Nur Khan airbase in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on April 11, 2026. (Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs/AP)

Yet Trump’s declaration does not necessarily mean diplomacy has been permanently abandoned.

Advertisement

Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director of the Iran program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital that the clearest evidence would be the restoration of the U.S. blockade, the introduction of additional military forces or a new round of major economic sanctions.

Otherwise, he said, Trump may continue operating in the “gray zone” between negotiations and open war while keeping his options available.

The more difficult question is why Tehran would jeopardize sanctions relief and risk overwhelming American firepower when its military has already been severely degraded.

Ben Taleblu said Iran’s leaders appear to believe escalation is essential to the survival of the Islamic Republic.

“This is a regime that is weaker, but lethal, and less capable, but more confident,” he said. Iran’s leadership believes its adversaries have vulnerable economic and military interests throughout the Gulf, he added, while the regime itself is more willing to accept destruction.

Advertisement

People hold placards with an image of Iran’s new supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei with late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, during a gathering to support Mojtaba Khamenei, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 9, 2026.  (Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) Via Reuters)

“Their survival and their military success and their political success runs through more, not less, escalation,” he said.

Lisa Daftari, foreign policy analyst and the editor-in-chief of The Foreign Desk, agrees the escalation is deliberate, aimed at turning regional instability into leverage.

“By targeting commercial shipping and Arab states, the regime is signaling that it can hold global energy flows and America’s regional partners hostage to extract leverage, distract from its domestic crisis, and test U.S. red lines,” Daftari told Fox News Digital.

She said Tehran is betting that Washington and its Arab partners will be unwilling to sustain another war and will ultimately back down first.

Advertisement

“The regime’s core weapon is time,” Daftari said. “By escalating in the Persian Gulf and attacking ships and Arab states, they are creating rolling crises that raise the cost of confronting them while they consolidate power at home.”

Daftari argued that the strategy reflects the Islamic Republic’s longstanding character rather than a temporary response to pressure.

TRUMP ENTERS FINAL NATO SUMMIT DAY AS UKRAINE, DEFENSE SPENDING TAKE CENTER STAGE

Firefighters work in the aftermath of Iranian drone attacks, at a location given as Bahrain (Reuters)

“This regime was never designed to be reformed or softened,” she said. “What they are showing us now is exactly who they intend to remain: a hardline, revolutionary regime determined to stay in power.”

Advertisement

But determining how that strategy is translated into action is more complicated. Authority in Tehran appears divided, raising questions about who is directing the escalation and whether the officials negotiating with Washington can commit the broader security establishment.

That division is already visible in the dispute over the Strait of Hormuz.

A Middle Eastern source familiar with the issue told Fox News Digital that Tehran and Washington are operating from fundamentally different readings of Clause five of the memorandum. The publicly released text says Iran will use its “best efforts” to arrange safe commercial passage through the strait without charge for 60 days, while removing military and technical obstacles and conducting demining operations. It does not expressly state that foreign vessels must obtain Iran’s approval or use routes designated by Tehran.

According to the source, Iran interprets that language as giving it responsibility — and therefore authority — to coordinate shipping and determine the routes vessels use during the interim period. Washington’s interpretation is that Iran agreed to lift its maritime blockade and fully reopen the international waterway.

When the two sides have different interpretations of a single page, how do they intend to write a treaty, the source said.

Advertisement

Iran views control over passage through the Strait of Hormuz as one of its last major sources of leverage over the United States, Gulf governments and the global economy, the source said, “That is the heart of the matter.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The truck carrying the coffins of the slain Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and members of his family makes its way through mourners during the funeral procession toward Azadi Tower in Tehran, Iran, on Monday, July 6, 2026.   (Vahid Salemi/AP)

Taken together, the experts’ assessments suggest Tehran is unlikely to face a simple choice between surrendering to Trump’s pressure and returning to negotiations. Ben Taleblu said the regime believes its survival depends on “more, not less, escalation,” while Daftari said it is deliberately “playing out the clock” by creating repeated regional crises. That raises the prospect that, even if Iranian officials return to the table, the IRGC could continue targeting commercial shipping, U.S. interests and American allies to preserve its leverage and strengthen its position inside Iran.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

From sewers to swimming sites: how Europe's cities reclaim their rivers

Published

on

As Europe braces for hotter summers, cities are reopening rivers once written off as polluted waterways. From Paris to Copenhagen, local authorities are investing in cleaner, swimmable rivers to adapt to rising temperatures and meet citizens’ needs.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending