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

Sombr Altercation at Brit Awards Was Staged, Rep Confirms

Published

on

Sombr Altercation at Brit Awards Was Staged, Rep Confirms

Sombr was mid-performance at the Brit Awards when a random man bumrushed the stage and pushed the singer off the platform, leaving him stunned — only it was all planned, says his rep.

The singer-songwriter, who was nominated for international artist and international song, was at the end of his smash single “Undressed” when a man joined him on the podium and shoved him hard. Security guards aggressively removed the man from the stage, and Sombr returned to the microphone to segue into his next song.

Shortly after the performance came to a close, Sombr’s rep confirmed to Variety that the whole thing was part of the act. Fans were already split online over whether the incident was staged or real. Naysayers noticed that the offender was wearing a shirt that read “Sombr is a homewrecker” — a nod to his latest single “Homewrecker,” which some claimed was a dead giveaway. But others weren’t necessarily convinced it was a stunt, considering how hard he was pushed and how additional security guards came to his rescue.

Brits host Jack Whitehall remarked on the incident after Sombr’s performance concluded. “Such a shame we didn’t have the security ready,” he said.

The incident took place just days after Britain’s BAFTA Awards last Sunday, when John Davidson, the Scottish Tourette’s syndrome activist and real-life inspiration for the film “I Swear,” disrupted that ceremony with an outburst of racial slurs that occurred as “Sinners” stars Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo were onstage. “I can’t begin to explain how upset and distraught I have been as the impact from Sunday sinks in,” Davidson told Variety earlier this week.

Advertisement

Whitehall made a joking reference to that incident — which was not bleeped from the initial BAFTA broadcast and was audible to viewers — at the top of the Brits, saying “We’ve got the best in the business on the bleep button.”

Sombr is coming off a red-hot year that saw his various singles “Undressed,” “Back to Friends” and “12 to 12” impact the charts. He recently performed at the Grammy Awards, where he was nominated for best new artist alongside Addison Rae, Alex Warren, the Marías, Leon Thomas, Lola Young, Katseye and Olivia Dean, who ended up taking home the award.

Continue Reading

World

Iran goes dark amid ‘regime paranoia’, blackout follows Israeli, US strikes on compound

Published

on

Iran goes dark amid ‘regime paranoia’, blackout follows Israeli, US strikes on compound

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Iran was plunged into an internet blackout Saturday after Israel and the U.S. launched military strikes around the country, according to a global internet monitor.

Within hours of the strikes — which officials said targeted infrastructure and killed dozens of senior regime figures at a compound in Tehran— NetBlocks CEO Alp Toker confirmed connectivity started “flatlining.”

“We’re tracking the ongoing blackout, but our assessment is that this is straight out of Iran’s wartime playbook and consistent both technically and strategically with what we saw during the 2025 Twelve-Day War with Israel,” Toker told Fox News Digital.

“Iran’s internet connectivity is now flatlining around the 1% level, so the original blackout the regime imposed during the morning has been consolidated,” he confirmed.

Advertisement

“The blackout was imposed just after 7:00 UTC, not long after the attack on the Iranian regime compound,” Toker clarified, adding that Iran had been largely offline for approximately 12 hours following the attack.

“At 06:10 UTC, there is the main compound strike; at 07:10 UTC, telecoms disruption starts; at 08:00 UTC, the blackout is largely in effect; and by 08:30 UTC, connectivity flatlines.”

“Wartime national blackouts are exceedingly rare around the world, and it’s something we’ve only really seen at this scale in Iran,” he said.

President Donald Trump monitors U.S. military operations in Iran following an Israeli strike in Tehran on Saturday, Feb. 28, 2026.  (@WhiteHouse/X)

In the wake of the attack, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, President Donald Trump said on Truth Social that the “heavy and pinpoint” bombing in Iran “will continue uninterrupted throughout the week or as long as necessary to achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!”

Advertisement

He claimed Iranian security forces and members of the regime’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were already seeking immunity. He urged them to “peacefully merge with the Iranian Patriots.”

“We are hearing that many of their IRGC, Military, and other Security and Police Forces no longer want to fight and are looking for Immunity from us,” Trump said in the post. “As I said last night, ‘Now they can have Immunity; later they only get Death!’”

Toker argued the timing of the blackout suggested it was imposed deliberately as the regime sought to secure communications amid fears of further targeting.

TRUMP TELLS IRANIANS THE ‘HOUR OF YOUR FREEDOM IS AT HAND’ AS US-ISRAEL LAUNCH STRIKES AGAINST IRAN

TEHRAN, IRAN – FEBRUARY 28: Smoke rises over the city center after an Israeli army launches 2nd wave of airstrikes on Iran on February 28, 2026. (Photo by Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images) (Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Advertisement

“The Iranian regime will have deployed this new blackout to counter potential cyberattacks during their own military operation, but also to avoid leaking the locations of senior regime figures through metadata and user-generated content,” he said.

“Communications would have been limited, and Iran’s leadership would have proceeded with the assumption that all communications, including satellite or whitelisted networks, carry risks,” he said before claiming that “paranoia would be well grounded at this point, with the blackout a belated but direct response to that.”

“Those participating directly would already know to avoid technology that could betray their whereabouts,” Toker said.

“However, the metadata may well have played a part in determining that the meeting of regime leaders was being held at the Tehran compound, who was in attendance, and at what time.”

DID THEY GET HIM? KHAMENEI’S FATE REMAINS UNKNOWN AFTER ISRAEL-US STRIKE LEVELS HIS COMPOUND

Advertisement

In this handout image provided by the Office of the Supreme Leader of Iran, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei addresses the nation in a state television broadcast on June 18, 2025 in Tehran, Iran.  (Office of the Supreme Leader of Iran via Getty Images)

Toker revealed that the broader network around the regime leaders and around the compound wouldn’t have had the same strict restrictions.

“This kind of adjacent ‘background noise’ can be correlated against other intelligence sources to build an understanding of activity on the ground,” he added.

“Smartphones are a readily available, almost ‘free’ source of intelligence, and even when locked down, they eventually connect to international online services and generate insights that can be used to pinpoint regime figures,” Toker said.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

“In the aftermath of Saturday’s strike, this concern will have been high on the remaining Iranian leadership’s minds, especially if they didn’t have a clear and specific understanding of how the meeting was compromised.”

Iran has previously imposed sweeping internet shutdowns during periods of domestic unrest, including nationwide protests in January, which saw thousands killed, often seeking to curb the spread of information and restrict coordination.

Related Article

US joins Israel in preemptive strike on Iran as Trump confirms ‘major combat operations’
Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Activists hail ‘historic’ EU’s decision on accessible abortion

Published

on

Activists hail ‘historic’ EU’s decision on accessible abortion

Women’s rights groups and activists hailed the European Commission’s decision on accessible abortion across Europe, calling it a “historic” move for women’s rights and European democracy.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

The move marks an unusual step taken by the European Union, as healthcare policy is typically determined at a national level.

On Thursday, the European Commission confirmed member states can use an EU social fund to provide access to safe and legal abortion for women who are barred from doing so in their home country.

Member states can make use of the bloc’s existing European Social Fund Plus (ESF+), which contributes to social, education, employment and healthcare policies, voluntarily and in accordance with their domestic laws to provide such support.

Advertisement

“We were very aware of the competence that the European Union has in this area, which is restricted,” Europe’s Associate Director for the Center for Reproductive Rights Katrine Thomasen told Euronews, pointing to the fact that the bloc can support, coordinate or supplement the actions of members states, but cannot impede on national laws, such as healthcare policies.

The Commission stopped short of creating a new funding mechanism, which was requested by the European Parliament in a non-binding resolution adopted in December.

Critics argued that by declining to establish a dedicated fund and instead referring to an existing one, the EU was effectively failing to act and rejecting the proposal.

However, women’s rights organisations say the decision affirms that the EU has the competence to act on sexual and reproductive heath and creates a pathway towards accessible abortion.

“It was previously not clear that member states could use EU funding to provide abortion care to women facing barriers,” Thomasen said, “the Commission’s decision is really the first time that it is affirming and deciding that EU funds can be used in this way”.

Advertisement

Member states that wish to benefit from the ESF+ to offer accessible abortion services will now need to establish programmes and define how patients can benefit from it.

‘My Voice, My Choice’

The Commission’s decision came in response to a call made by the citizens’ initiative “My Voice, My Choice” for the creation of an EU solidarity mechanism to guarantee safe and affordable access to abortion for all women.

“My Voice, My Choice” is a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), a mechanism that allows citizens to call on the European Commission to propose new legislation.

If an initiative gets the support of at least one million people across at least seven EU countries, it must be discussed by the European Parliament, while the European Commission has a timeframe to either set out legislative measures or provide justification for not doing so.

“My Voice, My Choice” collected 1,124,513 signatures across all 27 countries.

Advertisement

“My Voice, My Choice started on the streets, it started with a group of women who had had enough that women are secondary citizens,” the initiative’s coordinator Nika Kovač told Euronews.

“We decided to take action and we brought something to the table. We brought our own chair to the places where we usually don’t have the chairs,” Kovač added.

The movement gained cross-border momentum, with women’s rights activists mobilising across Europe. With over one million followers on Instagram, “My Voice, My Choice” also built a strong online presence.

Dutch journalist Belle de Jong campaigned for the initiative in Malta, where abortion remains criminalised and heavily restricted. She described the challenges of organising on the ground, noting that many women were reluctant to take to the streets because of stigma and fear of legal consequences.

De Jong told Euronews that the campaign’s success in Malta was largely because it was online, “so people didn’t have to go out into the streets or show their face,” she said, adding that she collected more than 4,000 signatures for Malta, more than double she expected.

Advertisement

“Thanks to My Voice, My Choice, we no longer have an excuse to prosecute women for accessing healthcare, because we’re paying for them to go abroad with this EU mechanism. So it really begs the question: when are we going to decriminalise it? That will be our next fight in Malta,” she added.

The decision sparked a range of reactions from politicians

Several members of the European Parliament have expressed satisfaction after the Commission’s statements.

“For the first time the Commission has confirmed that countries can use EU funds to support access to abortion care. This is a victory for European women”, said Slovenian Socialist MEP Matjaž Nemec, who penned a letter to the Commission ahead of the decision.

Valérie Hayer, President of Renew Europe, said the decision “marked real progress for women’s rights,” underlining that the Commission had never before stated so clearly that EU funding can support access to safe abortion.

Other MEP’s, including Emma Fourreau from the Left group and French MEP Mélissa Camara from the Greens/EFA group considered the move a step forward, but would have liked to see a dedicated budget.

Advertisement

On the other side, far-right Spanish party Vox claimed that the Commission has rejected the “My Voice, My Choice” initiative, as there will be no specific fund to finance abortions abroad. “The Commission is just trying to politically save the initiative by pointing out existing instruments,” a press release from the party states.

The Italian anti-abortion association “Pro Vita & Famiglia” (Pro Life and Family) also considered that the initiative was rejected, while criticising its opening up to the use of ESF+ money to finance reproductive healthcare. “We ask the Italian government not to use this money to promote abortions”, said spokesperson Maria Rachele Ruiu.

Abortion policies across the European Union

Some EU countries have highly restrictive laws on abortion rights. A total ban is in force in Malta, where abortion is not allowed under any circumstances, while in Poland it is permitted only when conception follows sexual violence or when there is a risk to the woman’s health.

In January 2021, the Polish Constitutional Tribunal banned abortions in cases of fetal malformation, which until then had been the most frequent reason for terminating pregnancies in the country.

Several EU countries have taken steps to guarantee the right to safe abortions. France, for instance, made it a constitutional right, while Luxembourg and the Netherlands have removed mandatory waiting periods.

Advertisement

Sweden, France, and the Netherlands rank best in the European Union for abortion rights, according to the European Abortion Policies Atlas 2025. Malta and Poland remain at the bottom of the ranking, along with Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco.

Some countries have more relaxed laws, but they lack legal protections that fully decriminalise abortion, wide service availability, national health coverage, or government-led information on the matter.

Other member states have recorded new restrictions, increased harassment of abortion providers, and the spread of disinformation on the topic.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending