As pro-Palestinian demonstrations continue to sweep through colleges across the United States, a prominent demand has emerged among students: divestment from Israel. Chanting slogans like "Disclose! Divest! We will not stop, we will not rest!" at protests nationwide, students are pressuring their universities to sever all financial ties with Israel.

The students' main objective is for colleges to disclose their investment strategies and divest from any holdings that could be perceived as supporting Israel's actions in Gaza. With a collective estimated $840 billion in endowment funds, invested in various ways to expand holdings and cover expenses, American universities have become a focal point for student activism.

The specifics of the divestment demands vary among institutions. At Brown University, students are requesting divestment from a select number of companies, including weapon manufacturers with ties to the Israeli military. In contrast, Columbia University protesters are calling for the complete withdrawal of any investments in companies they believe indirectly support Israel, such as Google, Amazon, and Airbnb.

Despite the widespread protests, most universities have either disregarded or rejected the divestment demands. Only Sacramento State University has publicly pledged to divest from "corporations and funds that profit from genocide, ethnic cleansing, and activities that violate fundamental human rights."

While some universities have altered their investments in response to political pressure in the past, critics argue that divestment from Israel may not have a significant impact. Financial experts claim that modern investments are highly complex and interconnected, making it difficult for universities to untangle themselves from any companies linked to Israel. Others argue that the financial stakes involved are relatively small and may not wield much influence, regardless of decisions made by colleges.

However, proponents of divestment stress its importance, highlighting students' rights to voice concerns about their institutions' investments. They argue that achieving concessions on divestment could serve as a symbolic victory for the wider pro-Palestinian movement and potentially create a stigma around doing business with Israel, leading to a measurable impact over time.

While mass divestment from Israel by American universities seems unlikely at present, a few instances have shown that even small administrative concessions, such as considering proposals in the future, can help quell protests without resorting to police intervention.

The debate surrounding divestment has also sparked controversy, with some Israel supporters viewing it as antisemitic. Nonetheless, the focus remains on students seeking to push their institutions towards divestment as a political statement rather than a tangible solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It is worth noting that some experts acknowledge the possibility of limited divestment, targeting companies with significant exposure to Israeli interests. Professor Ray Hill of Emory University suggests that divesting from such entities may be more feasible.

Amidst differing opinions on the effectiveness of divestment, there is little doubt that the pro-Palestinian movement's push for it has gained momentum on US college campuses. Whether this momentum will translate into significant change, and whether such change will impact the ongoing conflict, remains to be seen.

In the meantime, the demands for divestment continue to be a rallying point for protesters, igniting passionate discussions about the role universities should play in addressing international conflicts and social justice issues.