Student protesters at Columbia University are calling for the institution to divest from companies connected to Israel, aiming to pressure the country through financial means. However, the impact of such a move on Israel would likely be minimal, as the financial effects are not significant.
Divestment campaigns like this rely on isolating Israel culturally, as they are unlikely to succeed financially. The parallel drawn to the boycott of apartheid South Africa is not entirely accurate, as the South Africa boycott, which lasted for decades, mainly involved consumers and had more substantial financial impacts.
Similar to misguided calls for divestment from fossil fuel companies to combat climate change, the impact on Israel would be limited for several reasons. First, university endowments, while substantial, are relatively small compared to the overall capital in the market. Second, even if many universities divested, other investors would likely step in, as there are plenty of investors who prioritize financial gain over political considerations. Finally, companies crucial to Israel's military and fossil fuel production are often government-owned or supported, making them less vulnerable to divestment pressure.
In conclusion, while student protests can influence public discourse, their financial impact is often minimal. Even if Columbia were to divest, it would be more of a symbolic gesture than a meaningful financial action.