Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the recent conflict at Columbia University involving student protests, potential antisemitism, and the balance between free speech and protection from harassment on college campuses. Professor Dorf argues that while Title VI of the Civil Rights Act obligates colleges to prevent harassment, free speech should be more strongly protected in public campus spaces, and the sensitivities of observers should hold less weight there compared to other campus settings.
Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler examines the legality of Israel’s military operation at the al-Shifa hospital complex in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas war, focusing on specific allegations such as attacks on the hospital, the killing of Faiq Mabhouh, civilian protections, and treatment of journalists and medical staff. Professor Wexler argues that while the legality depends on contested facts that warrant further investigation, hospitals can lose protection if used for military purposes, and the treatment of protected persons like journalists and medical staff raises serious legal concerns under international humanitarian law.
NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and 3L Klara Nedrelow argue that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) incorrectly imposed provisional measures on Israel regarding its actions in Gaza, as it failed to establish even a preliminary basis for genocide intent required under the Genocide Convention. Professor Estreicher and Ms. Nedrelow contend that South Africa’s allegations lacked plausibility due to the absence of specific intent to destroy the Gazan/Palestinian people, a critical element for genocide, in contrast to previous ICJ rulings that required a higher burden of proof for genocidal intent.
Cornell professor Joseph Margulies describes his struggle with the polarized views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and expresses feeling alienated for holding nuanced positions on both sides’ rights and criticisms. Professor Margulies emphasizes the universal right to dignity and respect over territorial or partisan victories, advocating for a perspective that transcends traditional binaries and focuses on shared humanity and the equal right to thrive.
NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher defends Israel’s right to self-defense against Hamas, arguing that its actions in Gaza comply with international humanitarian law, particularly the principles of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality. Professor Estreicher refutes claims that Israel is an “occupying power” in Gaza and that the right of self-defense does not apply to non-state actors like Hamas, comparing Israel’s military actions to those of the U.S. against al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that Democratic primary voters were not adamantly opposed to Joe Biden but preferred other candidates, and while his presidential nomination was initially disappointing for some, his decency and surprising policy actions have been a positive aspect of his presidency. Professor Buchanan draws an analogy between Biden’s empathetic support of his son’s struggles and his approach to foreign policy, especially in relation to Israel, suggesting that Biden’s personal experiences with empathy and loss have informed his measured, empathetic foreign policy stance, despite some critics wishing for a firmer response to Israeli actions.
Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler explores the complexities of the concept of “proportionality” in the Israel-Gaza conflict, examining it both from the lens of international law and public opinion. Professor Wexler delineates two aspects of international law that govern proportionality: “jus ad bellum,” which speaks to when force is permissible, and the laws of war, which set guidelines for conduct during conflict. She emphasizes that while public debates often conflate legal and moral considerations, a nuanced understanding of existing international law is crucial for assessing the legality of actions in such conflicts.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the complex and often costly nature of exercising free speech, particularly in the wake of controversial statements made by universities and their students about the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel on October 7. Professor Sarat highlights the backlash faced by those who have spoken out, from university donors withdrawing support to law firms rescinding job offers, and he argues that while free speech is a right, it is not without significant repercussions—both socially and professionally.
Amherst professor Austin Sarat criticizes the response of U.S. college and university administrators to the October 7 Hamas attacks, highlighting perceived inconsistencies in their reactions to different forms of hatred and violence. Professor Sarat also explores broader issues around the treatment of Jewish students on campus, citing statistics on declining enrollment in Ivy League schools, increased incidents of anti-Semitism, and a lack of targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives for Jewish students.
NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and Hofstra Law professor Julian G. Ku argue that, with regard to recent armed hostilities in the Gaza Strip, Israel’s use of force likely conformed to applicable international laws of war and was legally justified, whereas Hamas’s actions repeatedly violated the core, bedrock principle that civilians cannot be targeted. Professors Estreicher and Ku point out that the presently known facts support the conclusion that Israel complied with customary international law, codified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their subsequent protocols: use of force is limited to (1) situations of military necessity; (2) where the use of force makes a distinction between combatants and non-combatants; and (3) where the use of force is proportionate to the concrete military objective sought to be achieved.
NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and Hofstra Law professor Julian G. Ku comment on a recent decision by a Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) ruling that the ICC’s jurisdiction extends to territory occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War, namely, the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Professors Estreicher and Ku argue that the tenuous and legally unpersuasive nature of the ICC’s jurisdictional assertion in this case, as well as similarly aggressive findings over U.S. activities in Afghanistan, will only further weaken the tribunal’s overall international legitimacy going forward.
Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Israel holding that people who have undergone Conservative or Reform conversions in Israel qualify as Jews under the Israeli Law of Return. Professor Colb explains the significance of this decision and explores some of the downsides that remain in the Israeli approach to who counts as a Jew.
NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and JD candidate George Bogden, PhD, comment on a recent filing by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) asking the court to exercise jurisdiction and grant permission to pursue an investigation of alleged war crimes in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Estreicher and Bogden argue that because Israel is not a state party to the action and Palestine is not a state recognized by international law, the ICC lacks territorial jurisdiction under the Rome Statute.
Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies discusses a comment within a speech by Professor Marc Lamont Hill that sparked recent controversy and led to his termination as a political commentator at CNN. While critics claim Professor Hill’s speech implied a desire for the complete and total destruction of the State of Israel, Margulies argues that focusing on one line in a much longer speech is insufficient to glean the true meaning behind Hill’s message.
Illinois Law professor Lesley Wexler discusses the decision by Hamas to pay funds to those wounded and to the families of those killed by Israeli military forces and considers whether such payments ought to be condemned as “pay for slay” disbursements. Wexler concludes that due to the unconditional nature of the offer, at least some payments made by Hamas might be appropriate because they are not conditioned on affiliation with or motivation by Hamas’s military wing.
Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a recent decision by the Israel Supreme Court holding that the government’s policy of exempting Haredim (ultra-Orthodox Jews) from military service was unconstitutional discrimination. Dorf describes the background of the legal system in Israel and explains how the relationship between the court and the elected officials in that country might inform judicial review in other democracies.
