[flaptrap]

Agreed that broad pressure tantamount to censorship is being applied to prevent criticism of Israel's campaign.

I see no "terror propaganda" there either. What, people can't express a different idea or conclusion? As to the lack of facts, though - my thought was the article should be in the Harvard Crimson instead - except it would barely raise a thought there. The Law Review decision cannot be disputed.

The article does not offer much legal information. One would expect a statement of the law, a recitation of the facts and a logical expression. The novel idea that the "Nakba" is the Palestinian genocide makes the article interesting, but the article should offer proof in the legal framework; i.e., a syllogism.