Van Zile notes that anti-Israel activist Erakat, niece of Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erakat, was candid about her conception of the law, stating bluntly that "the law is politics." Justifying her use of lawfare with post-modern reasoning, Erakat declared that "the law itself is indeterminate" and "doesn't even have a core meaning" because "it's going to be interpreted by lawyers who are going to shape it according to their clients' needs."
Campus Watch Fellow Andrew Harrod reported much the same thing in July, noting Erakat's acknowledgement, during a talk in Washington D.C., that she earned her law degree in order to push a Palestinian agenda. After declaring that "the law is politics"---clearly a talking point for her current book tour---Erakat elaborated that "we should have no faith in the law, but approach it cynically." As Harrod put it, "She then flatly admitted, 'This is why I went to law school; I wanted to sue' Israeli officials."
It doesn't get any more straightforward than that. The question is, why treat those who, like Erakat, admit to practicing law purely for political purposes as if they view their positions in academe any differently?