The legality of Israel’s borders is a complicated historical and legal issue, professors said at Boston University School of Law Tuesday. Northwestern University professor Eugene Kontorovich spoke about Israel’s borders from a purely legal standpoint while BU international relations professor Irene Gendzier discussed the issue from a historical perspective at a lecture titled ‘Israel’s Borders in International Law’ at the BU LAW Barristers Hall to an audience of 20.’ Though Kontorovich argued that Israel’s borders are legal under international law, Gendzier said legality is irrelevant as long as the U.S. is supporting Israel. The establishment of Israel’s borders has been disputed for many years, Kontorovich said. The Ottoman Empire, which encompassed the territory that would become Israel, fell after WWI, and all the land in the area was split up among League of Nations members. Under the mandate, the British were given administration over Palestine.’ ‘The mandate for Palestine called for it to be a Jewish nation,’ he said.’ The terms of the mandate are legal under international law at the time, Kontorovich said. But over the years, though the United Nations General Assembly has passed several resolutions stating that Israel’s borders are not legal, the U.N. does not have the authority to actually make that distinction, he said.’ ‘The General Assembly is not empowered to create law,’ Kontorovich said. ‘It expresses a political opinion.’ General Assembly resolutions are ‘important for what people think,’ but are ‘not a source of international law, Kontorovich said. Gendzier, who specializes in political science, discussed Israel’s history. She said the issue of Israel’s borders is not a legal matter.’ ‘It has very little to do with law,’ she said. ‘Force is what counts.’ Israel is very important to the U.S. because there America’s great interest in the Middle East area, Gendzier said. When it comes to the relationship between the two nations, ‘America has a profound investment in Israel,’ she said. Third year BU School of Law student Melissa Falk said she enjoyed the lecture. ‘It was interesting, a very legislative approach to the issue,’ she said. ‘It could be an effective means of arguing the case.’ Third-year LAW student Tanya Rozenburg said she also found the lecture very informative. ‘I thought both speakers gave different perspectives,’ Rozenburg said. ‘It was very interesting.’ LAW student Michael Goodman said he thought Konterovich’s approach to the issue was unbiased.’ ‘I thought it was informative from a legal point of view,’ he said. ‘Eugene was very legal-based and very neutral.’