Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic published a 45‑page study in May that claims Israel employed white phosphorus munitions in Gaza and southern Lebanon. The report, which carries the school's logo and is hosted on its website, has been sharply criticized by legal scholars and watchdog groups for factual inaccuracies, selective sourcing and a lack of balance.
The study lists 38 references to Israel but mentions Hamas only once and does not refer to Hezbollah at all, despite both groups operating in the same conflict zones. A press release accompanying the report states it "documents 23 verified incidents of Israeli use in southern Lebanon between March and May 2026," yet the analysis provides no Israeli response and offers only a brief note that the United States, the United Kingdom and other modern militaries also possess white phosphorus.
Lead author Bonnie Docherty is a senior adviser at Human Rights Watch and a lecturer at Harvard Law School. Human Rights Watch has been described by the NGO Monitor as an "anti‑Israel advocacy group" whose "close cooperation" with Harvard "violates basic academic norms." Five Harvard‑affiliated students, Talish Babaian, Siri Beck‑Friis, Sumaya Daghestani, Sofia Fruet and Luisina Kemanian‑Leites, are credited with "significant" contributions to the research. NGO Monitor has previously flagged the overlapping relationship between Harvard and Human Rights Watch as problematic.
The clinic's director, Susan Farbstein, is a clinical professor rather than a tenured "ladder faculty" member. Harvard's own antisemitism task force, which issued its final recommendations on April 29, 2025, warned that programs lacking ladder faculty oversight risk "creating programs like these in the future." The task force urged that a tenured professor should supervise all activities of such clinics, a recommendation that has not yet been implemented.
Harvard's troubles with antisemitism have already drawn federal attention. In 2023 the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation into the university's handling of campus bias incidents. More recently, the federal government has threatened to withhold billions of dollars in research funding unless Harvard demonstrates compliance with Title VI anti‑discrimination requirements. The university has publicly pledged to improve campus climate, but critics say the new report shows the institution has not fully acted on its own task‑force advice.
The controversy also touches on U.S. sanctions policy. The 2022 clinic report that accused Israel of apartheid was co‑authored with Adameer, a charity that the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned in June 2025 as a "fraudulent charity linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine." The PFLP has been designated a foreign terrorist organization by the United States since 1997. By partnering with a sanctioned entity, the clinic exposed Harvard to potential compliance risks under the Treasury's anti‑terrorism regulations.
Legal experts note that the report's focus on white phosphorus overlooks established international humanitarian law. "The United Nations should be addressing the methods of Hamas and Hezbollah, not just the use of a particular munition," said Brooke Goldstein, executive director of the Lawfare Project. She added that existing law already provides the tests of distinction, proportionality and precautions, and that no new treaty is needed to evaluate alleged violations.
Three of the report's sources have been identified as having terrorist affiliations. One source, Muhammad Abu Shamla, is described as a UNRWA security guard who witnessed a white phosphorus airburst in 2009 over the UNRWA headquarters in Gaza. A bipartisan congressional letter later noted that at least twelve UNRWA employees had connections to Hamas's October 7 attack and that roughly ten percent of Gaza staff have ties to militant groups. Israeli officials have identified a person with the same name as a senior Hamas operative.
Another source is the Palestinian Children's Relief Fund, which the report cites for a story about a two‑year‑old Gaza child with severe burns. NGO Monitor has documented the fund's cooperation with Hamas, including its operation of a pediatric cancer unit inside Al‑Rantisi Children's Hospital. In November 2023 the Israeli Defense Forces released video showing Hamas explosives and suicide vests hidden in the same hospital basement.
The report also references Dr. Ghassan Abu Sittah, a British‑Palestinian physician who treated survivors of white phosphorus attacks at al‑Shifa Hospital. The New York Times has reported that Hamas operated within al‑Shifa, and the Jewish Chronicle in London described Dr. Abu Sittah as "a shameless extremist" who has "got too close for comfort to terrorists." The clinic's citation does not mention these allegations.
Beyond source concerns, the report contains factual errors about population density. It claims Gaza is "one of the most densely populated areas in the world," yet data from Israel's Defense and Security Forum shows that cities such as Tel Aviv, Manhattan, Manila, Paris and Buenos Aires have higher population densities.
Harvard attempts to distance the university from the report's conclusions with a disclaimer stating the document "does not purport to represent the institutional views of Harvard Law School or Harvard University." Nevertheless, the school's branding appears on the cover, the press release is issued by the clinic, and the work was conducted by Harvard students and faculty, creating a perception of official endorsement.
In the United States, the debate over the report intersects with broader discussions about academic freedom and federal funding. Universities that receive substantial research dollars are subject to civil‑rights compliance reviews, and congressional committees have begun scrutinizing how institutions address alleged bias. If Harvard were to lose federal research funding, the impact would extend to thousands of graduate students and research projects across the country.
Canadian universities face a similar environment. The federal government's recent amendments to the Canada Research Chairs program require institutions to demonstrate a commitment to inclusive campus climates. While the Harvard case is not directly tied to Canada, it illustrates how academic research can become entangled with foreign‑policy concerns, a dynamic that Canadian policymakers are watching closely.
Harvard Law School dean John C.P. Goldberg did not respond to a request for comment on whether the report meets the school's standards of rigor or aligns with its mission. The lack of a public response adds to the perception that the university has not fully addressed the procedural gaps highlighted by its own antisemitism task force.
Looking ahead, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform is expected to hold a hearing on federal funding to institutions accused of fostering hostile environments for minority students. Harvard's legal team is likely to argue that the report reflects the independent scholarship of a clinical program, while critics will push for stricter oversight of faculty supervision and source vetting. The outcome could shape how elite universities balance academic inquiry with compliance obligations, and whether future reports on conflict zones will be subject to more rigorous peer review.