The result was keep. Kurykh ( talk) 05:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Being a writer for the Washington Post does not make the writer notable. Article lacks discussion of the subject proper in reliable independent secondary sources. KDS4444 ( talk) 02:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The article notes:
About two months ago, Professor Eugene Kontorovich stood before a special US congressional committee and laid out what he sees as the irrationality of boycotting Israel.
Kontorovich, 40, is considered a world-class expert in constitutional and international law, and deals mainly with the issue of international boycotts. Kontorovich said the committee members sought deeper understanding of boycotts against Israel and so invited him to speak.
...
He was born in Kiev, Ukraine, and moved to the US with his parents at the age of three. His father is an economics professor, so the academic career path was a given for him. He studied law at the University of Chicago and began teaching there at 26. He then clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. “He was a teacher for life,” he says.
Kontorovich decided to move to Israel with his wife and four children four years ago. His family was immediately taken in as olim, but later the professor was asked to present Ukrainian documents to prove his eligibility for the law of return. “This is what’s asked of Jews born in the Commonwealth of Independent States,” he explains.
...
Kantorovich follows events online. He has no television, and during his scant free time, he studies Hebrew and reads the works of American poet T. S. Eliot and Jewish-Russian poet Joseph Brodsky. When asked how he defines himself, he has a complex answer. “I am Israeli, a man of the world, Jewish, American,” he says.
The article notes:
Eugene Kontorovich is an unlikely media darling, at least on paper. He is a legal scholar whose specialties include international law, maritime piracy and law and economics, and he has a slight Russian accent.
But Kontorovich is one of the most entertaining legal scholars one is likely to come across. This is true both because of his youth, his charming accent, his sense of humor and his lively delivery. And readers of The Jewish Press will be interested to know that he is also a frum family man and knowledgeable Torah student.
...
Kontorovich was born in Kiev and moved with his family to the United States when he was a young boy. He attended the University of Chicago for both undergraduate school and law school, and he is currently an associate professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law which is just outside of Chicago.
Last academic year Kontorovich was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Albert Einstein and others of the greatest scholars in the United States have been members of the famed Institute. Kontorovich used his time there to complete his latest book, one on maritime law called, “Justice at Sea,” which is being published by Harvard University Press.
The article notes:
A month ago the New York Times ran an op-ed deploring the European initiative to label settlement goods, written by Eugene Kontorovich. The article was titled, “Europe mislabels Israel,” and described the occupied territories in the most benign manner: “areas that came under [Israel’s] control in 1967.”
Kontorovich was identified in the article as a professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.
Middle East Monitor says that he is also a settler.
The article notes:
I recently attended a reception and dinner in Washington, D.C. sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) in which Professor Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of International Law at Northwestern University and Member of the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton University, gave a compelling lecture regarding President Obama and the US/Israel relationship. His central thesis is that while it is somewhat subtle (because it takes place in the diplomatic arena, where words are minced and friendships simulated) the US/Israel partnership is demonstrably worse than it was under the George W. Bush administration. According to Professor Kontorovich’s analysis, he sees four basic problems with Obama’s management of the US/Israel alliance. The Professor and I recently had a conversation about his presentation as well as his overall thoughts on Middle East policy under President Obama. My summary follows:
...
The article notes:
However, [Alan] Clemmons recalls that a real breakthrough came “later on that trip when we had the opportunity to meet Prof. [Eugene] Kontorovich during a dinner at a winery.
“Here was one of the bright minds in the world... on addressing BDS under the US Constitution,” he explained.
...
Where did the idea for such legislation come from? Kontorovich teaches at Northwestern University Law School and works for the Kohelet Policy Forum in Israel. The articulate and confident professor explained that prior to the legislative efforts countering BDS, he was mostly “just an academic” dabbling in foreign policy issues.
Clemmons and Sabag contacted Kontorovich, asking him if he had ideas for combating BDS, a symptom of what they all viewed as underlying antisemitism.
Kontorovich was impressed that the initial groundswell of support was from South Carolina’s non-Jewish legislators.
The article notes:
As the UN Security Council and International Criminal Court return to focusing on Israel, an about-to-be-published study reveals new sides to Council Resolution 242, recognized as the key resolution relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict, that could alter perceptions of issues in dispute, especially regarding borders.
According to an article by Prof. Eugene Kontorovich of Northwestern University, to be published soon in the Chicago Journal of International Law, a new side has emerged in the unending debate over the meaning of UNSC Resolution 242, which establishes principles for setting Israeli borders and withdrawal from territories conquered in 1967.
Kontorovich’s study compares Resolution 242 to all 18 other Security Council resolutions dealing with territorial withdrawals and finds that the resolution was unique in its ambiguity as to how much territory Israel needs to withdraw from, with other resolutions being explicit about a full withdrawal.
In the article, Kontorovich writes that there has always been a debate as to whether the phrase in UN Resolution 242 “withdrawal from territories” obligates Israel to withdraw from the entire West Bank and Golan Heights, or merely some portion of them as agreed upon in negotiations.
His life story.... Kontorovich decided....Kantorovich follows events online. He has no television, and during his scant free time, he studies Hebrew and reads the works of American poet....is clearly not independent and our simplest standards state this, regardless of publication, because it's still the contents that matter in examination. Therefore such a personal profile as this, would not satisfy WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" since he's only his own words. After all, we've long established WP:GNG is not a policy, but a mere suggestive guideline for potential notability and WP:GNG states it itself.