There is an article on this very topic in today's papers, written by JNU prof Makarand Paranjpe. He says that the reason is "pragmatism overcoming wokeism".

https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2023/nov/13/indias-campuses-have-chosen-the-sound-of-silence-2632434.html

The firms are not supporting Israel because their actions are legal. They are doing so because Jews hold a lot of the purse strings in the global business world, where their clients are from. As for what Israel supposed to do, plenty of things. That's the advantage of being a nation state and not a group of terrorists. They could have tried diplomatic pressure, economic blockades, approached UN and other bodies and even other Islamic countries to put pressure on the Hamas. Instead, they have opted for killing indiscriminately. They will be judged for that. If the Mossad is all that it is touted as, then it could even have opted for surgical operations to take out Hamas leaders without murdering civilians and non-combatants in the process. This way, they are just giving more fodder to the Hamas, who will get plenty of new Palestinians recruits, who have lost everything including their families because of Israel.

Don't try to "both side" this issue.

Only one side comprises Islamic terrorists.

Only one side supports COMPLETE ERADICATION of the other (read up Hamas charter)

Only one side INTENTIONALLY targets civilians and prides themselves over it

Only one side repeatedly dishonored peaceful methods for a two state solution (Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, the blockade wasn't enacted before Hamas took over)

There was a ceasefire till October 6th, until Hamas did its usual barbarism all over again. What do y'all expect Israel to do, absolutely nothing? It has full right to completely eradicate Hamas.

Not perfect = Killing hundreds of innocents every day. Kudos to you for such amazing choice of words. So the only difference between Israel and Hamas at this stage is who shot first. Based on that, the heinous nature of the crimes can be overlooked. If it's retaliation, where does it stop? Because already over 10000 Palestinians have been killed. What if the families of those people now and later start killing Israelis in retaliation? And vice versa?

Right to retaliate? Which part of international law is that from? As for the degree of retaliation, that has already led to the death of people several times that. Israel is deliberately and shamefully attacking hospitals, refugee camps, schools, killing children and non combatants. The most degrading thing about you RWs is that you look at the identity of the criminal and not the crime. Hamas is bad and so is Israel because of its actions. However, there are some LW idiots who will keep crucifying Israel and call Hamas actions justified in the name of freedom. And there are some RW morons who will call Hamas terrorists and then justify all the terror and death being caused by Israel. Both these sets of people have lost the right to call themselves educated.

If Israel wishes to kill Palestinians indiscriminately as it is doing now, it should formally wage war against Palestine. Let's see how the international community supports it then. As of now, it is doing so in the name of attacking terrorists, but killing thousands of civilians and innocents every day in the process.

Some US firms revoked offers not because the students posted pro-Palestinian content but because they were peddling literal pro-terror narratives. Were they blacklisted for supporting a two state solution, humanitarian aid or heck, even a ceasefire? No, lmao. It's one thing to be pro Palestinian and something else altogether for being pro intentional mass murder of civilians and calling it "liberation"

Love how people make all kinds of assumptions. By no means Israel is perfect, but every country has the right to retaliate, to the fullest extent, when 1200+ civilians are killed by a terror attack. The de facto government in Gaza did so, which is why Israel waged war on them.

Doesn't look like it. We've seen Palestine solidarity events/marches at JNU, Jindal, Jamia etc. NLUs seem to be conspicuously absent. This is strange not just because of the long progressive tradition at NLUs (especially NLSIU), but also because international human rights law is taken very seriously at NLUs.

Is it self-censorship because of the backlash by law firms in the US?