top of page

Letter from Larry Shapiro to NYT re "What the I.C.J. ruling actually means for Israel's offensive in Rafah"

May 30, 2024

Re: What the I.C.J. ruling actually means for Israel's offensive in Rafah, By Amanda Taub, May 30, New York Times The Interpreter

Dear Editor,

Charges were brought to the I.C.J. by South Africa that for years has been a vociferous critic of Israel. South Africa has welcomed Hamas officials and supports a home grown Hamas movement, a movement that the USA, the UK and Canada refer to as a terrorist movement. Charges brought by a terrorist supporting regime are if not illegitimate, motivationally questionable.

The charges brought to the I.C.J. were politically motivated not based on actual evidence. This was borne out by the I.C.J.'s first verdict which stated that Israel was not performing a genocide on the Gazan people, just that it has the potential to carry one out, and it better not do so.

Israel was held to be conditionally innocent, a legal precept reserved solely for the Jewish state. You are innocent but we have our eyes on you is a legal practice that would not be acceptable in America's justice system, but it is par for the course for a political institution perfectly happy to keep reopening the case against Israel on behalf of Israel's enemies.

Larry Shapiro, Calgary


bottom of page