Letters roundup: 9 February 2024

One-sided analysis of ICJ ruling

I’ve always admired Joshua Rozenberg’s legal journalism but I was disappointed by his analysis of the International Court of Justice decision from what seemed to me to be an exclusively pro-Israel perspective. The title was what the ruling ‘…means for Israel’ (2 February). That should not have precluded a balanced presentation and its international significance.

His support of the view of the one judge from 17 that the dispute between Israel and Palestine ‘was not a legal dispute susceptible of judicial settlement’ by the ICJ ignores the fact that this was not the issue the ICJ was asked to decide – it was, instead, South Africa’s application under the Genocide Convention.

He doubts the court findings that the allegations against Israel were plausible, saying: ‘It is entirely reasonable to infer from Israel’s conduct that it is acting in self-defence against an enemy that continues to attack it’, without acknowledging that a state may respond to such attacks by employing genocidal actions. He adds that the judges had ‘started from the assumption that more than 25,000 Palestinians have been killed – without considering how many of them were lawfully killed in war or were killed by Hamas’. This seems to ignore the fact that the evidence is that more than 10,000 children have been killed and it would be reasonable based on the evidence to assume these unlawful deaths were caused by Israel. It would surely be a perverse finding to assume these children have been killed by Hamas, whatever the court’s view of the Hamas attack on 7 October.

He questions as vague the ICJ conclusion that the Palestinians have a right to be protected. Is he implying they have no such rights?

It is surely unbalanced to repeat the claims by Israel’s leaders that their genocidal statements have been misquoted when these words remain available in the public domain.  

He quotes with approval the Israeli judge as saying the ICJ was merely restating ‘obligations that Israel already has’ under the Genocide Convention. This seems to ignore the crucial significance of the ICJ rulings, which were made amid intense opposition from Israel’s advocates.

The fact that the ICJ has no enforcement powers means that the rulings will be judged by their international political impact. The judgment is surely a major diplomatic and public relations disaster for Israel, which leaves it under investigation for genocide over the next few years while the case is fully investigated, and this at a time of growing accusations against Israel of the crime of apartheid and demands for boycott, divestment and sanctions.

Robert Lizar

Solicitor, Manchester

Israel has been put on notice

Joshua Rozenberg’s 2 February article – ‘What the ICJ “genocide” ruling means for Israel’ – is appropriate and reasonable, but I believe it is aimed at the wrong target.

In the first place, it is a significant ruling, by a large majority of justices.

It sends Israel a very clear and important warning. It warned Israel that it appeared to a majority of the justices that the way in which Israel has conducted and is continuing to conduct its operations in Gaza is unacceptably brutal.

The ICJ was unable, in my view, to call on Israel to suspend its military operations. That was unachievable, for the very good reason that Israel would have immediately denounced the ruling for leaving Hamas free to continue its own operations. That would have been impractical. However, the court’s ruling was not inconsequential. Far from it. It put Israel on notice, before the world, that it is not immune to the charge of genocide.

The genius of Raphael Lemkin’s concept is that it takes aim at the intention to destroy the whole or part of a group.

Whether South Africa succeeds or not, there is assuredly a basis for inferring, from the way in which Israel’s operation in Gaza has been conducted, that it is aimed not merely at Hamas, or at Palestinians as individuals, but at Palestinians as a group.

James Schofield

Barrister, Coram Chambers, London WC1

Fitting image

In the 26 January Gazette, Jonathan Goldsmith asked what image best represents us (solicitors), since the blindfolded Lady Justice is more representative of judges.

I always read Jonathan’s opinions with great interest, because I know him personally from his days as head of international at the Law Society. I was a member of the executive board of Piraeus Bar Association, and when he was secretary general of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe and I was a member of the Greek delegation. I hold him in high esteem.

I think that the image that best represents us is a shield – because we protect/defend our clients, including their freedom and assets, and fight injustice – with a metal boss in the middle; and books representing laws and regulations drawn on its face.

A Danish colleague proposed to add a pen in the drawing, ‘as lawyers fight with the letters of the law and a sharp and pinpointed argument’.

It would be interesting to see what other colleagues may propose and, provided that a general consensus is reached, to add this depiction to the Law Society’s coat of arms.

Maria Galanopoulou

Zografou, Greece

Reputation risk

As I am a lesser breed without the law, it may be thought none of my business.

Nevertheless, observation of some witnesses at the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry leads me to the observation that the public reputation of CILEX will gain nothing from association with the SRA.

Geoffrey M Beresford

Consulting engineer, Wallington