Due mostly to laziness, I suppose, I've been laboring under the impression that last year the International Court of Justice ruled there was a "plausible" case to be made for genocide in Gaza. But Joan Donoghue, who was president of the court at the time, says this isn't so:
The court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide.... But it didn't decide that the claim of genocide is plausible.... The shorthand that often appears, which is that there's a plausible case of genocide, isn't what the court decided.
Here's her full answer during an interview with the BBC:
Joan O’Donoghue, President of Int’l Court of Justice when it made its Provisional Measures Order in SA’s case v. Israel alleging genocide, has confirmed it did not decide that SA’s claim of genocide was plausible: pic.twitter.com/MCNDw0yloS
— UK Lawyers For Israel (@UKLFI) April 25, 2024
It's a bit of legalistic semantics. Israel asked to have South Africa's application for a hearing under the Genocide Convention struck out because it didn't apply, and the court said no, sorry, there's a plausible case it does apply and we're going to issue orders that Israel must ensure it meets its obligations under the convention. Whether or not Israel has been actually committing genocide is a question of fact which the court hasn't made any ruling about. I imagine it would take a very prolonged trial before it could do so.
It didn't rule on the merits of the case for genocide.
In other words the court did not say there WASN'T a plausible case for genocide.
Back in the 60s when we were protesting the war in Nam, regular folks and conservatives (America, love it or leave it) were always claiming our protests were being instigated by "outside agitators" which as far as I could tell they were not. Am I getting old? I am finding it difficult to avoid the conclusion that some of our current campus protests are instigated by outside agitators (no, not George Soros).
Meanwhile, some are suggesting that the Dem convention will resemble the protests at the 68 convention. In my mind this is very different. Tell me what I'm missing.
This is playing into the Fox News law and order mindset. God help us. Does Biden need a Sistah Souljah moment?
Maybe getting old is the only explaination, but do you have another? Why do you think current campus protests are "instigated by outside agitators". It seems to me that, as with the protests in the 60s, young people accept as reality what their eyes clearly see and do not have years of "education" and "experience" to hide and filter it all until they are fine with atrocity.
1. Nobody demonstrating is at any risk of being involuntarily sent to the front lines in Gaza. So the protests in the US will never reach the intensity of the Vietnam ones. (Not having your actual skin in the game affects both turnout and intensity.)
2. Modern conventions are much more controlled than they were back then. No protesters for any “controversial” cause will be allowed anywhere near a podium. They probably won’t be allowed within a city block of the venue. And if they don’t get on camera, they might as well not exist for many Americans who get all their news from video clips. Modern political operatives have learned to corral “agitators” to remote “free speech” zones - Trump does it at all his rallies too.
3. Who exactly would be the Sister Souljah, as I assume you were referring to when you ignorantly (or racistly) wrote Sistah instead? I am aware of nobody Biden can throw under the bus here as a one-person encapsulation of all that is wrong with Gazans or Hamas. I guess he could throw Ilhan Omar under that bus, but it’s unclear that American Jews would then flock to Biden in numbers high enough to outweigh the American Muslims who would flee in disgust from yet another Dem trashing yet another Muslim person. And Biden needs Muslims to stick with the Dems in key states like Michigan. The days when appealing to white conservatives (including white Jewish conservatives) can win national Democratic Party elections all by themselves are long gone. Like it or not, the Dems have to appeal to a much wider multicultural audience than they did in 1992.
"Nobody demonstrating is at any risk of being involuntarily sent to the front lines in Gaza." On the other hand, there was basically no Vietnamese living in the US at th time of the 60s protests, while there are plenty of Palestinians with close relatives being murdered in Gaza. You also ignore that the problems in 1968 was a police riot, not a protestor riot.
Misremembering Sister Souljah as Sistah Soulja is in no way racist. Will you people ever stop? Somebody says hello wrong and they’re racist. You’ve jumped the shark(s).
Biden has already had his Sister Souljah moment when he directed Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield to abstain on a Security Council cease-fire resolution. The extremist from whom the President needed to distance himself was Binyamin Netanyahu.
I think what you're missing is the slightest shred of evidence or at least some stars aligning in a way that points to a particular outside agitator.
Who would the outside agitator be? Hamas? Doubtful; any connection to them probably has seven different intelligence agencies scrutinizing it. Some other Muslim organization? Again doubtful; maybe only one or two intelligence agencies scrutinizing them, but also probably not anything they want to get into without some deep consideration. Russia? Maybe the best guess -- they probably know about most of the intelligence agencies scrutinizing them, and have ways to circumvent the scrutiny -- but what's in it for them? Undermine Biden so Putin's pal gets back into office? I think they have more direct and more effective ways to go about that.
Conservatives are claiming that the protests are being organized by Iran. they are ignoring the fact that of course Palestinian and Arab Americans are unhappy that the US is supporting the killing of their kin.
I think Iran falls into the "seven different intelligence agencies" scrutinizing them category. They might be better at having a secret end around play, but I doubt they have enough awareness of American society to know what they should try to pull off and how to pull it off.
Conservatives as a general rule feel that anyone who disagrees with their one true perspective on the world can only do so for malign reasons, one way or another.
I am finding it difficult to avoid the conclusion that some of our current campus protests are instigated by outside agitators (no, not George Soros).
If you had evidence, you would have presented. This is your mealy-mouthed get-out-of-jail-free card when called on the fact that you didn't actually supply any. Please. Grow up.
What an odd way to argue. You begin by noting that ignorant people made an inaccurate claim about something you were involved in. And then you make a claim about something you are not involved with that mirrors the ignorant people. Usually people don't take ignorant people as their models for reasoning, at least not intentionally.
Call it whatever you want. I call it revenge. They hate each other. Always have. Always will. There is no way out.
There are ways out other that destruction of one or both sides, but they are not within the Overton Window, especially Israel’s.
I saw parts of that interview...she was a very cautious witness, for the prosecution or the defense.
I'd like to come at this again from...a more honest angle. There is a gross distortion and abuse of the word, Genocide.
This is I suppose just part of hyper-identity-crisis-with-no-soft-ground that our culture has descended to. Language is not a thing to understand with, rather it is a perfect bludgeoning weapon...if you just squint a little and don't really care about words at all.
Genocide is not appropriate to Gaza, (yet). Even using probably wildly inflated numbers of 36,000 dead, this is only 1.4% of the population of Gaza. (Yes, I understand the ghastliness of this number, and that this analysis does not help the dead). But the WWII death rate of Germany was approximately 10.6% of the prewar population...and this wasn't Genocide either.
This is not to say that there are not thousands upon thousands of wrongful death cases in Gaza inflicted by the IDF. Some without excuse, but wrongful death is not Genocide. The term is a word of Art and is simply being misapplied in this instance for its emotional appeal, while not being anchored to Truth at all.
I confess that the percentage of dead is higher than I accept....there is the problem of institutional memory at work here also. In actuality, the almost total destruction of Southern Beirut in the 2006 seemingly taught Israel that such widespread urban destruction could lead to a real deterrence effect.
This was, while still applicable to Lebanon even today, this was the wrong lesson for Gaza. IDF losses are still under 300 soldiers, an astonishing figure for such major urban combat.
There has been too much reliance on the bomb and the shell by Israel....I understand it, the reasons for this approach, but somewhere about 2 months in, at the most, Israel got lost. In what looked through the smoke and blast like success, but was really only hubris staring back at them.
Sad days, but this is what war is. Blunder and Mistake, Blood and Disaster. Best Wishes, Traveller
A) that 10% took 5 years of non stop war to get to, the 34k dead Gazans barely took six months.
B) That 34K is a massive underestimate of the body count. There is at least 8,000 people missing and 70,000 wounded.
C) The real deterence effect in Lebanon is Hezbollah, the last time Israel tried to invade Lebanon they got their asses handed to them on a plate.
Don't be shocked that by the end of this conflict you have 100,000 dead.
This conflict will never be over.
I have seen no one, anywhere, provide any justification whatsoever for this common claim. I have seen no other serious estimates of deaths in Gaza since Oct 7 that are under the Hamas Ministry of Health's numbers. Even the US state department thinks the Ministry numbers are likely an undercount. This is because in a scene of utter chaos and total devistation, the Ministry of Health has been tallying only deaths with actual bodies present, I think maybe even only identified individuals, which is guaranteed to be an incomplete accounting. It is common snese as well as common consensus that there are probably thousands of bodies buried in the ruble of apartments, homes and schools.
Does the current estimate include the hundreds of bodies that are being exhumed from mass graves the IDF left behind at Nasser and al-Shifa hospitals? I don't know.
Please stop trying to minimize what is going on.
You do not understand the legal definition of genocide. It is easy to look up and it has little to do with how successful you are at it.
Some good points @Traveller. Over the past few years (and probably longer but its worse recently I think) there has been an increase in people misusing and/or redefining incendiary words so that they can tar their opponents with them and/or express outrage. Genocide is the latest case --- the Israelis, while being brutal, are not committing genocide.
Another word like that is the word racist. Conservatives hew to the traditional MLK "content of character vs color of skin" definition and many authentically try to meet this definition and by their standards are not racists. Folks on the Left have moved to a broader definition and many thus routinely tar conservatives as Racists under these standards. Which really pisses off conservatives and what I have seen anecdotally at least fuels their support for Trump.
And conservatives have been stretching the term "Socialist" way out of shape to somehow associate child tax credits with Venezuela or something, while those on the Left are quick to call Fascist or even Nazi for behavior which
really falls short of that.
Sigh.
You left out "antisemitism", which has dramatically expanded beyond failure to fully commit to zionism and now also includes any suggestions that Palestinians are people and who ought to have rights ... or in fact, who actually exist.
People are being fired for asserting that "Palestinian Lives Matter"; expelled from university, blacklisted, having awards withdrawn (yeah, boo hoo). Because objecting to Israel's mass murder of civilians, their pogrom in the West Bank, or their liquidation of Gaza is "antisemitism", and that's been made literally illegal.
Honest question: Who's being fired for asserting "Palestinian Lives Matter" or expelled or blacklisted?
I did read that some students were expelled at Vanderbilt after they shoved a campus police officer out of the way. I guess my opinion on that particular incident is that part of engaging in civil disobedience is accepting the consequences of it.
But there may have been more egregious incidents I'm not aware of. Care to share?
Start with Norman Finkelstein many years ago now.
Good to know that you believe that refusing to rent an apartment to someone solely based on the color of their skin isn't racist. (Hint, the reason everyone around you points out that you are an extreme racist is because it is a simple fact.)
What an unhinged post. Are you sober?
Thanks for illustrating my point though.
Everybody's wrong but you. Everybody. For the umpteenth time, please, Kevin, install an ignore or at least an up/down vote button.
Genocide is not dependent on the actual body count. It's about the specific tactics used and the intention for using them.
It's got nothing to do with tactics, but is based on intention
Read the definition of genocide. It's just a few comments below. But here let me save you the time:
"inflicting on the group conditions"
The conditions portion is what refers to the tactics. How are those conditions imposed.
Here is another:
"Imposing measures"
Measures refers to the tactics or methods.
Genocide is about the how (methods, tactics) and why(intention). Not just the intentions.
With the abandonment of the two state solution, the only possible successful outcome for Israel does require the genocide of the Palestinians.
In fact, this was explicitly stated at the very origins of zionism as a theory back in the 1800s. Back then, "settler-colonialism" was thought of as just the way the world worked: white Europeans displacing or killing the "natives" and taking their land and stuff. Proof of their "superiority"!!
I think you have the genocide issue exactly backwards. It is a word of art in legal circles, it is also an emotionally charged issue, particularly when Jews are concerned because of one particular attempt at genocide.
You are suggesting that people are using the word inaccurately to get an emotional response. It seems more likely that it is being used accurately based on its legal definition, but this seems inappropriate because of its emotional effects. I think it might well be the case that the word is unhelpful in this context for this very reason. But it gets things backwards to think that it is the supporters of Israel who are arguing for using it in its technically accurate sense. In fact it is the critics of Israel who are more inclined to get into what the definition actually says. The best pro-Israeli response is that technical claims made outside of technical contexts can be misleading.
Not genocide, per se? Just a shockingly depraved indifference to human life. Congratulations Netanyahu! You've convinced the world that Israel is no better, and possibly worse, than Hamas.
Yep, it was a tough target, but that bastard managed it wonderfully. I wish I believed in hell so I could know he'd go there.
Words are tools that, like a hammer, can be used to create something of value or to hit someone over the head. If words are being used to create something of value, then they are being used to resolve conflict. If they are being used to hit someone over the head, then the words themselves have lost their meaning.
We need a common definition of the word genocide. One can conclude that genocide is not happening in Gaza and conclude that the policies of the Netanyahu government are harmful to Palestinians, to Israel, and to world order.
Because words are misused by authoritarians to establish and maintain power, establishing common definitions is a very good idea and a threat to authoritarian power.
For example, a person who uses the word conservative as a pejorative is like a fish who sees the worm without noticing the hook.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2 defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
(a), (b) and (c) are pretty much a slam dunk.
I do agree that it is much more urgent to stop it than it is to name it.
If that is Joan Donoghue's definition of genocide, then her chain of logic is missing a few links. Maybe she studied under Chief Justice Roberts.
The definition of "genocide" has evolved and probably will continue to evolve. One of my questions about the definition here is that it seems to include many acts that most people don't instantly associate with genocide. The Holocaust, Darfur, Rwanda, and some others. Few people question the application of the term in those cases. The horrors of what's happening in Gaza are indeed horrific, but I find there's a reasonable case to say Gaza is something quite different.
Take the definition above. If "any of the following acts" qualifies as genocide, doesn't that include countless acts that most people would not call genocide? And why would it not apply to acts like the October 7 attack by Hamas?
Or for that matter, a mass shooting at a synagogue or mosque?
Says the guy who refuses to admit that Israel's atrocities against innocent Palestinians are far worse than anything Hamas has ever committed and for far longer. Your comments are offered in nothing but bad faith.
Here's my take. Israel is guilty of atrocities and war crimes. Netanyahu is a criminal and ought to be in prison.
I don't make excuses for the horrors anyone commits, not Israel's and not Hamas's.
That's not good enough for you.
That's not good enough for you.
Didn't I just say it wasn't, dipshit? No, you've never admitted that Israel is guilty of far worse atrocities against the innoncent by the metrics you have chosen. You go with the leveling 'both sides do it' formulation.
So: Either explicitly admit that Israel has done far worse to innocent Palestians than vice versa. Or explicitly say this is not the case. Of course, you'll have to explain why it isn't, given the original claim. But it's better than being a nasty equivocting troll.
Your call.
Rather than saying what you want me to say, why not this? I'll say what I want to say and you say what you want to say. You seem to want to settle something that's not going to be settled.
Of course, there is always more to say, but seeing crap like "dipshit" and "troll" tells me it's not worth the time.
You wouldn't be called out for being a dipshit and a troll if you just answered the damn question. It's neither a hard nor irrelevant one.
Do you really think no one's going to notice you're refusing to commit either way, which is bad faith, or not do soing so in the service of the again bad faith bothsiderism? You've amply demonstrated that you are a deeply unserious, very silly person whose opinions are of negligible weight.
Did you miss "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, ". Since hamas's goal could be argued that they simply want the israeli's to return to their homelands, theirs (assuming the truth of that first clause) is not a genocide.
1. Where are the Israeli "homelands" to which they are supposed to return?
2. Doesn't an act like the horrific terrorist attack of Oct. 7 speak to other desired ends than the "goal [that] could be argued" (which feels to me like something you just made up)?
Don't feed the troll.
"Rather than saying what you want me to say, why not this? I'll say what I want to say and you say what you want to say"
Joseph Harbin on being pressed on his refusal to answer a question - April 26, 2024 – 10:32 am
"Could be argued"? Yeah, it also could be argued that the Earth is flat. People do argue that. They're wrong. As are you.
Up until a few years ago, Hamas' charter was crystal clear that their goal was to kill Jews. They got some decent PR people who convinced them that looks bad, so they cleaned it up. But make no mistake, that is still the goal.
d) Is also a slam dunk considering the extreme famine conditions Israel has imposed in Gaza.
e) This has been going on for a long time before Oct 7. For decades Israel has forcibly imprisoned Palestinian kids for the flimsiest of excuses.
I think what's missing is "intent to destroy". In most cases, genuine genocide involves an attempt to exterminate the target group. Sometimes it involves killing or imprisoning the adults in the target group and assimilating the children into the genocidal group. Israel does not appear to intend to exterminate the population of Gaza or assimilate the survivors. Terms of disapprobation such as "massacre" are definitely applicable; "genocide" does not appear to be.
“Look, we don’t necessarily want to kill them all. If they would just flee their bombed out hovels and disappear into the desert so that we can bulldoze the rubble and build some beachfront condos on the ruins, we’d be happy to let them live”.
See, not genocide! Totally!
*sigh*
I think that's pretty much it. Except that what you just described these wights refuse to call ethnic cleansing.
They wouldn't be happy to let them live if they flee into the desserts. (Note, that is exactly how the gazan's ended up in Gaza following the systemic rape and murder of their ancestors by the OG terrorists in 1949.
why would they need to rule that palestinians had "a plausible right to be protected from genocide"? doesn't everyone have a right to be protected from genocide?
My thoughts too. I think it was pretty legalistic hair-splitting at best, nonsense at worst.
For some reason, the judge felt the need to publicly document that he is a complete imbecile.
Joan Donaghue uses she/her pronouns. Are you misgendering her out of ignorance (didn't bother to read the post before commenting?) or malice?
It's the "Palestinian Exception." Everyone has the right to be protected from genocide except Palestinians. Race-based hatred is wrong, unless it's against Palestinians. Advocating for human rights is a good thing -- unless they're Palestinians.
Anything pro-Palestinian is "antisemitic." Yeah, it's a weird world, but I don't make the rules.
Erm.
The "shorthand" would seem to come from the ICJ itself in the summary of its ruling:
"In the Court’s view, at least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention."
https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454
If this falls short of the Court ruling that the claims of genocide are plausible (spoiler: it doesn't) it could only be because there is no basis for the allegations of the acts and omissions noted. But if that were the case, the Court wouldn't even have heard the case, or would summarily have dismissed it.
It really makes me wonder what game O'Donoghue is playing.
She is trying to spin away from, in the public arena, conclusions she was compelled to support in the legal arena. She has no doubt received a lot of heat for presiding over this legal finding.
I saw, at the very beginning of the ICJ hearing, a video of Norman Finkelstein basically going through the nationalities of all the judges on the Court and declaring on that basis what he was certain they would rule. He is definitely more informed about such things than I am, but I thought he was being overly cynical, and the Court's initial ruling made me think that they were pretty straight about it all, except as expected the judge Israel was allowed to appoint under the Court's rules and the Ugandan judge who seemed almost to be ruling on a different case from everyone else.
But the comments from O'Donoghue in the embedded video -- and I saw no more of the interview than what was in that video -- aligned very much with what an American judge on the Court representing the American government's policies could be expected to do.
I would guess that in addition to being in the public arena as opposed to the legal arena, in her interview she didn't have to deal with a dozen other judges telling her that she was just being dishonest.
Hamas, Taliban, hezbullshit, ISIS, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Palestinians are all the same. I don’t know why anyone tries to defend these barbaric people. I’m sure I don’t care what they all do to each other, but here’s a taste.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/apr/26/married-at-10-abused-and-forced-to-flee-without-her-children-an-afghan-woman-on-life-under-the-taliban
Your colonialist mindset is noted.
Not interested in living there. Israeli religious fanatics suck too.
Child marriages are prevalent in the Haredi (Jewish ultra-Orthodox) community and Arab groups living in Israel.
There you go!
The cause of terrorism is authoritarianism. The cure for terrorism is egalitarianism, not more authoritarianism.
It always ends with “Kill all the brutes,” doesn’t it?
Must be nice to have such a simplistic view of the world. Or as they say, ignorance is bliss.
You do realize that israeli's founders invented the modern concept of terrorism?
Wow, Israel's founders participated in the French Revolution? Cool facts, bro.
I'm sure you think you're just being snarky but the concept of Zionism in the form of "Jewish people living in a modern state in Israel" did come out of the French revolution, or more precisely, Napoleon's invasion of Egypt.
When the French realized they were being defeated by British naval action and the support of the Ottoman Empire, they thought about reviving the concept of a crusader kingdom. The trouble, of course, was in 1798 the revolutionary French had abolished the Catholic Church and no longer claimed to be Christian. The Directory had not abolished Judaism, though (although they had in fact considered it, after abolishing the Church and all the ancient regime's legal restrictions against Jews, on the grounds that surely the Jews were as oppressed by their religious leaders as the Christians, but cooler heads prevailed) and so Napoleon called upon the Jews to maintain what would, in effect, be a French outpost in the Levant: https://israeled.org/napoleon-issues-proclamation-calls-jews-rightful-heirs-palestine/
after that the idea was kicked around in the 19th century (see Benjamin Disraeli's novel Tancred, helpfully subtitled "the New Crusade" just to make sure nobody missed the main idea) but Disraeli's idea of Jewish Bedouin went over like a lead balloon in a Victorian world that had a horror of going native.
Then the European Jews discovered they could rule as colonizers, instead of going native, and the project was on.
You think 'The Terror' and 'modern terrorism' are synonymous? Thanks for sharing.
Why yes, I believe the man who said, "Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue" did presage modern terrorism.
Arguably that doesn't really apply, since that was state-sponsored. So perhaps the 19th century Fenian campaign of bombings (with a little assassination thrown in for flair) is a better progenitor?
No Kevin, that's NOT what the International Court said. That's what ONE member of Internatioanl Court said.
As Alonsi Gurmendi points out in his twitter thread:
"Judge Donoghue's words are of course **technically** correct. But in my opinion, as just one Judge, she has no right to "correct" how the plenary of the Court's words should be interpreted. Should say @mehdirhasan now book former Judge Bennouna to see if he agrees??".
"Yes, technically, the Court said what was plausible was a "right" under the Convention, not South Africa's "entire case". But does this mean there is no "plausible genocide"? of course not! Because the plausible right that is at risk is the right not to be genocided!"
https://twitter.com/Alonso_GD/status/1783782870877712427
Maybe the lead in gas thing is real, and the entire middle east will calm down within the next decade....
Likud seems to be all in for ethnic cleansing, but that is not genocide. They really should watch "Americathon". Yes it's a bad movie with horrible stereotypes--but the premise--Jews and Arabs working together might teach them something.
Actually, ethnic cleansing is genocide when there is no place to be cleansed to
Also, UN rules say the two are the same with regard to international law.
Um, "We'll keep killing you if you don't leave" seems like it would be both.
Apparently the judge doesn't care that he just publicly documented that he is a complete imbecile. The fact that the Palestinians have a right not to be subject to genocide could never have even been in dispute.
Well, I took to be something along the lines of saying what he's gotta say if he wants to keep his job.
I took it to mean that the case can not be dismissed out of hand.
So that's what 'The court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide' means. I did not know that.
I don't know what the judge is up to here, but this seems to be a distinction without a difference. The court said that Israel should change its behavior. This has usually been interpreted as "Israel should change its behavior because its behavior is potentially genocidal?. The judge is saying that it should be understood as "Israel should change its behavior because the Palestinians deserve to be protected from genocide". But if Israelis behavior is not potentially genocidal than why would Israel need to change its behavior to protect the Palestinians from genocide?
It seems that if the court did not say that they think this is potentially genocide, they said things from which it is quite a reasonable inference.
I know I lack big lawyer brain, but this ol' bumpkin from the sticks woulda thought every group has a right to be protected from genocide. Or does this court arrogate to itself what groups do and do not have that right? You know what group does not have a right to protection from genocide? Big lawyer brained imbeciles.
Like!
By "a plausible right to be protected from genocide" Donoghue means protected by the ICJ, not by the Genocide Convention under which everyone has a right to such protection. Since the ICJ only rules in favor of such a right when there is plausibly genocide going on (I mean, Canada cannot get such a ruling against Japan), it may be "shorthand" to say the Court considered genocide plausible, but it is also precise. The Court certainly did not say "we have no idea what's going on in Gaza but just in case, we state that perhaps Palestinians have a right to be protected against genocide like everyone else".
I read the entire ruling. It is damning. There would be no reason for the provisional measures the Court imposed if it were merely recognizing a Palestinian "right". What it ordered Israel to do was what, in the 24 preceding pages, it found Israel NOT to be doing: prevent genocidal acts including by its military, prevent and punish incitement to genocide, enable the provision of humanitarian assistance and prevent the destruction of evidence of genocide.
Israel did not comply, but then, when does Israel ever comply with int'l law?
Why did you choose a source which specifically supports genocide, tho, Kevin?