Terrorism supporters have very poor comprehension skills, so they keep claiming that the International Court of Justice has found that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
In reality, the ICJ found something quite different.
Joan Donoghue, former ICJ President (who was President when they issued the ruling) explains:
Stephen Sackur (BBC HARDtalk): Would it be fair to say, and I'm no lawyer, and many people watching and listening will not be lawyers, but would it be fair to say that the key point that you made your initial order and ruling upon, was whether or not there was a plausible case that should be taken on by the court, of genocide in the case of Israel's actions, in Gaza after October 7. And you quite clearly decided that there was a plausible case. Is it right to say that's at the heart of what you decided?
Joan Donoghue: You know, I'm glad I have a chance to address that, because the Court's, um, test for deciding whether, uh to impose measures, uses the idea of plausibility. But the test is the plausibility of the rights that are asserted by the applicant, in this case South Africa. So the court decided that, the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide, and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court. Um, it then looked at at the facts as well but it did not decide, and this is uh uh something where I'm correcting what's often said, uh in the media. It didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. Um, it did, it did emphasize in, in the order um that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide, but it, the shorthand that often appears, which is that there's a plausible case of genocide isn't what the court, uh decided.