ICJ did not rule there was a ‘plausible’ claim of Israeli genocide in Gaza

“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,” Donoghue said.

“It then looked at the facts as well. But it did not decide – and this is something where I’m correcting what’s often said in the media – it didn’t decide that the claim of genocide was plausible.”

“It did emphasise in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide,” she continued.

“But the shorthand that often appears, which is that there’s a plausible case of genocide, isn’t what the court decided.”

Donoghue’s term on the bench expired a few days after the court delivered its initial ruling on January 26.

Following the ruling, Israel was widely accused of genocide and lawsuits charged other countries with abetting Israeli genocide or failing to stop the Jewish state from committing genocide.

After a follow-up South African case, the UN court instituted provisional measures on March 28 that ordered Israel to ensure without delay that humanitarian assistance to Gaza was being scaled up and sped up in its delivery.

It also ruled that Israel must ensure that the Israel Defense Forces avoids violating the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, including by preventing the delivery of humanitarian assistance.

The UN high court has yet to rule on South Africa’s initial claim that Israel is committing genocide. It is not expected to do so for months.