Haven't they recognised that the rights of Palestinians to be protected from genocide has plausibly been infringed upon? Which is what was said in that excerpt? Edit1: I'm specifically referring to all decisions regarding provisional measures

Edit0:Rulings are not only the final decision, feel free to chat with a lawyer

What more do you need? Indeed, there hasn't been a final ruling yet. What a gotcha!

Edit1: Also, please understand that the distinction you are pointing to is just saying : 1. Palestinians seemingly are being genocided 2. Israel has a responsibility not to ebact acts of genocide on the palestinians 3. Israel keeps failing at this goal and has even has it's leaders express genocidal intent.

Which is to say everything BUT the final ruling - that Israel has committed genocide - as final ruling can't be arrived to expeditedly even in the face of overwhelming evidence

You really have to both listen and understand.

The plausibility is that the Palestinians have a right to be protected from Genocide.

Which is why the court is hearing the case.

There was no decision on the plausibility of Israel infringing on that right, which is what you incorrectly make out of it.

To quote: "It did not decide that the claim of genocide was plausible".

Which is the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

https://x.com/mr_andrew_fox/status/1783621258032136550?s=61

Since when are the palestinians exempt from human rights?

I don't think you understand this as well as you think.

Who said they were?

Except you?

Complete straw man.

> The plausibility is that the Palestinians have a right to be protected from Genocide.

This sentence presupposes they could be exempt that right

The ones who made that statement which you object to, were the judges on the case brought forward by the South Africans. It was not Israel nor anybody representing Israel.

Nope.