alt Hacker News> ICJ found the accusation plausible
This is still not accurate. What ICJ found plausible was "some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection". The then-president even clarified explicitly that the plausibility finding was about the existence of these rights, not the occurrence of genocide [1].
Noone is saying things are "jolly fine and dandy", but it's important to stick to facts when making such accusations.
What would the implication of this nitpick be, in your opinion?
Wasn't a consequence of this conclusion that the court ordered Israel to change its behaviour because it has an obligation to prevent genocide?