South Africa v Israel

South Africa's genocide case against Israel won't be heard in full any time soon. Meanwhile interim measures remain in place, introduced by the International Court of Justice (the ICJ) in its three 2024 rulings.

I won't regurgitate what those rulings say, because what they don't say is far more revealing. What matters for now is this:

All three rulings discredit the genocide lie.
 

Yet that's not what we've all been hearing. Instead we're still being told:

“The ICJ has decided that there’s a plausible case of genocide against Israel.”

That isn’t true, and the ICJ President at the time used a BBC interview to correct it. [WATCH HERE]

But what she didn’t tell the interviewer was this:
 

"If we'd considered it plausible that there was a genocide happening, we'd have had to order a ceasefire to stop it."

That’s not just a statement of common sense. It’s the law [CLICK HERE]. The ICJ would have had no alternative – and ‘plausibility’ is a very low bar.

If I could speak to that BBC interviewer today, I’d give it to him straight:

“If the ICJ judges had considered it plausible that there was a genocide happening, they’d have been forced by law to order a ceasefire. They didn’t.”

Instead they refused the request for a ceasefire order. Three times over.

IF THEY DON'T ORDER A CEASEFIRE, THEY DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A GENOCIDE.

____________________________

That’s the key point – but let’s imagine the interview continuing between the BBC and me (DF):

BBC:  The last ICJ ruling was back in May 2024. A lot more’s happened since then.

DF:  Yes – and none of it's led to a ceasefire order.

BBC:  Even so, the ICJ has issued other orders. They’re clearly concerned.
 

DF:  Of course they're concerned. But those orders are precautionary – they’re not ceasefire orders.

BBC:  If they don’t believe there’s been a genocide, then why haven’t they said so?
 

DF:  Because they can’t. They can’t formally rule on the genocide allegations until they’ve heard the case in full. But we can see that they’ve issued no ceasefire orders.
 

BBC:  Well, the UN Commission report authors have decided it’s genocide. And so have genocide scholars.
 

DF:  The ICJ decides whether there’s been a genocide – nobody else. And they’ve issued no ceasefire orders.

 
BBC:  Why does everything you say end with “no ceasefire orders”?

DF:  Sorry, I forgot you were from the BBC. I’ll say it slowly this time:

If the ICJ had considered it plausible that there was a genocide happening, they would have had to issue a ceasefire order — and they haven't.

IF THEY DON'T ORDER A CEASEFIRE, THEY DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A GENOCIDE.