This is pure comedy gold.

[OilemFirchen]

From your link:

In January, the ICJ delivered an interim judgement - and one key paragraph from the ruling drew the most attention: “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances... are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.”

This was interpreted by many, including some legal commentators, to mean that the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible”.

This interpretation spread quickly, appearing in UN press releases, statements from campaign groups and many media outlets, including the BBC.

In April, however, Joan Donoghue, the president of the ICJ at the time of that ruling, said in a BBC interview that this was not what the court had ruled.

The ellipsis in the first paragraph obfuscates that the ICJ concluded 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. That some unnamed others, including unnamed "legal commentators" declared otherwise is not exactly newsworthy, nor useful. That the "interpretation spread quickly, appearing in UN press releases, statements from campaign groups and many media outlets, including the BBC" is likewise irrelevant, predictable and equally useless. In fact, all of those statements directly contradict the plain language from Joan Donoghue in the fourth paragraph, and is the thrust of this OP.

Your assertion that 'In 2024 they called the genocide claims "plausible"' is a howler and your link includes the massive punchline.

Then "In 2025, it’s what’s called a slam dunk. The planned death camps should be a clue." Hilarious!