It’s clear that the ICJ found claims of Israeli genocide in Gaza entirely plausible

Karl Martin claims that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) order of January 26 has been widely misinterpreted as declaring that Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip constitutes “a plausible case of genocide” (‘Accusations of genocide are unfounded and only serve to benefit Hamas’ – Letters, May 11).

In the ICJ order, the facts and circumstances presented to it were sufficient to conclude that, under the Genocide Convention, at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa, for which it was seeking protection for Palestinians in Gaza from acts of genocide committed by Israel, were plausible.

Notwithstanding anything the ICJ president, Joan Donoghue, might have said in a late-night TV programme, it is quite clear that the court did find that claims of genocide were plausible. Otherwise it would hardly proceed with further investigation.

Furthermore, in paragraph 78 of that same order, the court demanded in no uncertain terms that Israel do all in its power to prevent the “commission” of genocidal acts and to prevent its military from committing such acts.

In paragraph 82, the ICJ also considered that Israel must, within one month, report to the court all measures taken to give effect to that order. Both of these orders were re-iterated in its later order of March 28.

In a statement published on April 26, the Israeli far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, called for “the complete destruction of the Gaza Strip”. If that’s not an incentive for apartheid Israel to engage in genocide, I don’t know what is. David Murphy Clonskeagh, Dublin 14