(…)
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.
Rather, she said, the purpose of the ruling was to declare that South Africa had a right to bring its case against Israel and that Palestinians had “plausible rights to protection from genocide” - rights which were at a real risk of irreparable damage.
(…)
Das Ansehen ist unerschütterlich, selbst wenn Israel tatsächlich den gesamten nahen Osten einäschern würde, wäre es den meisten Menschen entweder egal oder gerade recht, das einzige was in den Augen der wichtigen Teile der Welt leidet ist das Ansehen der UN welche sich an diesem Krieg mitverantwortlich gemacht hat.