Joan Donoghue, the just-departed American chief judge of the International Court of Justice, is now downplaying the significance of the ICJ's January 2024 ruling in South Africa v. Israel, which informed international lawyers have repeatedly said contains a finding that Israel 'plausibly' may be committing genocide. In the ruling, the Court ordered Israel to not commit any genocidal acts, to preserve data related to its army's destruction of Gaza, and to expedite the delivery of humanitarian aid to its Palestinian victims.  Now-retired judge Donoghue say, nope, even though I was the head of the Court, we didn't say that at all

   Israel, of course, hasn't altered its genocidal behaviour one bit.  One wonders whether, now that Her Honor's term on the Court has expired, whether she's busily reclaiming her position in the global political classes and to do so, is reinventing -- or just reasserting -- a certain Zionist tinge for herself.  For the principal judge to now be claiming that the ruling was essentially an empty husk does immense damage to the cause of stopping the genocide and holding Israel accountable.

   Immediately below is the link to the news article covering Donoghue's recent statements of denial are some further observations by me.

   Donoghue was a US State Dept attorney-advisor in the 1980's on the ICJ case, Nicaragua v. United States, wherein the ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Sandinistas and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The case was decided in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States with the awarding of reparations to Nicaragua. The U.S. has never paid those damages despite the passage of 38 years. One wonders whether Her Honor considers the US's refusal to obey the World Court's order for 4 decades exemplifies a mature respect for the rule of law.
    58. The Court has already found (see paragraph 54 above) that at least some of the rights
asserted by South Africa under the Genocide Convention are plausible.
    59. The Court considers that, by their very nature, at least some of the provisional measures
sought by South Africa are aimed at preserving the plausible rights it asserts on the basis of the
Genocide Convention in the present case, namely the right of the Palestinians in Gaza to be protected
from acts of genocide and related prohibited acts mentioned in Article III, and the right of South
Africa to seek Israel’s compliance with the latter’s obligations under the Convention. Therefore, a
link exists between the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible, and
at least some of the provisional measures requested.