It is not libel to say that the ICJ's statement is a strong indication that a genocide is ongoing. What Joan Donoghue says is that, technically, there is no ruling on the "plausibility of genocide claims". Which is a technical legal claim separate from the sentiment in the ruling. Yes, the ICJ has not made a ruling on the plausibility because the legal process has not come far enough to make such a ruling.
This does not mean that the ruling does not indicate that the court thinks a genocide is occurring.
If you simply look at the definition of a genocide and the facts on the ground, you should quite easily come to the conclusion that this is a genocide and it should end -- and that Palestinians should have legal rights to live on their indigenous land and have human rights. This is not a radical position in my mind, this should be the status quo of a person with a normative moral compass.
This does not mean that the ruling does not indicate that the court thinks a genocide is occurring.
If you simply look at the definition of a genocide and the facts on the ground, you should quite easily come to the conclusion that this is a genocide and it should end -- and that Palestinians should have legal rights to live on their indigenous land and have human rights. This is not a radical position in my mind, this should be the status quo of a person with a normative moral compass.