Wetin di ICJ ruling mean for di South Africa genocide case against Israel?

Di UN top court don start hearings again for case wey South Africa bring against Israel to accuse dem of genocide for di Gaza war and dey ask for emergency stop on dia offensive to Rafah.

Israel don call di South African case say e dey "wholly unfounded" and "morally repugnant" and dem go ansa di case on Friday.

Di words from di International Court of Justice (ICJ) don make plenti pipo react since South Africa carry dia case come and di attention na around di word "plausible" for di ruling.

For January, di ICJ bin give interim judgement and one key paragraph for di ruling wey draw di most attention na "in di Court view, facts and circumstances... dey sufficient to conclude say at least some of di rights wey South Africa dey claim and dey find protection for dey plausible."

Many pipo wey include legal commentators bin interpret am to mean say di court don conclude say di claim say Israel dey commit genocide for Gaza dey "plausible".

Dis meaning don spread sharparly and even enta UN press releases, statements from campaign groups and many tori pipo dem including BBC carry am.

But for April, Joan Donoghue wey bin dey work as di president of di ICJ wen dem make dat ruling tell BBC say no be wetin dem rule be dat.

She say wetin di ruling mean be say South Africa get right to bring im case against Israel and say Palestinians get "plausible rights to protection from genocide" - rights wey bin dey at real risk to dey damaged beyond repairs.

Di judges draw ear tok say, dem no need to say for now weda genocide dey happun but conclude say some of di acts wey South Africa bin complain about, if dem fit prove am, fit fall under di United Nations Convention on Genocide.

Make we see some background on di case and di legal kasala wey dey happun.

Di ICJ work na to handle wahala between kontris of di world wen e get anytin to do wit international law.

Dat mean say laws wey kontris agree to like di Genocide Convention wey come about afta World War Two to try prevent dat kain mass slaughter, make e no happun again.

Last December, South Africa start case wit di ICJ to prove say, dem believe say Israel dey commit genocide in di way dem dey handle di war against Hamas for di Gaza Strip.

Dem accuse say di way Israel dey run di war dey “genocidal in nature” bicos according to di South African case, intention dey to “destroy Palestinians in Gaza”. Isael fully reject di accuse say di full case misunderstand wetin dey happun for ground.

South Africa go need show di court clear and hard evidence of di alleged plan to commit genocide. Israel go get right to examine di claims one by one and argue weda dia actions for di dreadful urban war na true self defence against Hamas wey plenti kontris don call terrorist group. Di full case fit take years to prepare and argue.

So South Africa bin ask di ICJ judges make dem issue “provisional measures”.

Dat na di ICJ version of court injunction wey be order for judge to freeze situation so dat dem go prevent any harm bifor di final court ruling go come.

Dem bin ask di court to order Israel to take steps to “protect against further, severe and irreparable harm to di rights of di Palestinian pipo”.

Ova two days, lawyers from di two kontris bin dey argue ova weda Palestinians for Gaza get rights wey di court need to protect.

Di ruling wey 17 judges contribute inside wit some of dem wey disagree come for 26 January.

ICJ say, "for dis stage of di proceedings, dem never ask di Court to tok weda di rights wey South Africa dey seek protection for exist. Dem only need to decide weda di rights wey South Africa claim and seek protection for dey plausible. In di Court view, facts and circumstances... dey sufficient to conclude say at least some of di rights wey South Africa dey claim and dey find protection for dey plausible."

Afta dem decide say Palestinians for Gaza get plausible rights under di Genocide convention, dem conclude say dem dey at real risk say dem dey at real risk say dem fit damage beyond repair and say Israel suppose take steps to prevent genocide while dis critical issues still remain questions.

Di court no rule weda Israel don commit genocide but shey dia wording mean say dem dey convinced say e fit happun? Dat be di koko on top di argument of wetin di court mean start from.

For April, about 600 British lawyers include four former Supreme Court justices sign letter give di UK Prime Minister to ask am to stop arm sales to Israel and refer to di “a plausible risk of genocide”.

Dat one make di UK Lawyers For Israel (UKLFI) send dia own counter letter. Di 1,300 member group say di ICJ bin only rule say Gaza Palestinians get plausible right to dey protected from genocide, in oda words, dem bin dey deal wit a complex and one kain abstract legal argument.

Di argument continue for more letters and more interpretations.

Many for di first group describe di UKLFI interpretation as "empty wordplay". Dem argue say di court no fit just only dey concerned wit academic question sake of say di stakes dey far higher dan dat.

And of all places, di debate show face for one legal back and forth for UK parliamentary committee wey dey debate di question of arms exports to Israel.

Lord Sumption, wey be former UK Supreme Court justice tell di committee say "I tink say e dey suggested [for di UKLFI letter] say all di ICJ bin dey do na to accept as a mata of abstract law, say di pipo of Gaza get right not to be subjected to genocide. I have to say dat I see dat argument as barely arguable."

Natasha Hausdorff of UK Lawyers for Israel say no be so. She say, "I respectfully insist say to read di finding of plausible risk say Israel dey commit genocide dey disregard di Court unambiguous statements".

One day later, na im Joan Donoghue wey now don retire from di ICJ come for di BBC HARDtalk programme try to end di debate by saying clearly wetin di court don do.

Di judge say, "e no decide, and dis na sometin wia I wan correct wetin tori pipo dey tok, dat di claim of genocide dey plausible.

"E bin emphasize for di order say risk of harm beyond repair to di Palestinian right to dey protected from genocide dey, But di summary of di ruling wey dey often appear, wey be say plausible case of genocide dey, no be wetin di court decide."

Weda evidence say such terrible harm dey na question wey di court dey far from deciding.