The ICC has found a significant risk of genocide more than a year ago, based on solid legal documents. People with on the ground experience have been saying it even longer. Holocaust scholars have been looking at the evidence and noticing the patterns. It's ridiculous to claim that it only started being a "legitimate genocide" two weeks ago.

> The ICC has found a significant risk of genocide more than a year ago

Both the court and the finding described are inaccurate: it was the ICJ, not the ICC, and it didn't find a significant risk of genocide (it found that Palestinians plausibly had rights under the Genocide Convention, South Africa had the legal right to bring a case to vindicate those rights, and there was a risk of harm in the period of adjudication of those rights were provisional measures not adopted.)

Sorry, I always get the ICC and ICJ mixed up.

But what you're saying undersells the decision. They very explicitly found that there is credible evidence of a risk of genocide, and ordered Israel to cease their military operations entirely until the court finishes its investigation. They reviewed numerous indications of genocidal intent from public speeches by President Hertz, ministers Ben Gvir and Smotrich, and various members of the Knesset, in addition to various facts about the way the actual operations are carried out.

Here is their specific finding [0]:

> In light of the considerations set out above, the Court considers that there is a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the plausible rights invoked by South Africa [emp. mine], as specified by the Court.

The rights above being protection from genocide.

[0] https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454 (chapter V, last paragraph)

You're treating the "real and imminent risk" finding as being comparable to an injunction, which weighs whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the cafe. To my knowledge, the ICJ doesn't do that.

Prejudice to the rights to be protected against genocide doesn’t mean genocide, it can mean making it impossible to litigate the potential violations because of destruction of evidence and witnesses, with or without genocide.

The ICJ decision is important, but it being sold as a ruling on the likelihood of an ultimate genocide finding is inaccurate.