Unfortunately for the Palestinians, that is not what was ruled. They were hoping for a full ceasefire like what you have interpreted, but they are very disappointed in the ruling because it does not say that.

What it does say is

1. Israel must do more to prevent the possibility of genocide. Genocide is killing a people with the intent of killing them for the sake of destroying them, and not as collateral damage, so it does not mean stopping all death. Collateral damage, unfortunately, remains on the table.

2. Israel must report back in a month with how they are doing that. For example, they could show lower amounts of collateral damage, an increase in aid, punishments for officials that make statements that could be construed as genocidal, and so forth.

That is better than nothing, to be certain, but it is far from a ceasefire, unfortunately.

So Israel can't enjoy the same right to self defense that any other state would? They can't conduct a war in an urban environment with an actual intentionally genocidal enemy, and must resort to targeted assassinations? That standard is absurd. Surely you can admit some middle ground ,if you're discussing in good faith.

> Correct, it's very likely that Israel is committing genocide and the court ordered them to stop while they do a full investigation.

I think there was a miscommunication. You said that the provisional measures said that Israel must stop killing Palestinians, and so there is no way to have a ceasefire. I was saying that what's actually in the provisional measures is a reiteration of the Genocide Convention, of which all countries must already abide, including Israel. Whether or not it's likely a country is commiting genocide or it's self defense, they haven't ruled on. I deliberately avoided any speculation with my comments.

> it's very likely that Israel is committing genocide

The court said no such thing.