This is false.

The ICJ has accepted but not gotten to the point of trial on the accusations against Israel. They also ordered a number of preliminary measures designed to prevent irreparable harm in the interim on the initial application for such measures. The only thing they have ruled against that was brought to them was a request to order additional interim measures against Israel in response to what was characterized as noncompliance with the initial set of interim measures.

> If you have any evidence of another army that has undertaken more measures to prevent civilian deaths please let me know.

Pretty much every Western Army does more; even people with military experience who have been generally supportive of Israel on the broad policy and justification level criticized the footage of operations that Israel put out to show their supposed protection of civilians as showing RoE that are compliant neither with international law nor with the norms of other militaries, including the US, when it comes to civilian protection, including requiring soldiers to get positive permission not to fire on apparent civilians.

> HN is full of Hamas apologists

No, its not, its just that the defenders of Israel’s multigenerational campaign of ethnic cleansing in Palestine in violation of international humanitarian norms (which is not limited to the present campaign against Hamas or to Gaza) consistently call anyone who points out Israeli abuses – even if they do so while condemning Hamas’s abuses [0] – as apologists for Hamas as a deflection technique.

[0] For which Israel, who actively sought to create, during the occupation of Gaza, and since to preserve Hamas in part to create such abuses and provide cover for its campaign of ethnic cleansing bears substantial responsibility, though that does not diminish the responsibility either of those committing the acts in Hamas or of the others who actively sponsor Hamas because the conflict b/w them and Israel serves other geopolitical interests, like Iran.

> the ICJ has already not accepted the accusations against Israel,

That is simply not true. The ICJ has done no such thing. In fact they have accepted that there is a probably case and a risk of genocide. In fact, I’m gonna quote the summary of the verdict (from Wikipedia):

> It is plausible that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The State of Israel must take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of genocide.

If anything since this verdict was published, the case for genocide has become even more glaring. Just today Ireland announced they would intervene on behalf of South Africa in that case adding the blocking of aid to the charges against Israel[1]. The day before yesterday UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories published a report[2]—which I have been quoting a lot lately—concluding: “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide is met.” Francesca Albanese further describes this genocidal rhetoric in her magnificent report:

> One of the key findings is that Israel's executive and military leadership and soldiers have intentionally distorted jus in bello principles, subverting their protective functions, in an attempt to legitimize genocidal violence against the Palestinian people.

1: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/27/gaza-ireland-j...

2: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies...