Tell me then my man what 'a plausible risk to the right to be protected from genocide' means. How that comes to exist and be stated if it is nowhere on the horizon.

She just explained it very succinctly for you in 1 1/2 minutes. “Plausible” is the rights asserted by the applicant (S. Africa), not the substance of their case.

Then maybe you don't understand words. So stop acting like you've discovered a checkmate. She 'succinctly' said the Palestinian right (not the SA right to assert) to be protected from genocide had been plausibly put at risk. So how? In what way?