This is false. The former chair of the ICJ herself clarified the ruling.

Citation needed.

They only ruled that ... the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.

That, ironically, is quite plausible. That sounds exactly like the sort of thing a court would say.

They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk,

Meaning that they might not actually be at risk, just that it plausibly looks like so and so a deeper look is needed to indeed confirm that this is the case?

They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk, which is a fancy way of saying the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.

This seems a little too fancy. Why not just plainly say that "we find the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case because these allegations fall under our jurisdiction?" I wouldn't normally associate "Geneva violations" language with "court has jurisdiction" verbiage.

Anyways, assuming for the case of argument that all of the above is indeed correct and accurate (happy to give you the benefit of the doubt while you pull out the relevant source or citation) - it seems to me that even then the ICJ saw that there was a risk of irreparable harm to Palestinians, and it also found that Israel's interpretation of "wholly unfounded" and "morally repugnant" "false claims" was lacking or at least uncertain and unclear enough to warrant further investigation (instead of dismissing it outright). I.e. not a frivolous court case.

And those horrors you refer to were all brought about by Iranian terror proxies who declared war on Israel.

I mean, true in the sense that it sounded like there was almost a grand peace deal that would have made the Palestine Authority and Israel both happy, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/09/israel-gaza-war-biden-netanyahu-peace-negotiations/679581/ until Hamas ruined it with their terrorist attack.

But the IDF is accountable for its own actions, and some of these seem to break both international and Israeli law. E.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-military-human-shields.html

While this might not have happened this year if Hamas hadn't done what it did last year, that doesn't absolve accountability on behalf of the IDF.

In fact, thinking this through leads to a ridiculous result. If Iran is directly accountable for when the IDF violates laws and human rights, that means Iran is responsible when the IDF violates laws and human rights. Which in turn means that Iran needs to stop the IDF from violating laws and human rights.. Which means making Iran powerful enough to stop the IDF. Which leads to the concept of arming Iran militarily until it's strong enough to plausibly defeat the IDF. Which I suspect would lead to Israelis suffering significantly more human rights violations themselves. (Which I think we can all agree is really bad).

No, the IDF has to be held accountable for the actions that the IDF takes.

Unfortunately civilians suffer the most in war.

On this, I think we're in complete agreement.