There’s a lot more in that statement if you know how to read diplomatic statements. They’re most of all interested in opposing political instrumentation while simultaneously acknowledging that different states have different evaluations [as to the legal situation] but they’re intervening on behalf of Israel [to oppose political instrumentalisation]. They’re saying that they reject the accusations, but not that they’re false, only that they’re baseless. Which is par for the course for defence attorneys, they always say that: “Prosecution, you don’t have evidence and your line of argument doesn’t make sense, no I don’t care where my client was Sunday 12:30pm”.
And truth be told if you hope that the ICJ will flat-out say that Israel is genocidal, no that won’t happen. Not because they’re partisan, but because the legal situation doesn’t allow it, it is not clear enough of a case. Best we’ll get is the court ruling that Israel shall put certain measures into place: Insist that the humanitarian aid Israel is giving is not close to enough to be, by itself, an argument against genocide, do more, your army is undisciplined AF, make sure that they actually follow the orders you give them.
The alternative to that kind of judgement would be saying “Israel is deliberately putting into place fig-leaf measures to evade prosecution” which is even harder to prove that genocide itself. You might’ve noticed that South Africa didn’t go for that line of reasoning, it’d indeed be a hail mary.
But if the ICJ says that Israel is genocidal, Germany will follow.