I think the real problem is less the wording and more that powerful countries can just ignore the ICJ. A ceasefire entails telling both sides of a conflict to stop, so it doesn't technically make sense to do that, because they'd be telling Hamas to stop the conflict too, I think they don't even have jurisdiction over Hamas in that way because they aren't United Nations members. Genocide works differently, because of it's severity they can demand any nation stop a genocide regardless of affiliation. I mean I can't claim to a deep understanding of international law and probably only a few people in the world can, but from what I understand the wording of the ruling, that Israel must do everything within it's power to prevent genocide, is very direct and severe. Israel argued they have a right to do what they are doing to "defend themselves" and lost. Maybe there's some way their wording creates a loophole, but I don't see it. The problem is their ability to enforce that. The Israel Palestine wall was ruled illegal by the ICJ in 2004 and nothing was ever done about it. If there's no political will to enforce the ruling then nothing is done. It takes a powerful nation, or a group of them with enough power deciding to enforce the ruling for anything to be done. The ICJ is good for bringing attention to an issue and giving a way to put pressure on nations to comply, but someone has to do that, and the court only has the power nations collectively give to it. So if the US just keeps supplying weapons to Israel it really undermines the authority of the court. The ICJ can put pressure on the US, which is hopefully what they do next, and then other countries can put pressure on the US to put pressure on Israel. International politics are stupidly complicated because there are so many alliances and conflicts of interest, and no one wants to piss off anyone with nuclear capabilities.