SA-Israel case | Pandor welcomes ICJ order
Summary
TLDRThe South African Minister of International Relations discusses the recent ruling by the International Court of Justice ordering provisional measures against Israel regarding alleged human rights violations in Palestine. She expresses satisfaction with the ruling to provide humanitarian aid and reduce harm against civilians, though notes the court did not specify a ceasefire. The minister calls on Israel to comply, hoping this moves parties toward a two-state solution. She asserts the focus should be supporting the Palestinian people enduring harm, not South Africa's relations with Israel.
Takeaways
- 😊 The South African minister thanked the ICJ judges for dealing with the case urgently given the need to protect civilians in Palestine
- 😞 The case was about ensuring international bodies exercise responsibility to protect civilians globally
- 🤔 South Africa felt it had to act and report to the ICJ given the large number of Palestinians being killed
- 😠 The minister agrees Hamas should release the hostages they are holding
- 👍 The minister believes negotiations for a two-state solution should happen now to decisively end the conflict
- 😕 The minister would have wanted a ceasefire specifically called out in the ICJ judgment
- 💪 The minister feels the monthly reporting requirement in the judgment is very significant
- 😡 The minister has never been hopeful about Israel conforming but hopes its powerful friends advise it should
- 🤨 The case sends a clear signal and tests whether Israel will respect international law
- 😢 The minister stands with the people of Palestine and tells them to never give up hope
Q & A
What was the significant reaction from the US regarding South Africa's involvement in a case related to Israel and Palestine?
-Lawmakers in the US expressed disgust with South Africa's process, calling the case meritless and baseless.
How did South Africa respond to the criticism of their case being meritless?
-South Africa defended their case by stating it was based on provisional measures requested, highlighting that even Israel, despite not being obliged to, showed support for the Court's work by presenting its side of the story due to its signature on the genocide convention.
What was the purpose of South Africa's case before the International Court of Justice?
-The purpose was to address the urgent need to protect innocent civilians in Palestine and to ensure that humanitarian aid is provided, along with basic services by Israel, the occupier and administrator in Palestine.
Did the International Court of Justice order a ceasefire in the conflict between Israel and Palestine?
-The Court did not specifically order a ceasefire, but measures to reduce harm and provide humanitarian aid, which implicitly requires a ceasefire, were emphasized.
What were the views of the South African Minister on Israel conforming to the Court's orders?
-The Minister expressed skepticism about Israel's compliance but hoped that Israel's powerful friends would advise it to act according to the Court's directives.
What implications did South Africa foresee if Israel did not conform to the International Court of Justice's orders?
-Non-conformance by Israel could set a negative precedent, potentially emboldening abusers in conflicts worldwide, undermining respect for international law.
What was South Africa's stance on the relationship with Israel following the Court's decision?
-The focus was not on South Africa's ties with Israel but on the plight of the Palestinian people, emphasizing the need to address their suffering and rights.
What was the South African Minister's hope for the outcome of the International Court of Justice's decision?
-The hope was for the beginning of substantive discussions towards a two-state solution and an end to the decades-long suffering of the Palestinian people.
How did South Africa view the role of the International Court of Justice's decision in the context of global community and international law?
-South Africa viewed the decision as a practical activation of international conventions to protect global citizens, advocating for a world where conflicts are resolved through negotiation and peaceful means.
What was the overarching message of South Africa to the Palestinian people in light of the Court's decision?
-South Africa expressed solidarity with the Palestinian people, encouraging them never to give up hope and drawing parallels with their own struggle against apartheid.
Outlines
🇵🇸 South Africa Brings Gaza Bombing Case Against Israel to International Court of Justice
Paragraph 1 discusses the reaction to the ICJ ruling in favor of South Africa's request for provisional measures against Israel regarding alleged war crimes in Gaza. It mentions the importance of the win for Palestinians, what happens next being crucial, and criticisms of the case by the US and others as meritless and baseless.
📜 South African Minister Details Rationale and Hopes for ICJ Ruling Against Israel
Paragraph 2 has South African Minister Pandor explaining the rationale for bringing the case, including the need to protect civilians and ensure Israel provides basic services to Gaza/West Bank residents. She expresses hope but not surprise at potential non-compliance by Israel, though powerful allies may advise compliance.
😤 Minister Condemns Hamas Actions but Defends ICJ Case as Helping Palestinians
Paragraph 3 features Minister Pandor condemning Hamas' hostage taking while defending the ICJ case as sending a clear signal to Israel to respect international law. She says the implications are for a more hopeful world if Israel complies, otherwise a dangerous precedent. She focuses discussion on helping Palestinians.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Palestinian people
💡Israeli occupation
💡Israeli aggression
💡Apartheid
💡Genocide
💡International law
💡Hostages
💡Ceasefire
💡Two-state solution
💡Humanitarian aid
Highlights
South Africa brought a case before the ICJ to protect civilians in Palestine and ensure Israel addresses the harm occurring there.
The ICJ called on Israel to protect civilians and end the massive harm occurring since Israeli military action began.
South Africa believes international bodies must exercise responsibility to protect global citizens under signed agreements.
The ICJ said it is plausible genocidal acts have been committed, meaning if genocide is proven, states aiding Israel could be liable.
Minister Pandor hoped the ICJ would call for a ceasefire, but is satisfied with the directives given, especially the reporting requirements.
The monthly reporting ordered by the ICJ is significant for monitoring Israel's compliance, according to Minister Pandor.
Minister Pandor believes Israel's powerful allies should advise them to comply with the ICJ ruling.
The case brings the Genocide Convention to life in a practical way by stopping passive observation of harm, says Minister Pandor.
Minister Pandor hopes the case moves parties toward substantive two-state solution negotiations.
The case sends a signal for Israel to respect international law, says Minister Pandor.
If Israel complies, it sets precedent for lawfulness; if not, it enables abuse globally per Minister Pandor.
The focus should be alleviating Palestinian suffering, not judging Israel, says Minister Pandor.
Minister Pandor tells Palestinians to maintain hope, relating to South Africa overcoming apartheid.
The case evidencing the Genocide Convention prevents resorting to arms and abuse per Minister Pandor.
Minister Pandor condemned Hamas' actions but said the priority is freeing their hostages.
Transcripts
I am still in conversation with our
international news editor Sophie MCA and
Shan Bryce piece who joins us from New
York so of course Sophie you saw that
reaction and it is important earlier on
that you said um that you know this is a
huge win for South Africa but more
importantly it's a huge win for the
Palestinian people and of course as Shan
was saying a little bit earlier on what
happens now what happens next is very
crucial as we know the bombardment
continues there in um in in Gaza but
let's talk now about just some of the
utterances that were made by the US and
some members of course um of the Western
countries saying that this case was
meritless that this case was baseless
and I think the the recent um you know
reaction was from lawmakers in the US
writing to Anthony blinkin saying that
they were disgusted by this process of
South Africa but fundamentally what does
this mean I don't understand why they
were talking about the of the case
because it was clear from day one when
South Africa made that presentation that
these were provisional measures that
were requested and secondly even Israel
itself was not obliged to go and present
its side of a story but being the signat
of this genocide convention and because
the genocide was adopted after that
terrible incident where the Jews were
targeted they felt uh to go and show
that they do support the work of the
Court even though they have reservations
and later the Prime Minister making uh
those statements and therefore the US
the Congress men bipartisan making that
statement I think uh uh I think they
were off the mark and I think that is
why the foreign secretary uh made that
statement as you can see the minister of
international relations is about to uh
make a statement perhaps let's listen in
what Dr Nal Pand had to
say uh you want me to give you a minute
are you all right yes you are right okay
so we have uh the minister of
international relations and Corporation
of South Africa Dr n p who's going to
speak to you director General uh of the
foreign Ministry at home Mr Zan
Dango Omar yeah I'm sure you know him um
so the minister is going to speak and
then uh Omar is going to speak as well
uh D will take questions uh you ready
yes good to go Minister over to you my
my name is n lady pandor and I'm the uh
South African minister of international
relations and
cooperation um I wish to begin by uh
thanking the judges of the international
court of justice for for uh dealing with
this matter
expeditiously given uh the urgency of
the need to protect innocent uh
civilians uh in Palestine and to ensure
that the harm that South Africa has
referred to in the case it brought
before the icj that that harm uh is
addressed and that people's lives are
saved the saving of life is not uh
merely with respect
uh to having a ceasefire it's to
ensuring that humanitarian Aid is
provided uh to those who need support as
well as ensuring uh that the state of
Israel uh which is currently uh the
occupier and
administrator in Palestine provides the
necessary basic services that the
residents of Gaza and the West Bank
require this case uh was very much about
International bodies ensuring that they
exercise their responsibility to protect
us all AS Global Citizens all member
states of the United Nations have
attached their signatures to a range of
instruments but when lives are
threatened these instruments are not
brought to bear and South Africa had the
view that we could not stand idly by and
continue to observe the killing of
thousands of Palestinian citizens who
had no role in the awful Act of Hostage
taking and killing that was uh done by
Hamas and therefore we thought it
important that we do report and apply to
the international court of justice that
the measures provided within the
convention for the punishment and
prevention of genocide are brought to
bear and that the state of Israel is
called upon uh by the judges to act to
protect civilians and to end the massive
level of harm uh that we have seen since
the Israeli uh action began and we agree
entirely with the uh judges that Hamas
uh should release uh the hostages that
they're currently holding we also uh in
our various engagements with our
partners internationally believe the
moment is now right for there to be
negotiations for a two-state solution to
end this conflict decisively Minister
you disappointed it wasn't a ceasefire
are you disappointed I believe that uh
in exercising uh the uh order there
would have to be a ceasefire without it
the order uh doesn't actually work I I
would have wanted a they didn't
specifically call are you disappointed
they didn't specify that I'm I have no
way that I'm going to say I'm
disappointed I hoped for it but the fact
of delivering humanitarian Aid the fact
of taking measures that reduce the
levels of harm against persons who have
no role in what Israel uh is combating
for me requires a ceasefire and I
believe Israel would have to attend to
how it conducts its search for the
hostages and for those Hamas individuals
who carried out the October 7 uh attack
the I believe that uh the uh court
judgment needs to be read very very
carefully uh they've given very very
direct instructions uh we are satisfied
uh that the provision measures that we
sought uh to be addressed would be uh uh
addressed by the court and uh I believe
if you read the convention very
carefully uh the matter of uh how uh a
war uh or conflict is conducted is not
elaborated I would have wanted that the
word cessation uh is included uh in the
Judgment but I am satisfied with the
directives that have been given and in
particular a was concerned as uh the
president of the Court was reading the
order uh that reference wasn't being
made to a report because the reporting
is absolutely imperative the monitoring
of action in terms of the order is vital
and so for the fact that uh a monthly
report a report within one month of this
date has been ordered is I believe very
significant Germany and the United
States who have called this case America
well the fact that the court said says
remember that today we're not deciding
about the allegation of genocide what
we're dealing with other provisional
measures it's clear that the court does
say circumstances exist where it is
plausible that genocidal acts have been
committed this of course means once the
Merit case is addressed and if the
finding is that there has been genocide
those states that have aided and ab
bettered become a party to Commission of
an infringement in terms of the
convention do you think Israel will
conform to the orders laid down by the
court today I've never really been
hopeful uh about Israel uh but Israel
has very powerful friends who I hope uh
will advise Israel that they should act
Minister about Israel would would you
say what does it say about Israel as a
country and a government and a military
I think that's for you and the public to
decide what we've said is here's an
international instrument uh let let us
bring it into operation and let's stop
being
observers uh of significant harm let's
act and South Africa has acted and what
the court has actually indicated is that
this convention is being brought to life
in a very practical way and I now think
what we want is that the member states
of the United Nations uh must oversee
the process and ensure uh that we create
a basis uh for a a global community in
which a resort to Arms is no longer easy
a resort to abuse is no longer easy and
that more effort is now directed toward
negotiation and toward seeking peaceful
means of ending
conflict relations with is well as as
far as I understand the convention
states are members states are
signatories and you bring actions uh
with reference to States not to
particular groups but has Hamas behaved
genocid well uh I believe that what has
been done by Hamas is certainly caused
Great harm and I do think that the
hostages should be freed and that's what
we must focus upon mad Minister mad
Minister do you believe that the
decision of the Court will help let's
say in solving the the problem of the
Israeli aggression against the
Palestinian today and in the short term
maybe can help finding a political
solution to the uh conflict between the
Palestinian people and the Israeli
occupation well this is uh this my hope
is that we will begin to move to a
process where substantively a two-state
solution is being discussed the people
of Palestine have suffered harm for many
many decades I don't believe it will end
today or tomorrow but what we've done is
a very clear signal has been sent by the
court and it's now a test for the
government and people of Israel as to
whether they will act in a manner that
says all of us must respect
international law
what the
implications on hello hello just well uh
if if Israel acts in accord with it I
think the implications are for a future
hopeful World should it not then
essentially we are opening up room for
all abusers in many conflicts throughout
the world and I think we'll be setting a
terrible terrible uh precedent so what
we should do what all of us should do is
call on Israel to act in terms of the
decisions separ ties with Israel or are
you preserving ties with Israel I don't
think it's a matter of South Africa and
Israel here the real issue all your
questions are about Israel but the real
issue is the people people of Palestine
who are being killed every day the
people of Palestine who are sleeping in
the cold the people of Palestine who are
denied food water and energy that is the
critical issue that all of us should
focus upon and on that note we're going
to ask the vice foreign minister of that
with the people of Palestine we stand
with the people of Palestine and our
message to them is never give up hope
South Africa got over the apartate
oppression they will overcome
Voir Plus de Vidéos Connexes
La Base 4x78 | Corte Internacional de Justicia: Israel debe detener el genocidio
UN court rules Israel must prevent genocidal acts in Gaza | BBC News
How can the ICJ's orders against Israel on Gaza be enforced? | Inside Story
بماذا قضت محكمة العدل الدولية بشأن اتهام إسرائيل بارتكاب "إبادة" في غزة؟
World demands end to Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, in landslide UN vote
Israel ruling: Reaction and analysis from Sky News correspondents
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)