Following the International Court of Justice's interim ruling on South Africa's genocide case against Israel, South Africa's Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Naledi Pandor spoke to the press about calls for ceasefire in Gaza.
- Minister, are you disappointed there isn't a ceasefire? Are you disappointed the court didn't call for a ceasefire?
NALEDI PANDOR: I believe that in exercising the order, there would have to be a ceasefire. Without it, the order doesn't actually work. I would have wanted a ceasefire.
- Madam Minister, they didn't specifically call--
NALEDI PANDOR: No, they didn't.
- Are you disappointed--
NALEDI PANDOR: But how--
- --they didn't specify that?
NALEDI PANDOR: 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 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 attack.
- What's the next step?
NALEDI PANDOR: I believe that the court judgment needs to be read very, very carefully. They've given very, very direct instructions. We are satisfied that the provisional measures that we sought to be addressed would be addressed by the court. And I believe if you read the convention very carefully, the matter of how a war or conflict is conducted is not elaborated. I would have wanted that the word cessation is included in the judgment, but I'm satisfied with the directives that have been given.
And in particular, I was concerned as the president of the court was reading the order 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 a monthly report, a report within one month of this date has been ordered is, I believe, very significant.
- [INAUDIBLE] Germany and the United States, who have called this case meritless?