Nach der Urteilsverkündung gab Ministerin Naledi Pandor eine Pressekonferenz:
P.: Well by the fact that the court 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 abetted become a party to Commission of an Infringement in terms of the convention.
Q.: Do you think Israel will conform to the orders laid down by the court today?
P.: I’ve never really been hopeful about Israel, but Israel has very powerful friends who I hope will advise Israel that they should act.
Q.: Minister about Israel, what does it [the decision] say about Israel as a country and a government and a military?
P.: I think that’s for you and the public to decide. What we’ve said is „Here’s an international instrument, let us bring it into operation and let’s stop being observers 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 must oversee the process and ensure that we create a basis for 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.
Q.: [not understandable]
P.: Well as as far as I understand the convention states member states are signatories and you bring actions with reference to States not to particular groups.
Q.: But hasn’t Hamas behaved genocidal?
P.: I believe that what has been done by Hamas has certainly caused great harm, and I do think that the hostages should be freed and that’s what we must focus upon.
Q.: Minister, do you believe that the decision of the Court will help let’s say in solving the problem of the Israeli aggression against the Palestinians today and in the short term maybe can help finding a political solution to the conflict between the Palestinian people and the Israeli occupation.
P.: Well, my hope is that we will begin to move toward 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
Q.: What are the implications for international law?
P.: Well, 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 precedent. So what we should do what all of us should do is call on Israel to act in terms of the decisions.
Q.: Will you separate ties with Israel or are you preserving ties with Israel?
P.: 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 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.
Q.: And on that note we’re going to ask the vice foreign minister of that …
P.: … 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 apartheid oppression – they will overcome.
Dazu Norman Finkelstein:
Wasn’t that beautiful? And smart? Tell me one of world leader who speaks like that one. I mean that’s somebody who grew up under apartheid, but not just under apartheid but in the anti-apartheid movement. I think her parents were anti-apartheid activists. She grew up in that reality and […] it really becomes deeply ingrained, that consciousness of justice and injustice. I have to say there is something very poetic about the fact that this case was brought by South Africa of all of the countries in the world. If I think about it, I can’t think of one I’d prefer to be the one bringing this particular case to the court.