was brought by south africa and will now be the basis of a full trial lasting years. the israeli government is outraged. world reaction has been mixed. but in terms of the situation on the ground in gaza, nothing seems to have changed. my guest is ronald lamola, south africa's justice minister. could the war in gaza be a game changer in geopolitics? ronald lamola injohannesburg, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. thank you very much. minister, it's great to

have you on the programme. let's begin by reflecting on that preliminary ruling from the international court ofjustice last week in the hague. you in the south african government were hailing it as an historic victory. but i would put it to you that a few days later, it has changed nothing. would you agree? it is indeed a historic victory. it has affirmed an international rules based order, which has also brought to an end to israel's exceptionalism when it comes to the gaza strip. and we believe that the state of israel will have to be put under pressure by the international community, by the multilateral forums across the globe, including the un, to abide by the... ..by the court order. and indeed, as you have said, the...on the ground,

the situation has not changed much, but we believe that with time the needle will definitely move for the benefit of the children of gaza and the elderly women and women in general and all the people that are based in gaza. you were the opening voice, if you like, when you presented, you south africans presented the case to the international court ofjustice earlier in the month. and part of your case was that you said circumstances demanded an immediate ceasefire. you didn't get that immediate ceasefire. and just looking at the data over the last couple of days, it seems perhaps 500 or more palestinians have died since the preliminary ruling from the icj. so on that simple basis of wanting a ceasefire and failing to get it, surely you must be feeling disappointed.

we are not feeling disappointed at all because we are aware that the court has a discretion which is wide. and as you are aware, we have made our prayers and our plea very clear. what we wanted with the court and even in many other cases, like the bosnian case, the russian case, the parties that had made prayers, they did not get them word for word. but that does not mean that they did not get what they expected the court to do, because the court has a discretion. it has chosen to use its own words. and in this regard, it does not mean that we did not get a cease fire. when you look at what the court said, stop genocidal acts, stop the incitement of violence, and also hold those that are inciting genocide into account

by the state of israel, allow for humanitarian access and so forth. when you look at all those cumulatively, they definitely amount to a ceasefire. well... and the un secretary—general has said many times that all those issues related to humanitarian intervention and so forth cannot happen without there being a ceasefire. so when you look at the court order in its entirety and its cumulative effect, it definitely amounts to a ceasefire. and that is what we expect to happen to stop the genocidal acts, as it was found to be plausible, within the terrain of the convention... well, hang on a minute, minister... ..and also allow for humanitarian access. yeah. just hang on a minute, minister, cos what you're saying is important. you're making reference to the six different preliminary measures that the court issued in terms of what it wanted to see from israel. and that included, as you say,

an insurance that the israeli military doesn't commit any acts that could fit into this genocidal idea. you claim that means that the killing must stop. but of course, israel has a completely different idea. israel says, "look, fundamentally, this "is all about a war of self—defence. "hamas's fighters, those who committed the murderous "attack on october 7, are still at large. "those that we haven't yet killed. "we have a duty to our state security to eliminate those "people, and therefore, under the international right "to self—defence, we have every right to continue "the military operation." how can you argue against that right, inalienable right to self—defence? yeah, it's not me, but the court itself has definitely found that that right to self—defence does not justify for them to commit any acts within, that are within the definition or within the convention that is plausible

to be genocide. so that has already been found by the court, that it does not hold water. so the state of israel cannot rely on such an argument because the court has already advised, and you will also remember that some years the court had previously advised about the issue of self—defence in these kind of circumstances, in the occupied territory. so that cannot hold water. it's notjustifiable, even within the context of the... ..of the provisional indication by the court. so that is already... i'm not the one who's arguing against that, but the court has found that that is notjustification for the actions of the state of israel. what... ? and it's for that reason that the court's given the provisional indication. right, as architects of this case, brought to the international court ofjustice, and in light of what the court ruled

in its preliminary measures, what do you want to see happen now? there is talk that at this... this week at the un in new york, there will be an effort to sort of back up the provisional measures asked for by the court with a un security council resolution. are you working with current security council members to get a resolution on the table? firstly, we expect that this will speak to the conscience of the international community to continue to exert pressure to the state of israel to comply with the provisional indication order, because this affirms a rules based society. we need that for any nations of the world to be based on a particular set of rules, and even in any society, that is a requirement.

secondly, obviously the multilateral institutions of the un, including the un itself, we expect that it will put the pressure, as the un through the secretary—general has been doing, and indeed we are working with other countries. we are aware that algeria has already invoked that provision to take the matter to the security council, to put the necessary pressure for the implementation of the. ..of the provisional indication by the court, and which we expect that the state of israel must definitely comply with. we know that certain countries, and i'm thinking of the united states and indeed the united kingdom as well, continue to say that the idea of taking israel through the international court ofjustice on the basis of a charge of genocide is, to quote them, "meritless and unfounded". is it your position now that any nation, and i'm thinking primarily of the united states, that sends weapons to israel after the icj's provisional ruling and its provisional measures, are you saying that such a nation would be, if i can put it this way,

complicit or in some way held legally responsible within the genocide charge? yeah, firstly, we have, as you have said, the judgment has been very clear that the case has got merits, it has got substance, and it has found through facts and the law that indeed our submission is plausible within the genocide convention. so the arguments by the us, and as you have said, britain, has... ..is...has been found by the court that it has got no basis in fact. we have provided a forensically well presented, cogent legal argument, backed by facts. so that argument does not hold any water and it is without substance. so it is clear that we need now to deal with the facts.

and if the uk and the us want to deal with the matter, they need to put substance, like we did... but your... your colleague, if i may, minister, your colleague in government, foreign minister pandor, she said that those states that have aided and abetted israel become party to the case. now, you're the justice minister. do you agree with that? yes, definitely. i agree with that. i just wanted to first clarify the issue that our case is meritless. that has already been found by the court, that our case has got merit, has got substance. and she is correct that anyone who is aiding or abetting it will be within the definition of the genocide convention and that those people will have to be held accountable. and that's what the court... so when you go back to the icj, cos this is obviously an ongoing process, will you be

expanding your charge sheet? it will depend on the information at our disposal of the people that will have participated. for now, we will obviously deal with the state of israel. and as we compile our information and evidence, as you will have seen, our case is forensically presented with cogent legal arguments. so when we get the information and the evidence we will present all the evidence and the information to the court of, firstly, the state of israel and whoever that could be within the definition of the convention. just another point of detail, and i come back to this israeli defence that israel says quite plainly, "you've got this completely wrong. "the genocidal element in this terrible and tragic "war is hamas. " it was hamas who on october 7 conducted such a brutal attack, violent attack on southern israel that that, according to the israelis, would fit within a definition of genocide, not israel's reaction, trying to tackle those who committed that attack.

now, essentially what we've got now is you saying that part of the demand on israel is that it must let in sufficient humanitarian supplies. and the israelis saying that the problem for them is unrwa, the un agency that enables that distribution of aid, they say has been infiltrated by hamas and they've provided detail of at least a dozen unrwa officials who they say were involved in october 7. does that change your perspective on any of this? it doesn't. as you are aware, we have condemned the actions of hamas of the seventh of october through a publicly issued statement which has been noted by the court. we have also issued a note verbale to the state of israel condemning the actions of hamas. and we have argued in court that the actions of hamas do notjustify the acts of ethnic cleansing,

of wiping out the entire population of... ..of palestine from the gaza strip, which the court has found them as to be within the definition of a group that must be protected by the convention. so in that regard, their argument also is dead, has been found not to be... ..without any merit or any substance. they need now to operate within the confines of the court order. and you will be aware that even before the court order, they have been raising some of these issues. but now that the court has found we must now operate within the context of what the court has directed the state of israel to do, and that is what we expect should happen. and now, if there is any authoritative interpretation of the situation and the context in the gaza strip, it is now the court order. can you see...?

it is not what south africa says. it is not what the state of israel says. it's what the court order says now. yeah. thing is... that is what all of us must now be operating within. thing is, ijust wonder whether you can understand the deep suspicion and mistrust there is in israel of you and your government in south africa. one spokesman in israel has accused you of cooperating with a terrorist organisation that calls for the destruction of the state of israel. many israelis noted that very soon after that october 7 attack, your foreign minister reached out by phone to have a conversation with ismail haniyeh, one of the leaders of hamas. and that was even before your president, cyril ramaphosa, had found himself able to make a public condemnation of what hamas had done on october 7. in israel, you look like hamas sympathisers. yeah. that was also an argument

they presented to court, and the court has found it to be irrelevant to the matter at stake. now we've got a court order. we've got a judgment. that is what must guide the actions. and we have been very clear. we are not friends of hamas. our bilateral relations are with the state of palestine. there's no confusion about that. and they are just using such kind of ways or conspiracies to blackmail us not to take action to protect the fundamental human rights of the children, the women of palestine. and we have got an international obligation, standing on the genocide conventions, on the shoulders of our former and founding president, nelson mandela, who participated in ensuring that we are part of the signatories of the genocide convention, and also our former minister ofjustice who domesticated the genocide convention in south africa to ensure that no—one in the world

or any vulnerable people suffer when we can be able to invoke the contents and bring to life the genocide convention. does it worry you... ? no amount... minister, you're the minister ofjustice. i just want to move on to what's happening inside south africa and reaction to this case, and your enthusiasm to bring this case at the hague, what impact it's had inside your own country. many jewish south africans, a community of long standing in your country, some tens of thousands of south african jews, many of them say right now they feel deeply uncomfortable. i'm going to quote you howard sackstein, one of the community's leading voices, who wrote recently, "i sit here staring at my suitcase, contemplating "whether it's time to leave the only home i've ever known. "forjews, this country no longer feels like "a safe space or home. "the government's been captured by radical islamists "and their sympathisers. " how do you react to that? it's a very unfortunate statement, not backed by any facts,

just his own figment of his own imagination. as you will have seen in the court papers, we argued that our case is not against thejewish as a people. it's against the zionist state of israel, against the military operations that they are running, of maiming and killing the palestinians asa group in gaza. and in south africa, there is no threat or harm whatsoever to thejewish people. they continue to participate in all forms of social life. as you speak to me now, nothing has happened to him and nothing will happen to him or anyjewish community on the basis of their creed, sex or religion. but, i mean, you'rejustice minister, so you know much better than me that there's been a rise in anti—semitic attacks in south africa since october 7. i mean, the statistics tell us that.

no, it's... there's no such... as i'm speaking to you today, the president wrote in his weekly newsletter, which he also very stated — very clear, that our action is not on the basis of anti—semitism. it's on the basis of our obligation as a nation believing in human rights to stand for the vulnerable children of palestine. so there is no anti—semitism in south africa against the jewish people. but this court case, and our actions in support of the people in gaza... all right, let... ..is in line with the genocide convention, is in line with our duty to protect the vulnerable in that space. there's a wider accusation to be put to south africa right now in the light of the stand you've taken at the international court ofjustice, and that is an accusation of a basic double standard and hypocrisy. you're telling the world that the icj rulings, even their provisional measures, must be adhered to, must be respected

when it comes to this genocide case in israel. but you didn't take that stand, did you, when the international court ofjustice ruled against russia in march 2022 and demanded an immediate withdrawal of all russian forces from the territories in ukraine that they had invaded? south africa, ever since then, has been neutral and extremely amicable toward vladimir putin. why the double standard? we have never been neutral. we've been very clear that there must be a ceasefire, there must be a peaceful solution to the situation in the ukraine and russia. and you will remember that our president led an african initiative to engage both the president of russia and the president of ukraine to open for an engagement and allow for a humanitarian ceasefire, including the return of the children. yeah. see, i come back to the point of hypocrisy and some places

where you really, really want to stand for what you call international justice and multilateralism and other places where you don't seem to be so bothered. you are friends with vladimir putin. your military has conducted military exercises with russian forces since the all—out invasion of ukraine. but also, we could look at china, where the anc has constantly looked the other way, despite allegations from the united nations and from human rights groups of systemic abuse against the uyghur minority in xinjiang province. and only the other day, a senior anc official talked about the big positive progress being made by the chinese government in xinjiang. again, double standards. you're ready to look the other way when it comes to your friends. that is not correct. we stand very firmly in all multilateral institutions in support of human rights. we have also, with regards to the military operations

and training, we have also done so with the united states of america. we have done so with france. we have done so with many countries in the west. so this is a normal drilling or military training that happens. so we do it with all countries of the world because that is a platform for exchange of modern technology, modern military operations. so we also do it with the uk, we do it with the united states of america. we do it with all countries of the world in line with the military conventions. minister, there's politics here, isn't there? south africa is in an election year. there's going to be an election some time after the month of may. the anc record is very poor. the opinion polls haven't looked good to you for months. you've got endemic poverty, you've had power outages, you've had systemic unemployment for many years. you've got service failure on many levels, and now you've got an issue where you can turn to the south african people and say, "vote for us because we've got

this international profile "that we haven't had for years." is this part of the anc�*s election campaign? we have signed the genocide convention in 1998 through former president mandela, and it was domesticated by the minister ofjustice here in south africa, mr dullah omar. and we have been vociferous in our campaign for the people of palestine, but now, the situation has escalated. it warranted for us to act and go to the icj. it is not because there are elections. it's because there was an escalation and we have been campaigning on this matter for many, many, many years, since time immemorial. as i tell you, you will quote even ourformer president mandela, who said, "we are not free until also palestine is free." with regards to our record, statistics that have been proven and confirmed by independent people in south africa is that we have electrified our country for more than 80%. we have put water, more than 80% of our country. we have improved the service

delivery in south africa in the past 30 years, since apartheid. and that does not mean there are no challenges. indeed, there are challenges, but there is proven, impeccable data that we have improved the lives of the people of south africa. and even some of the polls in the country are also indicating that we will indeed remain the governing party after the elections in the country, so that... well, minister, i'm going to have to stop you there. i hope that that element of our conversation is one we can continue at a later date. but i have to say right now thank you for being on hardtalk. thanks forjoining me from johannesburg. thank you very much.

hello. a fairly potent area of low pressure is going to move to the north of the uk. it's been named storm ingunn by the norwegian metservice. the southern half of the uk is going to be bright and breezy on wednesday, but that storm will bring some strong winds and heavy rain across northern parts of the uk, particularly so for parts of scotland, where the strongest winds could reach around 85 mph. here's the storm system, you can see it developing here. it is moving well to the north of us. but just look at all those isobars heading our way through the day on wednesday. so that's the active front that's bringing the strong squally winds and heavy rain. first thing wednesday, i think temperatures are going to be nearfreezing, perhaps even a little below through central parts of england and wales. but i think frost free further

north where we've got the cloud, the winds — gales already during wednesday morning and the rain moving in. so that rain willjust shift its way gradually further eastwards across parts of scotland through the morning. this line here could produce some really heavy bursts, perhaps some hail and thunder,. and those gusts of wind could reach 85, possibly close to 90 mph up towards the western isles. but widely, we're looking at gales across scotland, parts of northern ireland and northern england as well. so gusts 55, perhaps 60 mph across this zone, enough to cause some significant disruption, particularly when combined with the heavy rain. further south across england and wales, you should stay dry for a good part of the day, not as windy as further north, but still blustery. 8—ii celsius towards the south, a touch colder in the north with that fresher air moving in. and some wintry showers follow on overnight into thursday across the high ground of scotland. but eventually the cloud and the rain clear away, so it's going to be another fairly chilly night, actually. we're likely to see a touch of frost in a few prone spots, certainly as we head

on into thursday. but thursday does look like a much quieter day because we'll lose the tail end of that storm system. and this ridge of higher pressure builds its way in for thursday. so that's going to squeeze away most of the rain and it will bring lighter winds. still quite a breezy day across northern and western scotland with some rain arriving later. best of the sunshine for central, southern and eastern parts of the uk. and here temperatures perhaps down a touch on recent days, 9—10 celsius, so a slightly fresher feel to the weather. but then it looks like we see things turning milder once again. so looking ahead for friday into the weekend, some rain in the north and the west, drier towards the south, but it is looking mild for all of us. bye— bye.

welcome to newsday, reporting live from singapore, i'm steve lai. the headlines. president biden says he's decided how to respond to the drone attack that killed three us soldiers injordan, but cautions against a wider war in the middle east. a deal is agreed in northern ireland meaning its government could return to power, two years after a dispute about post—brexit trade rules. pakistan's former prime minister — imran khan — is sentenced to ten years in prison for leaking state secrets. anger and sexism accusations in australia after a news channel alters an mp�*s body and outfit.

we'll speak live to the mp in the image — georgie purcell. hello and welcome to the programme. we begin in the united states where presidentjoe biden says he has decided how to respond to an attack on a us base injordan that killed three american soldiers. the drone strike was the first time us soldiers were killed by enemy fire in the region since the israel—gaza war began in october. speaking as he left the white house mr biden cautioned against a wider war in the middle east, but did not give further details about how, or when the us would respond. the us has previously promised a "very consequential response".

what could the americans do?