In Parliament Foreign Affairs Minister Ritesh Ramful explained the government stand against Israel, answering MP Joanna Bérenger
05.06.2026
LALIT notes that Foreign Affairs Minister Ritesh Ramful in Parliament on Tuesday began to clarify the government stand against Israel. We are publishing his full answer to the excellent question posed by MP Joanna Bérenger. However the government answer is not yet good enough. After publishing his answer below we call for four clear actions.
1. Given that the Oslo Accords are now "caduque" and that they were the reason for giving Israel accreditation and given that the International Court of Justice (ICJ)2024 final judgement that the occupation of Palestine including Gaza is unlawful. LALIT calls on the government to cut off all diplomatic and consular ties,
2. Given the arrest warrant the ICC (International Criminal Court) has issued against Israeli leaders and given the "provisional measures" that the ICJ has issued in the genocide case, that no visas be granted to any Israeli citizen, including anyone with dual nationality, who has any links with the IDF which is perpetrating the "plausible genocide".
3. That the Government, recognising that Diego Garcia, part of Mauritius and now defined as such by both the ICJ and the UN General Assembly, request to participate in the South African genocide case against Israel and present arguments under both Articles 63 and 62.
4. Given that Mauritius policy is rightly so critical of Israel, that the Government explain why it withdraw from its scheduled ICJ deposition in a third case against Israel, for its starvation of the people of Gaza.
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PARLIAMENTARY, TUESDAY 02 JUNE 2026
ISRAEL-MAURITIUS – DIPLOMATIC, TRADE & SECURITY RELATIONS
Ms J. Bérenger (First Member for Vacoas & Floréal) asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade whether, in regard to Israel, he will state the scope of the diplomatic, trade and security relations of Mauritius therewith in the light of the orders of the International Court of Justice under the Genocide Convention, the arrest warrants of the International Criminal Court and the findings of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry against Israel, indicating whether consideration will be given for the –
(a) suspension thereof, and
(b) filing of a declaration of intervention in the proceedings before the International Court of Justice.
Mr Ramful: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mauritius has consistently maintained a principled and long-standing position in support of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination and the establishment of an independent, sovereign and viable State of Palestine, in accordance with international law and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations.
Our support for the Palestinian cause has been demonstrated over several decades through our voting record at the United Nations and its agencies, our support to decisions relating to Palestine at the African union, our support for humanitarian initiatives aimed at alleviating the suffering of Palestinian civilians, and our participation in international, legal and diplomatic processes concerning the question of Palestine.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as regards part (a) of the question, diplomatic relations with Israel were established shortly after the accession of Mauritius to independence on 23 April 1968
However, on 07 July 1976, Mauritius severed diplomatic relations with Israel in line with the position adopted by many African States and in solidarity with the Palestinian people. Mauritius subsequently recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation in 1979. Diplomatic relations with Israel were re-established on 29 September 1993, following the signing of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. On 15 May 1996, Cabinet agreed to the reopening of a honorary consulate of Mauritius in Tel Aviv. In 2009, under the prime ministership of Dr. the hon. Navin Ramgoolam, in the wake of the Israel's bombardment and continued escalation of Israeli military action in Gaza, Cabinet agreed to consider reviewing the operation of the honorary consulate of Israel in Mauritius.
Thereafter, the request for the accreditation of the Israel Ambassador in Pretoria was kept in abeyance until 2015, and the Israel Ambassador presented its credentials only in 2018. Although diplomatic relations have not been formally severed, the current Government has maintained a restrained approach to bilateral engagement, consistent with our long-standing support for the rights of the Palestinian people and our commitment to the principles of international law.
This is reflected in the modest volume of trade between the two countries, the limited scope of bilateral cooperation programmes, the absence of significant recent bilateral agreements, and the lack of high-level political exchange. Mauritius continues to uphold its fundamental principles regarding the inalienable rights of the Palestinians to self- determination.
In this regard, Mauritius will, today, itself vote in favour of the participation of Palestine in the International Labour Organisation as a non-member state.
As regards part (b) of the question, in particular the proceedings under the Genocide Convention instituted by South Africa against Israel before the ICJ, Mauritius is closely following the proceedings, and a decision on the need to intervene in the proceedings will be taken at a convenient stage in consultation with our missions in New York and Geneva. However, it is to be highlighted that the Mauritian government has publicly stated that it supports the case entered by South Africa in 2023. This was stated in this Assembly by the58 then Minister of Foreign Affairs in July 2024, and there has been no change in policy on this issue by the current Government.
Any decision to intervene in the proceedings before the ICJ will be taken in a manner that is consistent with our national interests, our international obligations, and our enduring commitment to justice, multilateralism, and respect for international law. In this regard, Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute of the ICJ provide distinct mechanisms through which a State may seek to participate in proceedings before that court. Article 62 allows a State to request permission to intervene where it considers that it possesses an interest of a legal nature that may be affected by the court's decision. Such intervention is subject to the authorisation of the ICJ. Article 63, however, provides for intervention by States that are parties to a convention where interpretation of that convention is in issue in the proceedings, allowing them to present observations on the interpretation of that convention. So far, 19 countries have filed declarations supporting the case for South Africa, and three have opposed the case.
The majority of these countries have filed declarations under Article 63 in order to provide their inputs to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Genocide Convention.
It has to be noted that countries intervening under Article 63 are restricted to give their views on the interpretation of the convention, and not on the substance of the case. Any decision by Mauritius to intervene in the proceedings will be based, therefore, on a rigorous assessment of the applicable legal requirements, the objectives to be achieved, and the extent to which Mauritius could make a meaningful contribution to the proceedings. In the meantime, Mauritius will continue to support all efforts under the aegis of the United Nations aimed at securing an immediate cessation of hostilities, ensuring the protection of civilians, facilitating unhindered humanitarian assistance, and advancing a just, comprehensive, and lasting solution to the Palestinian question.
(Source: Hansard PQ No. B/886)
