Israel breaks international law…again

Image - Mandy Zhu

‍

For the second time in the space of a week, Israel is being widely accused of the violation of international law. With the newest interception of ships carrying humanitarian aid intended for Gaza, the justification given by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs seems ever more inadequate.

‍

On the morning of the 8^th October, three vessels from the Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) were intercepted roughly 220km from the Gaza coast with a fourth larger boat, the Conscience, being halted shortly after. The FFC says that the convoy was carrying 150 people (including 93 journalists, doctors and activists on the Conscience), and $110,000 in medicines, respiratory equipment and nutritional supplies.

‍

Following the interception of the boats and the detention of those aboard, Israel’s ministry of Foreign Affairs described the incident as “another futile attempt to break the legal naval blockade and enter a combat zone”. This statement comes in reference to the Global Sumud Flotilla, intercepted on October 1^st.

‍

The Global Sumud flotilla was made up of 44 boats and carried 470 passengers from 37 countries, notably including climate activist Greta Thunberg. Following its interception, Israel was condemned by governments around the world with Turkey’s Foreign Ministry describing it as a “grave violation of international law”. Furthermore, protests erupted in cities such as Rome, Buenos Aires and Istanbul.

Yet, despite this worldwide support, the activists released have received much criticism online, from national governments including the US and from Israel. Ben-Gvir, the Israeli Minister for National Security justified Israel’s actions by describing the activists as terrorists breaching a legal blockade.

‍

The problem with this, as the organisers have been quick to point out, is that the legality of the blockade, which Israel has enforced since 2007 to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza, is not the only way in which Israel’s accordance with international law is being called into question.

‍

The territorial seas of a country extend 22km from its coastline. As both flotillas were intercepted at a much greater distance than this (130km and 220km), they were operating in the high seas, where freedom of navigation is guaranteed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

‍

Israel would argue that following the 2007 control of Hamas, a blockade was justified of their Exclusive Economic Zone (an area that extends 370km from a country’s coastline that does not belong to that country, but in which they retain certain rights) to prevent weapons smuggling.

‍

Israel has used this as a justification for the interception of flotillas on several occasions from 2010, including those recently, and has been quick to reiterate the blockade’s legitimacy.

‍

The legality of the blockade however, is not what is being called into question and is not of relevance, in that the prevention of humanitarian aid, with or without a blockade, breaks several international laws.

‍

The organisers of the flotillas have cited UN Security Council Resolutions 2720 and 2728 which demand unimpeded humanitarian access and removal of all barriers to aid delivery. Additionally, they have cited the Fourth Geneva Convention.

‍

Article 23 states that a country has an obligation to permit the free passage of humanitarian aid. Whilst there are some stipulations to this due to the nature of war time, Article 70 also applies to the current situation, as Gaza is not an occupied territory. Article 70 is broader, with less stipulations and requires free passage of all essential items required by the civilian population, in contrast to the limited categories of supplies for which free passage is required by Article 23.

‍

Following this, it would appear that by the prevention of flotillas, carrying humanitarian aid, and not carrying weapons, that Israel has directly violated the UN Security Council Resolutions and the Geneva Convention, which would indeed be a grave violation of international law.

‍

The way in which these accusations are being dismissed, both online and by the Israeli government is through the Ministry of National Security’s claim that on the Global Sumud Flotilla, they found a limited amount of aid, going so far as to label the activists as attention seekers.

‍

Those aboard have admitted that the flotilla was carrying a symbolic but still impactful amount of aid, and they have stated that their primary goal was to open a humanitarian corridor primarily to make way for other vessels. However, the amount of aid is not relevant, as this is not stipulated in either the UN Security Council resolutions or the Fourth Geneva Convention, meaning Israel still acted illegally.

‍

Furthermore, if the lack of aid was used to justify the interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla, this argument becomes defunct with the interception of the most recent FFC flotilla carrying $110,000 of aid. None of the explanations offered by the Israeli government, as of yet, address this or in any way defends the Israeli government from accusation of gravely violating international law. Whilst the governments of several countries such as Turkey, Malaysia, Ireland, and Colombia have condemned these actions, there has still been very little reaction to what appears to be a blatant and arrogant disregard for international law.