Is Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip illegal under international law? Fifteen years after the deadly Mavi Marmara incident, the question again sails into news coverage, this time with respect to the Madleen, the latest failed “Freedom Flotilla” effort to break the blockade.
As far as the Associated Press would have readers believe, the answer to that key question is blowing in the wind.
Thus, in coverage of the deportation of its passengers, climate activist Greta Thunberg among them, the wire service reports the legality of the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip as a he said/she said dispute (Israel versus its critics), ignoring the United Nations’ position on the matter. The incomplete and therefore misleading reporting disregards that the U.N., which is also almost always a critic of Israel, has previously weighed in, ruling that Israel’s naval blockade is indeed legal.
The Freedom Flotilla Coalition, along with rights groups, said Israel’s actions in international waters were a violation of international law. Israel rejects that charge, saying such ships intend to breach what it argues is a lawful naval blockade of Gaza.
Israel says the blockade is needed to prevent Hamas from importing arms, while critics say it amounts to collective punishment of Gaza’s Palestinian population.
Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.The panel recognized that the naval blockade “was imposed primarily to enable a legally sound basis for Israel to exert control over ships attempting to reach Gaza with weapons and related goods.”
Israel has faced and continues to face a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. Rockets, missiles and mortar bombs have been launched from Gaza towards Israel since 2001. More than 5,000 were fired between 2005 and January 2009, when the naval blockade was imposed … . Since 2001 such attacks have caused more than 25 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The enormity of the psychological toll on the affected population cannot be underestimated … The purpose of these acts of violence, which have been repeatedly condemned by the international community has been to do damage to the population of Israel. It seems obvious enough that stopping these violent acts was a necessary step for Israel to take in order to protect its people and to defend itself.
Hamas is the de facto political and administrative authority in Gaza and to a large extent has control over events on the ground there. It is Hamas that is firing the projectiles in Israel or is permitting others to do so. The Panel considers the conflict should be treated as an international one for the purposes of the law of blockade. This takes foremost into account Israel’s right to self-defence against armed attacks from outside territory. In this context, the debate on Gaza’s status, in particular its relationship to Israel, should not obscure the realities. The law does not operate in a political vacuum and it is implausible to deny that the nature of the armed violence between Israel and Hamas goes beyond purely domestic matters. In fact, it has all the trappings of an international armed conflict.
A separate June 9 AP article which mentions the U.N. Palmer report nevertheless manages to conceal the key conclusion that the naval blockade is both militarily justified and legal (“Israel seized a Gaza-bound boat with Greta Thunberg on board. Can it do that?”). In this confounding passage, AP’s Tia Goldenberg obscures the U.N. report behind Israeli Robbie Sabel, an international law expert and former legal adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry. She writes:Sabel cited a U.N. report on the 2010 raid that ended in activist fatalities, which stated that “attempts to breach a lawfully imposed naval blockade place the vessel and those on board at risk.” The debate over the legality of Israel’s blockade remains unresolved among legal experts.
Whether the blockade is militarily justified is also up for debate.
Suhad Bishara, head of the legal department at Adalah, a legal rights group in Israel representing the activists, said Israel was not justified in acting against a ship in international waters that posed no military threat.
“In principle, Israel cannot extend an arm into international waters and carry out whatever action against a ship there,” she said.
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Oren Marmorstein said that “everything that was done was done in accordance with international law,” referring to the ship takeover.