RSS
Why Anti-Israel Flotillas to Gaza Are Illegal Under International Law
A US soldier leaves a cordoned-off area as other troops work on a beached vessel, used for delivering aid to Palestinians via a new US-built pier in Gaza, after it got stuck trying to help another vessel behind it, on the Mediterranean coast in Ashdod, Israel, May 25, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
Forty anti-Israel activists set sail aboard the ship “Al Awda” with the intention of breaching the blockade around Gaza. Just outside Maltese waters last week, two drones of unknown origin targeted the ship’s generators, causing no injuries but leaving the vessel stranded at sea.
Nearby countries are refusing to allow the Al Awda to dock, and spokespeople for the activists, as well as Greta Thunberg, claim the drone attack to be a violation of international law. It is not.
Why is there a blockade around Gaza?
Hamas, the internationally designated terror organization that rules Gaza, uses foreign supplies, including international aid, to carry out a variety of combat operations, including the October 7, 2023, massacre against Israel, and much of the fighting since that time.
In 2010, an “aid ship” called the Mavi Marmara attempted to break Israel’s blockade on Gaza. Upon boarding, Israeli forces discovered large quantities of weapons and other military equipment, intended for use against Israelis by Gaza’s various terror organizations.
The incident had put Israel in an impossible “Catch-22”: either allow the delivery of weapons to terror organizations, or else suffer international condemnation for attacking a vessel that (falsely) claims the moniker “humanitarian.” It is likely that the Al Awda was hoping for a similar “win-win” scenario: to either successfully supply Hamas, or at the very least, to harm Israel diplomatically in the attempt.
Why did Israel freeze aid to Gaza?
On March 2, 2025, Israel temporarily froze the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza (as permitted by Article 23 of Geneva Convention IV) because such aid is typically transferred to enemy combatants instead of civilians.
Specifically, Hamas habitually steals international aid, as well as torturing and killing civilians who attempt to take aid for themselves. This reality has been confirmed by multiple international sources, including the United Nations, and has been caught on camera numerous times. Hamas uses aid materials to raise funds for combat, as well as directly in combat operations, such as fueling rockets or using concrete to build terror tunnels where Israeli hostages remain in captivity.
It is not known whether the Al Awda carried weapons, but based on the example of the Mavi Marmara, this must be considered a real and dangerous possibility for any un-inspected vessel. Even if the Al Awda were not carrying weapons, all materials that enter Gaza could very well end up being used by Hamas either to indirectly fund, or to directly carry out, terror activities.
Is a naval blockade legal?
A naval blockade is governed by the San Remo Manual on armed conflicts at sea and, when made pursuant the San Remo rules, is considered a legal act of war. Legal blockades have been used in numerous conflicts, including around Nazi Germany and Japan during World War II, and today around Russia and Iran.
By the same international rules, attempting to break a legal blockade is an act of combat. Specifically, Article 67 of San Remo states (in relevant part) that, “merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they are believed on reasonable grounds to be…breaching a blockade.”
International law provides a number of mechanisms for legally transferring aid to a blockaded territory, however attempting to break a legal blockade is not one of them.
Being in international waters does not guarantee impunity.
Section 10 of San Remo explicitly states that its rules apply to the “high seas,” which is a legal term often used with respect to international waters.
Therefore, when a ship is en route to a blockaded territory, with the intention of attempting to break the blockade, that ship is already engaged in an act of war under the terms of San Remo.
Anyone who follows naval history knows that battles often take place on the “high seas” and for good reason: if San Remo prohibited countries from striking an invading navy until it reached their shores, then international law would have effectively outlawed self defense. Therefore, even being en route to commit an act of war (such as breaching a legal blockade) opens the invading vessel to legitimate attack.
The crew and passengers of the Al Awda are not civilians.
The Geneva Convention Additional Protocol I defines three categories of persons in a conflict: 1. combatants (Article 43), 2. civilians (Article 50), and 3. any person who has taken part in hostilities but who does not qualify as a legitimate combatant under Article 43 (Article 44).
According to San Remo, activists aboard the Al Awda are taking part in hostilities, and they are therefore “non-civilians,” under international law and are “unlawful combatants” under the laws of numerous countries, including Israel and the United States.
Was the attack on Al Awda legal?
Israel has not taken responsibility for the drone attack on the Al Awda. However, under San Remo and the Geneva Conventions, Israel would be absolutely justified in treating the Al Awda, and all persons aboard, as hostile combatants. Under these circumstances, engaging the Al Awda, including in international waters, would have been absolutely permitted under international law. Merely stranding the vessel is not only permitted, but an enormous act of restraint.
Any shipment of supplies to Gaza, where Hamas controls all such deliveries, places Israeli civilians in direct and significant military danger, even as such shipments fail to help Gaza’s civilians. On the other hand, going after a vessel that claims to be “humanitarian” places Israel in diplomatic danger, even if due only to widespread ignorance of international law.
Therefore, the drone incident on the Al Awda, which took no lives, and cannot be officially traced to any source, combined with the regional refusal to allow the Al Awda safe harbor, has confounded both outcomes. In all likelihood, lives have been directly saved by last week’s events off the Malta coast.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post Why Anti-Israel Flotillas to Gaza Are Illegal Under International Law first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Ritchie Torres Says Netanyahu Has Done ‘Irreparable’ Harm to Democratic Party Relationship With Israel
US Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) standing at the US Capitol in February of 2023. Photo: Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), one of Israel’s most vocal supporters in Congress, delivered pointed criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday, saying the longtime leader has “done harm” to Israel’s relationship with the Democratic Party and called for an end to the war in Gaza.
“If you’re a Democrat, and if you’re a Democrat of color and if you’re a Black Democrat, you take immense pride in Barack Obama. He represents one of the greatest achievements in politics. We take great pride in his presidency,” Torres said in an interview with . “To see a foreign leader visibly disrespect him in the manner that Bibi Netanyahu did, I feel did irreparable damage to the relationship with the Democratic Party.”
Torres offered a gloomy assessment of Netanyahu’s relationship with the Democratic party, arguing that “the damage may be irreparable.” He also cautioned that support for the Jewish state is rapidly “eroding” according to various polls.
Furthermore, Torres stated that despite his strident support for Israel, he does not “consider myself having a good relationship with the Israeli government.”
Torres said that Netanyahu “made a terrible mistake” in establishing a cozy relationship with President Donald Trump and the Republican Party, arguing that the Israeli premier politicized the US-Israel relationship. The progressive lawmaker said that there is a “legitimate perception that the present Israeli government is just aligned with the Republican Party.”
The remarks represent a notable shift from Torres, a New York Democrat who has historically defended Israel amid bipartisan divisions over the war. While maintaining his commitment to Israel’s security, Torres said Netanyahu’s government has failed to articulate a clear endgame in Gaza and warned that the ongoing military campaign is undermining both humanitarian values and strategic interests.
“There’s a real need to end the war, secure the release of the hostages, bring humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in distress.”
Torres cited prominent Israeli journalists and media figures that have warned that Gaza has approached “catastrophic” levels of hunger and that famine might be looming without a rapid policy shift.
Torres’s comments come amid growing pressure from the Democratic base on centrist and progressive Democrats alike to take a firmer stance on Israel’s military operations, which have resulted in the deaths of more than 50,000 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry. Israel launched its campaign following the October 7 Hamas attack that killed approximately 1,200 people and took over 200 hostages, according to Israeli officials.
Torres’s comments underscore a growing divide within the Democratic Party over the U.S.-Israel relationship. While the party remains broadly supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself, a significant faction ,including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) condemned the war in Gaza and called for a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel.
The post Ritchie Torres Says Netanyahu Has Done ‘Irreparable’ Harm to Democratic Party Relationship With Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israeli Defense Firm Lands Huge Deal With Germany
An Elbit Systems Ltd. Hermes 900 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is seen at Elbit’s drone factory in Rehovot, Israel, June 28, 2018. Photo: REUTERS/Orel Cohen
On Monday, Elbit Systems Ltd., a military contractor based in Israel, announced it had received a $260 million government contract from Germany to spend six years installing Directional Infrared Counter Measures (DIRCM) self-protection systems for defending Germany’s A400M aircraft fleet.
The contract is just the latest in a string of blockbuster deals between Israeli defense firms and international militaries. Israeli defense exports to Europe jumped to 54% of overall defense exports last year, up from just over 33% in 2023, according to the Israeli media outlet Globes.
Elbit’s defense system works to counter infrared-guided missiles, with a focus on mobile anti-aircraft weapons. It offers the ability to track missile threats as they happen and also provides automatic protection without needed human action.
Other countries which have deployed the system include Israel, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Brazil. In February, Morocco announced plans to purchase 36 Atmos 2000 self-propelled artillery systems from Elbit, making Israel the country’s third largest weapons supplier.
“This contract further strengthens Elbit Systems’ position as a leading global provider of DIRCM solutions,” Elbit president and CEO Bezhalel Machlis said. “Our systems are already trusted by numerous air forces and defense organizations around the world, and we are proud to support Germany in enhancing the protection of their strategic air assets. Our successful collaboration with Airbus DS on this important program is highly valued, and we are pleased that our advanced self-protection systems will contribute to the safety and operational readiness of the German A400M fleet.”
The announcement prompted Elbit’s share price to jump 1 percent on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE).
Since Israel’s 12-day war against Iran, Israel’s financial markets have been buoyed by significant foreign investment and renewed investor confidence. Over the past year, the TASE has repeatedly broken past its all-time highs, despite Israel’s multi-front wars.
On Friday, Germany announced that it would not join France in recognizing a Palestinian state. A government spokesperson said “Israel’s security is of paramount importance to the German government” and that “the German government therefore has no plans to recognize a Palestinian state in the short term.”
On Monday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that the country had no plans to sanction Israel and that “for now, we want to await the foreign minister’s trip and the talks that will be held with the Israeli government in the coming days.”
The post Israeli Defense Firm Lands Huge Deal With Germany first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Says Brazil’s Exit From IHRA Shows ‘a Profound Moral Failure’
Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva reacts after meeting with Brazilian citizens, who were repatriated from the Gaza Strip, upon arrival at the Air Force base of Brasilia, Brazil, Nov. 13, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Ueslei Marcelino
The Brazilian government has not yet confirmed its reported decision to withdraw from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), however both Brazilian media and the Jewish state have have done so.
On Thursday, Israel’s Foreign Ministry stated on X that “Brazil’s decision to join the legal offensive against Israel at the ICJ [International Court of Justice] while withdrawing from the IHRA, is a demonstration of a profound moral failure. At a time when Israel is fighting for its very existence, turning against the Jewish state and abandoning the global consensus against antisemitism is both reckless and shameful.”
On Wednesday, reports emerged of Brazil’s plans to join South Africa in charging Israel with genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). South Africa has argued the case against Israel since December 2023.
The Combat Antisemitism Movement’s Shay Salamon, Director of Hispanic Affairs, condemned Brazil’s withdrawal from IHRA in a Friday statement.
“The Brazilian government’s move is not only irresponsible, but also deeply alarming at a time of rising antisemitism worldwide,” Salamon said. “Denying the importance of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and abandoning its Working Definition of Antisemitism minimizes the Holocaust and disregards the history of a people who have been victimized by hatred for ages.”
Salamon stated that “Brazil is home to the second-largest Jewish community in Latin America, including many descendants of Holocaust survivors, and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has now turned his back on them. This decision, on top of his constant attacks on Israel, further confirms what was already clear — President Lula has normalized antisemitism in his official discourse. His approach represents neither neutrality nor diplomacy — rather, it’s complicity.”
Fernando Lottenberg, who serves as Organization of American States (OAS) Commissioner for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism, offered his analysis of Lula’s move in a thread of posts on X, saying that “this is a step in the wrong direction.”
“Although Brazil has not adopted the [IHRA antisemitism] definition nationally, it has been adopted in 12 Brazilian states so far, as well as in the cities of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo,” Lottenberg wrote. “The IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism is an important tool that, although not legally binding, has been adopted by more than 45 countries and 2,000 institutions around the world to help inform, identify, and combat antisemitism.”
The post Israel Says Brazil’s Exit From IHRA Shows ‘a Profound Moral Failure’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.