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
Switzerland Moves to Close Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s Geneva Office Over Legal Irregularities
Palestinians carry aid supplies received from the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation in the central Gaza Strip, May 29, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ramadan Abed/File Photo
Switzerland has moved to shut down the Geneva office of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US- and Israeli-backed aid group, citing legal irregularities in its establishment.
The GHF began distributing food packages in Gaza in late May, implementing a new aid delivery model aimed at preventing the diversion of supplies by Hamas, as Israel continues its defensive military campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group.
The initiative has drawn criticism from the UN and international organizations, some of which have claimed that Jerusalem is causing starvation in the war-torn enclave.
Israel has vehemently denied such accusations, noting that, until its recently imposed blockade, it had provided significant humanitarian aid in the enclave throughout the war.
Israeli officials have also said much of the aid that flows into Gaza is stolen by Hamas, which uses it for terrorist operations and sells the rest at high prices to Gazan civilians.
With a subsidiary registered in Geneva, the GHF — headquartered in Delaware — reports having delivered over 56 million meals to Palestinians in just one month.
According to a regulatory announcement published Wednesday in the Swiss Official Gazette of Commerce, the Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA) may order the dissolution of the GHF if no creditors come forward within the legal 30-day period.
The Trump administration did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the Swiss decision to shut down its Geneva office.
“The GHF confirmed to the ESA that it had never carried out activities in Switzerland … and that it intends to dissolve the Geneva-registered branch,” the ESA said in a statement.
Last week, Geneva authorities gave the GHF a 30-day deadline to address legal shortcomings or risk facing enforcement measures.
Under local laws and regulations, the foundation failed to meet several requirements: it did not appoint a board member authorized to sign documents domiciled in Switzerland, did not have the minimum three board members, lacked a Swiss bank account and valid address, and operated without an auditing body.
The GHF operates independently from UN-backed mechanisms, which Hamas has sought to reinstate, arguing that these vehicles are more neutral.
Israeli and American officials have rejected those calls, saying Hamas previously exploited UN-run systems to siphon aid for its war effort.
The UN has denied those allegations while expressing concerns that the GHF’s approach forces civilians to risk their safety by traveling long distances across active conflict zones to reach food distribution points.
The post Switzerland Moves to Close Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s Geneva Office Over Legal Irregularities first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Key US Lawmaker Warns Ireland of Potential Economic Consequences for ‘Antisemitic Path’ Against Israel
US Sen. James Risch (R-ID) speaks during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Washington, DC, May 21, 2024. Photo: Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman James Risch (R-ID) issued a sharp warning Tuesday, accusing Ireland of embracing antisemitism and threatening potential economic consequences if the Irish government proceeds with new legislation targeting Israeli trade.
“Ireland, while often a valuable U.S. partner, is on a hateful, antisemitic path that will only lead to self-inflicted economic suffering,” Risch wrote in a post on X. “If this legislation is implemented, America will have to seriously reconsider its deep and ongoing economic ties. We will always stand up to blatant antisemitism.”
Marking a striking escalation in rhetoric from a senior US lawmaker, Risch’s comments came amid growing tensions between Ireland and Israel, which have intensified dramatically since the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel on October 7, 2023. Those attacks, in which roughly 1,200 Israelis were killed and more than 200 taken hostage, prompted a months-long Israeli military campaign in Gaza that has drawn widespread international scrutiny. Ireland has positioned itself as one of the most vocal critics of Israel’s response, accusing the Israeli government of disproportionate use of force and calling for immediate humanitarian relief and accountability for the elevated number of Palestinian civilian casualties.
Dublin’s stance has included tangible policy shifts. In May 2024, Ireland formally recognized a Palestinian state, becoming one of the first European Union members to do so following the outbreak of the war in Gaza. The move was condemned by Israeli officials, who recalled their ambassador to Ireland and accused the Irish government of legitimizing terrorism. Since then, Irish lawmakers have proposed further measures, including legislation aimed at restricting imports from Israeli settlements in the West Bank, policies viewed in Israel and among many American lawmakers as aligning with the controversial Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
While Irish leaders have defended their approach as grounded in international law and human rights, critics in Washington, including Risch, have portrayed it as part of a broader pattern of hostility toward Israel. Some US lawmakers have begun raising the possibility of reevaluating trade and diplomatic ties with Ireland in response.
Risch’s warning is one of the clearest indications yet that Ireland’s policies toward Israel could carry economic consequences. The United States is one of Ireland’s largest trading partners, and American companies such as Apple, Google, Meta and Pfizer maintain substantial operations in the country, drawn by Ireland’s favorable tax regime and access to the EU market.
Though the Trump administration has not echoed Risch’s warning, the remarks reflect growing unease in Washington about the trajectory of Ireland’s foreign policy. The State Department has maintained a careful balancing act, expressing strong support for Israel’s security while calling for increased humanitarian access in Gaza. Officials have stopped short of condemning Ireland’s actions directly but have expressed concern about efforts they see as isolating Israel on the international stage.
Ireland’s stance is emblematic of a growing international divide over the war. While the US continues to provide military and diplomatic backing to Israel, many European countries have called for an immediate ceasefire and investigations into alleged war crimes.
Irish public opinion has long leaned pro-Palestinian, and Irish lawmakers have repeatedly voiced concern over the scale of destruction in Gaza and the dire humanitarian situation.
Irish officials have not yet responded to The Algemeiner’s request for comment.
The post Key US Lawmaker Warns Ireland of Potential Economic Consequences for ‘Antisemitic Path’ Against Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel Condemns Iran’s Suspension of IAEA Cooperation, Urges Europe to Reinstate UN Sanctions
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar at a press conference in Berlin, Germany, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Christian Mang/File Photo
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar on Wednesday condemned Iran’s decision to halt cooperation with the UN’s nuclear watchdog and called on the international community to reinstate sanctions to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
“Iran has just issued a scandalous announcement about suspending its cooperation with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency),” Saar wrote in a post on X. “This is a complete renunciation of all its international nuclear obligations and commitments.”
Last week, the Iranian parliament voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA “until the safety and security of [the country’s] nuclear activities can be guaranteed.”
“The IAEA and its Director-General are fully responsible for this sordid state of affairs,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote in a post on X.
The top Iranian diplomat said this latest decision was “a direct result of [IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi’s] regrettable role in obfuscating the fact that the Agency — a full decade ago — already closed all past issues.
“Through this malign action,” Araghchi continued, “he directly facilitated the adoption of a politically-motivated resolution against Iran by the IAEA [Board of Governors] as well as the unlawful Israeli and US bombings of Iranian nuclear sites.”
The Parliament of Iran has voted for a halt to collaboration with the IAEA until the safety and security of our nuclear activities can be guaranteed.
This is a direct result of @rafaelmgrossi‘s regrettable role in obfuscating the fact that the Agency—a full decade ago—already…
— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) June 27, 2025
On Wednesday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian approved a bill banning UN nuclear inspectors from entering the country until the Supreme National Security Council decides that there is no longer a threat to the safety of its nuclear sites.
In response, Saar urged European countries that were part of the now-defunct 2015 nuclear deal to activate its “snapback” clause and reinstate all UN sanctions lifted under the agreement.
Officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), this accord between Iran and several world powers imposed temporary restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
During his first term, US President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal and reinstated unilateral sanctions on Iran.
“The time to activate the Snapback mechanism is now! I call upon the E3 countries — Germany, France and the UK to reinstate all sanctions against Iran!” Saar wrote in a post on X.
“The international community must act decisively now and utilize all means at its disposal to stop Iranian nuclear ambitions,” he continued.
The time to activate the Snapback mechanism is now!
I call upon the E3 countries- Germany, France and the UK to reinstate all sanctions against Iran!
Iran has just issued a scandalous announcement about suspending its cooperation with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy…— Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) July 2, 2025
Saar’s latest remarks come after Araghchi met last week in Geneva with his counterparts from Britain, France, Germany and the European Union’s Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas — their first meeting since the Iran-Israel war began.
Europe is actively urging Iran to reengage in talks with the White House to prevent further escalation of tensions, but has yet to address the issue of reinstating sanctions.
Speaking during an official visit to Latvia on Tuesday, Saar said that “Operation Rising Lion” — Israel’s sweeping military campaign aimed at dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities — has “revealed the full extent of the Iranian regime’s threat to Israel, Europe, and the global order.”
“Iran deliberately targeted civilian population centers with its ballistic missiles,” Saar said at a press conference. “The same missile threat can reach Europe, including Latvia and the Baltic states.”
“Israel’s actions against the head of the snake in Iran contributed directly to the safety of Europe,” the Israeli top diplomat continued, adding that Israeli strikes have set back the Iranian nuclear program by many years.
The post Israel Condemns Iran’s Suspension of IAEA Cooperation, Urges Europe to Reinstate UN Sanctions first appeared on Algemeiner.com.