The world court in 2004 branded Israel’s vast concrete and steel barrier through the West Bank a political not a security measure, and a de facto land grab. The judges told Israel to tear it down and compensate the victims. The International Court of Justice at The Hague said all signatories to the Geneva convention, including Britain and the US, are obliged to ensure Israel upholds the ruling. “We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” ~ June 12, 1987 United States President Ronald Reagan to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to destroy the Berlin Wall. Isn’t it time to tear down another wall?
The Palestinian people pose no threat to Israel, its neighbors, or any other nations, including the US. Imposing a blockade against the Palestinian people violates the UN Charter and other international and US law. It constitutes an illegal act of aggression that under the Nuremberg Charter is the “supreme international crime” above all others. It makes Netanyahu, every supportive Israeli government member, and any government of other participating nations criminally liable.
Because the blockade of Gaza itself violates international law, Israel commits an illegal act of war every time it attacks a humanitarian aid flotilla.
Israel has authority to halt arms imports into the Gaza Strip. But it also owes a general duty of protection to civilians under its control, and has specific duties to allow them access to adequate food and medical supplies, and to maintain public health standards - duties it has deliberately violated in imposing the siege on Gaza. Currently 77.2 percent of Gaza Palestinians either face or are vulnerable to hunger …
Moreover, collective punishment is specifically barred under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israeli officials have repeatedly stated that the objective of the blockade is to weaken the Gaza economy and undermine support for Hamas. That is a political, not a military, objective, and it is impermissible under international law to target innocent civilians to achieve nonmilitary goals.
Actions taken to enforce an illegal siege cannot themselves be legal. The blockade violates international law, and Israel has no military justification for boarding any vessel sailing in international water - it constituted an “illegal act of war.”
Since 1967 occupation the Gaza sea is being administered by Israel’s navy, as the occupying power. Israel is under the obligation to administer the Gaza seige according to international law including international humanitarian law (IHL).
International Law of the Sea
Article 14(1) of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone of 1958, to which Israel is a party, states that “ships of all states, whether coastal or not, shall enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea”. Also, “passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. Such passage shall take place in conformity with these articles, and with other rules of international law”. The convention is international customary law.
Right of Humanitarian Assistance
The Palestinians have the right to demand humanitarian assistance (article 30 IVGC, article 50 Hague Regulations). The international community has a corresponding right to provide humanitarian assistance (erga omnes) through all existing border crossings including the Gaza sea.
The occupying power is under the obligation to provide humanitarian aid to the occupied people (article 55 IVGC), and allow others to provide it in case it does not or cannot do so. It must facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian aid even across a blockade line (article 59 IGVC, and article 70 IAP which reflects international customary law, rule 55 ICRC Study of 2005). All states are under the obligation to allow free access to such aid and guarantee its safety.
The ICRC Commentary on article 70 states that the intention of “rapid and unimpeded passage” of relief consignments, equipment and personnel is to avoid any harassment, to reduce formalities as far as possible and dispense with any that are superfluous. …Thus the obligation imposed here is relative: the passage of the relief consignments should be as rapid as allowed by the circumstances. … such a Party must do all it can to facilitate the passage of relief consignments.”
International law expert Professor Francis Boyle is very outspoken on this topic as well as on others of equal importance. He defines blockades under international and US law as:
— “belligerent measures taken by a nation (to) prevent passage of vessels or aircraft to and from another country. Customary international law recognizes blockades as an act of war because of the belligerent use of force even against third party nations in enforcing the blockade. Blockades as acts of war have been recognized as such in the Declaration of Paris of 1856 and the Declaration of London of 1909 that delineate the international rules of warfare.”
The United States approved these Declarations, so they’re binding US law as well “as part of general international law and customary international law.” Past US presidents, including Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy, called blockades acts of war. So has the US Supreme Court.
All treaties to which America is a signatory, including the UN Charter, are binding US law. Its Chapter VII authorizes only the Security Council to “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, or act of aggression (and, if necessary, take military or other actions to) restore international peace and stability.” It permits a nation to use force (including blockades) only under two conditions: when authorized by the Security Council or under Article 51 allowing the “right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member….until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security.”
