When the Global Sumud Flotilla was roughly 70 nautical miles off the Gaza Strip, the Israeli Navy intercepted and diverted the vessels carrying around 500 activists en route to deliver food and essential goods to the Palestinian population.
 News of the interdiction sparked spontaneous demonstrations by thousands of people across several European countries, including Spain and Italy, where a general strike was called in to protest against the violations of international law committed against the flotilla.

Francesca Albanese, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, stated on X: “Israel has no right to intercept or stop the Flotilla because it has no authority over Gaza (+ West Bank and East Jerusalem). Any attack against the flotilla and its crew outside of Israel’s territorial waters will be unlawful and warrant adequate response from the concerned states.” Several NGOs, including A.S.G.I. (the Italian Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration), further argued: “The armed attack on the Sumud Flotilla’s vessels, the Israeli naval blockade off Gaza resulting in the Strip’s isolation and the ensuing famine affecting the civilian population, and the characterization of the waters off Gaza’s coast as Israeli, are all blatant violations of international law.”

In light of the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of 19 July 2024 — which found the continuation of Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Gaza, to be unlawful — the Strip is an occupied territory. It follows that Israel does not possess sovereignty over the waters off Gaza, and that imposing a naval blockade in another party’s waters constitutes, in principle, an internationally wrongful act. Moreover, even if one were to argue the blockade’s abstract lawfulness, it would still be incompatible with peremptory obligations of international humanitarian law to ensure adequate supplies of food and other essentials to the civilian population of occupied territory. In addition, the I.C.J.’s provisional measures orders in South Africa v. Israel require Israel to ensure and facilitate unhindered humanitarian assistance in the Gaza Strip.

The flotilla interdiction thus sits within a wider pattern of violence that appears far from resolution. In the same week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared he supports the peace plan proposed by Donald Trump. Among other elements, the plan reportedly envisages a provisional government (with a figure such as Tony Blair in a coordinating role) and reciprocal exchanges of hostages and detainees, not recognizing the full self-determination of Palestinians in choosing their own government. Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International, stressed that any durable agreement must involve Palestinians in decisions on governance and rights (including the right of return), reject forced transfers, and acknowledge apartheid and occupation as root causes.

Hamas has responded positively only to certain elements of the plan: it has said it is prepared to release the hostages, while reiterating the need to “hand over the administration of the Gaza Strip to a Palestinian body of independents [technocrats], based on Palestinian national consensus and with Arab and Islamic support.” In essence, Hamas argues that Gaza must be governed by Palestinians, not by an external authority, in order to bring the occupation to an end properly.