Israeli forces intercept Gaza-bound aid boat carrying Greta Thunberg, diverts it
An aid boat carrying international activists, including Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg and French Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Rima Hassan, was intercepted by Israeli forces in the early hours of Monday after it attempted to breach the naval blockade of Gaza.
The vessel, a British-flagged yacht named Madleen, was part of a mission organised by the pro-Palestinian Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC). It had set sail from Sicily on June 6 and was aiming to reach the Gaza Strip by later today before being boarded by Israeli troops, the group said in a statement on Telegram.
Taking to micro-blogging site X, Hassan claimed that all crew of the Freedom Flotilla boat was arrested by the Israeli Army in international waters around 2 am.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry posted a video on X showing Israeli forces taking control of the boat and providing refreshments to the crew members who were donning life jackets. "The yacht, with its 12-person crew, was carrying a symbolic shipment of humanitarian aid, including rice and baby formula," the X post read.
The interception is the latest in a series of efforts by international civil society groups to draw attention to the ongoing "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza, where an Israeli naval blockade has been in place for years. The FFC has long criticised the blockade as a form of collective punishment and called for unimpeded humanitarian access.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
NATO chief Rutte calls for 400 pc increase in alliance's air, missile defence
NATO members need to increase their air and missile defences by 400 per cent to counter the threat from Russia, the head of the military alliance plans to say on Monday. Secretary-General Mark Rutte will say during a visit to London that NATO must take a "quantum leap in our collective defence" to face growing instability and threats, according to extracts released by NATO before Rutte's speech. Rutte is due to meet UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer at 10 Downing St. ahead of a NATO summit in the Netherlands where the 32-nation alliance is likely to commit to a big hike in military spending. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo Like other NATO members, the UK has been reassessing its defence spending since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Starmer has pledged to increase British defence spending to 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product by 2027 and to 3 per cent by 2034. Rutte has proposed a target of 3.5 per cent of economic output on military spending and another 1.5 per cent on "defence-related expenditure" such as roads, bridges, airfields and sea ports. He said last week he is confident the alliance will agree to the target at its summit in The Hague on June 24-25. Live Events At the moment, 22 of the 32 member countries meet or exceed NATO's current 2 per cent target. The new target would meet a demand by President Donald Trump that member states spend 5 per cent of gross domestic product on defence. Trump has long questioned the value of NATO and complained that the US provides security to European countries that don't contribute enough. Rutte plans to say in a speech at the Chatham House think tank in London that NATO needs thousands more armoured vehicles and millions more artillery shells, as well as a 400 per cent increase in air and missile defence. "We see in Ukraine how Russia delivers terror from above, so we will strengthen the shield that protects our skies," he plans to say. "Wishful thinking will not keep us safe. We cannot dream away the danger. Hope is not a strategy. So NATO has to become a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance." European NATO members , led by the UK and France, have scrambled to coordinate their defence posture as Trump transforms American foreign policy, seemingly sidelining Europe as he looks to end the war in Ukraine. Last week the UK government said it would build new nuclear-powered attack submarines, prepare its army to fight a war in Europe and become "a battle-ready, armour-clad nation." The plans represent the most sweeping changes to British defences since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than three decades ago.
The Hindu
40 minutes ago
- The Hindu
The View From India newsletter: From best friends to foes: the bitter Trump-Musk fallout
Just as we were making sense of President Donald Trump's new ban on travel to the U.S. by citizens from 12 African and West Asian countries, the dramatic collapse of the alliance between billionaire CEO of Tesla and X, Elon Musk, and President Trump took the internet by storm. The partnership that demonstrated the deliberate yet effortless bond between power and capital, also exposed how either reacts to any perceivable threat. The Guardian's columnist Jonathan Freedland wrote that 'Musk and Trump are enemies made for each other – united in their ability to trash their own brands'. What drove this wedge between the two men — one, the most powerful leader and the other, the one of the richest businessmen — prompting them to trade such rage and bitterness in public? Watch this video to understand the controversial bill that sparked sharp disagreement between the two. Also read Smriti S. on the rise and fall of the partnership between Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk. Shutting the door Meanwhile, President Trump's new travel ban came into effect at 12 am ET on Monday, amid protests in the U.S. San Francisco is suing President Donald Trump, claiming an executive order over immigrant-protecting 'sanctuary cities' is unconstitutional and a severe invasion of the city's sovereignty. Demonstrators torched cars and scuffled with security forces in Los Angeles June 8, 2025, as police kept protesters away from the National Guard troops President Donald Trump sent to the streets of the second biggest U.S. city. Unrest broke out for a third day, with protesters angry at action by immigration officials that have resulted in dozens of arrests of what authorities say are illegal migrants and gang members. The Hindu editorial noted: 'Many of the people seeking entry into the U.S., from countries that had seen American military intervention, such as Haiti and Afghanistan, are fleeing war, persecution and systemic violence. They are not national security threats but victims in search of refuge. By shutting America's doors on them, and immigrants in general, Mr. Trump is not making the U.S. safer. Rather, he is turning a country, which historically welcomed immigration and has benefited from it, into an insular, paranoid, self-doubting republic.' Mounting rage over Israel's brutality Amid Israeli forces' relentless attack on Gaza, its members stopped a Gaza-bound aid boat carrying Greta Thunberg and other activists early Monday and diverted it to Israel, enforcing a longstanding blockade of the Palestinian territory that has been tightened during the war with Hamas. 'The selfie yacht of the celebrities is safely making its way to the shores of Israel,' the Foreign Ministry said in a social media post. The British-flagged yacht Madleen, operated by the pro-Palestinian Freedom Flotilla Coalition, sought to deliver some aid to Gaza. The tolerance for Israel's brutality is certainly waning in many parts of the world. Tens of thousands of demonstrators marched through the streets of Rome on Saturday against the war in Gaza in a protest called by Italy's main opposition parties, who accuse the right-wing government of being too silent. Our London correspondent Sriram Lakshman reports on the mounting pressure on the U.K. government of Keir Starmer to take a stronger position against Israel's actions in Gaza. It was on full display recently, with MPs, including those from the governing Labour Party, quizzing the government on its positions and accusing the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu of genocide. Neighbourhood watch Watch: Justifying Operation Sindoor | Was multi-party delegation a success? – our latest episode of Worldview with Suhasini Haidar takes a closer look at the mandate for Multi-party delegations abroad, and whether it was mission accomplished. Bangladesh: Delivering his Id speech on June 6, 2025, the Chief Adviser to the interim government of Bangladesh, Prof. Mohammed Yunus announced that the next national election will be held in April 2026. However, he announced the country would witness the launch of the 'July Proclamation', a document that he said was 'agreed upon by all parties.' Kallol Bhattacherjee reports. Top 5 stories this week: 1. Under pressure on the battlefield, Ukraine turns to drones to hurt Russia – read Stanly Johny's analysis of the most recent escalation in the Russia-Ukraine war and its likely implications 2. A strategy fuelled by vision, powered by energy – Union Minister Hardeep S. Puri writes that India's energy sector can be defined in three words — confidence, self-reliance and strategic foresight 3. Should India amend its nuclear energy laws? Kunal Shankar discusses with experts Ashley Tellis and D. Raghunandan 4. Read Franciszek Snarski's profile of Karol Nawrocki, the 42-year-old conservative historian, who won the run-off of the Polish presidential election on June 1 5. Purtika Dua writes on South Korea's newly elected President, Lee Jae-myung, who brings to office a personal history marked by hardship and an agenda shaped by reform
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Can Israel claim self-defence to justify Gaza war; here's what law says
On October 7 2023, more than 1,000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, 'Israel is at war'. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children. Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has 'an inherent right to defend itself', as Netanyahu stated in early 2024. This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[…] At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law. However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds. Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine? Self-defence in the law Self-defence has a long history in international law. The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not 'unreasonable or excessive'. The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the second world war in response to German and Japanese aggression. Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11 2001 terror attacks. Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen. However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality. The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face. The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel's military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed. The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks. This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be 'annihilated' unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted. These comments and Israel's ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met. A test of proportionality The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice. Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack. While the law allows a war to continue until an aggressor surrenders, it does not legitimise the complete destruction of the territory where an aggressor is fighting. The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians. While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians. Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel's exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate. The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel's actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court. My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law. Is rescuing hostages in self-defence? Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas. However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked. In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted – and no international consensus on its use. In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel's war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas. Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel's ongoing military operations. An act of aggression? If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law? Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power. While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7. Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory. However, the scale of the IDF's operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power. Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel's current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law. These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred – and continues to occur – in Gaza. The international community has rightly condemned Russia's invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel's conduct in Gaza?
