Jordan outlaws Muslim Brotherhood, confiscates assets
Jordan has outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, the country's most vocal opposition group, and confiscated its assets after members of the group were accused of being linked to a sabotage plot, Interior Minister Mazen Fraya says.
There was no immediate comment from the movement, which has operated legally in Jordan for decades and has widespread grass-roots support in major urban centres and scores of offices across the country.
Jordan said last week it had arrested 16 Muslim Brotherhood members, saying they were trained and financed in Lebanon and were plotting attacks involving rockets and drones on targets inside the kingdom.
Jordan also attributed a foiled plot in 2024 to a Muslim Brotherhood cell in Jordan.
Fraya said all the activities of the group would be banned and anyone promoting its ideology would be held accountable by law.
The ban includes publishing anything by the group and closure and confiscation of all its offices and property, he added.
The Muslim Brotherhood, one of the Arab world's oldest and most influential Islamist movements, has denied links to the alleged plot but admitted members may have engaged in an individual capacity in arms smuggling to Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.
Opponents of the Brotherhood, which is outlawed in most Arab countries, call it a dangerous terrorist group that should be crushed.
The movement says it publicly renounced violence decades ago and pursues an Islamist vision using peaceful means.
A court had ordered the dissolution of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2020, in what analysts saw as a bid to limit their group's influence in the kingdom, but the group remained instrumental in the political scene.
The movement's political arm in Jordan, the Islamic Action Front, became the largest political grouping in parliament after elections last September although most seats are still held by supporters of the government.
Fraya said Muslim Brotherhood members had planned attacks on security targets and sensitive locations in the kingdom, aiming to destabilise the country, but did not disclose what these targets were.
Security forces said last week they had found a rocket manufacturing facility alongside a drone factory where short-range rockets were being developed, with at least one missile ready to be launched.
In a country where anti-Israel sentiment runs high, Muslim Brotherhood members have led some of the largest protests in the region in support of Hamas, their ideological allies, in what their opponents say allowed them to increase their popularity.
Like some of its neighbours seeking to curb political Islam, Jordan has been tightening restrictions on the Brotherhood in the last two years, forbidding some of its activities and arresting vocal anti-government dissenters.
International rights groups say that in the last four years Jordanian authorities have intensified persecution and harassment of political opponents and ordinary citizens using a string of laws to silence critical voices.
The Jordanian government says it tolerates public speech that does not incite violence.
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt about 100 years ago, where it is now banned and classified as a terrorist organisation.
with DPA
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Toby Mann
Israeli forces took command of the charity vessel that had tried to break a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip and has detained its crew as it is steered to a port in Israel, officials said. 9m ago 9 minutes ago Mon 9 Jun 2025 at 7:40am Vladimir Putin's online army is normally supportive, but some accounts have been boldly outspoken and willing to question, even blame, the Russian establishment for not protecting the country's prized strategic bomber fleet. Fri 6 Jun Fri 6 Jun Fri 6 Jun 2025 at 9:49pm After another Signal controversy, there is mounting pressure on US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and reports of "dysfunction" and "mass chaos" inside the Pentagon. Tue 22 Apr Tue 22 Apr Tue 22 Apr 2025 at 12:39am Nationwide protests are rocking Türkiye as its jailed presidential alternative issues a message from jail. Fri 28 Mar Fri 28 Mar Fri 28 Mar 2025 at 11:37pm Israel has formally identified the remains of children Ariel and Kfir Bibas, but says a third body handed over by Hamas alongside them is not that of their mother. Fri 21 Feb Fri 21 Feb Fri 21 Feb 2025 at 2:47am There might be a ceasefire, but the people of Gaza are far from free. This is a brief look beyond Israel's fortified border wall. Thu 6 Feb Thu 6 Feb Thu 6 Feb 2025 at 7:01pm In a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US President Donald Trump announced a surprising plan for the Middle East and the future of Gaza. These are the key takeaways. Mon 3 Mar Mon 3 Mar Mon 3 Mar 2025 at 2:08am As flight 5342 prepared to land at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport it was in one of the most secure airspaces in the world. So, how did it collide with a military helicopter? Sat 1 Feb Sat 1 Feb Sat 1 Feb 2025 at 3:55am First responders have recovered the bodies of 28 passengers from the American Airlines jet that collided with the helicopter, US officials said. Thu 30 Jan Thu 30 Jan Thu 30 Jan 2025 at 2:51pm It appears as if both Joe Biden and Donald Trump are staking their foreign policy legacies on the Israel Hamas ceasefire agreement. And analysts believe both men were crucial to getting both sides to finally reach a deal. Fri 17 Jan Fri 17 Jan Fri 17 Jan 2025 at 7:06pm Once dismissed as "the Paris Hilton of Canadian politics", Justin Trudeau defied expectations by holding onto power for almost a decade. But his tumultuous period in office was often defined by scandals of his own making. Tue 7 Jan Tue 7 Jan Tue 7 Jan 2025 at 6:44pm From Bashar al-Assad's abandoned palace to the site of one of the country's most horrific massacres, the ABC spent three days in Syria, uncovering the fallen dictator's secrets. Wed 18 Dec Wed 18 Dec Wed 18 Dec 2024 at 6:42pm A lawyer for the miners sheltering inside an abandoned goldmine says they are suffering from a lack of food, with police poised to arrest them when they surface. Wed 20 Nov Wed 20 Nov Wed 20 Nov 2024 at 7:29pm While Australia struggles to tackle the rising cost of living, other countries have the opposite problem. What is deflation and why can it be bad for the economy? Sun 27 Oct Sun 27 Oct Sun 27 Oct 2024 at 7:54pm Two gunmen opened fire on passengers travelling in Tel Aviv's light rail and continued their attack on foot until they were "neutralised" by armed members of the public, Israeli police say. Wed 2 Oct Wed 2 Oct Wed 2 Oct 2024 at 5:33am The leader of the region's most powerful militia and Iran's strongest ally is gone, and Hezbollah, the group he headed, has been decimated by intense Israel attacks. But that doesn't mean it will die with him. Sat 28 Sep Sat 28 Sep Sat 28 Sep 2024 at 8:07pm After his failed attempt to take power by storming parliament with armed supporters in 2000, George Speight was initially sentenced to death by hanging but that was later commuted to a life sentence. Wed 25 Sep Wed 25 Sep Wed 25 Sep 2024 at 8:09pm Kiingi Tuheitia Pootatau Te Wherowhero VII is laid to rest alongside generations of ancestors at Mount Taupiri after his funeral procession wraps up days of mourning. Fri 6 Sep Fri 6 Sep Fri 6 Sep 2024 at 2:02am Spanish authorities have been after fugitive Catalonian separatist leader Carles Puigdemont for seven years, but when he openly returned to Barcelona, police didn't have a plan to nab him and he vanished again. Thu 29 Aug Thu 29 Aug Thu 29 Aug 2024 at 7:06pm Their Italian holiday was meant to celebrate winning a mighty battle between corporate heavyweights, but the Bayesian luxury yacht was in "the wrong place at the wrong time". Tue 20 Aug Tue 20 Aug Tue 20 Aug 2024 at 7:02pm Allegedly dodgy doctors teamed up with an LA dealer known as the "Ketamine Queen" and the Friends' star's personal assistant to use his addiction issues to "enrich themselves", US authorities say after charging five people following a wide-ranging investigation. Fri 16 Aug Fri 16 Aug Fri 16 Aug 2024 at 7:04pm Iran blames Israel for the assassination of a Hamas leader in Tehran this week, saying it has a "duty" to seek revenge. So, what might Iran do next? Sun 1 Sep Sun 1 Sep Sun 1 Sep 2024 at 10:58pm Voting in the UK's general election began on Thursday as a media blackout descended across the country and silenced its political hopefuls. Thu 4 Jul Thu 4 Jul Thu 4 Jul 2024 at 8:14pm Under the new arrangement announced by Chinese Premier Li Qiang, Australians will be able to travel to China for up to 15 days without the need to apply and pay for a visa, and for those looking to visit family the plan has been well received even though many details are still to emerge. Thu 20 Jun Thu 20 Jun Thu 20 Jun 2024 at 1:11am Popular with manufacturers and consumers across South-East Asia, single-use sachets are a nightmare for recyclers and the environment. Tue 28 May Tue 28 May Tue 28 May 2024 at 1:08am
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Can Israel still claim self-defence to justify its Gaza war? Here's what the law says
On October 7, 2023, more than 1000 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? On October 7, 2023, more than 1000 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? On October 7, 2023, more than 1000 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? On October 7, 2023, more than 1000 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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?
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Australian protest as activist boat hits Gaza blockade
Protesters have demonstrated outside Anthony Albanese's electorate office after Israel blocked a boat carrying desperately needed aid to Gaza. Climate advocate Greta Thunberg was among a dozen activists on board the Freedom Flotilla Coalition's vessel Madleen when it was intercepted by Israeli forces in the Mediterranean Sea early on Monday. They were prevented from entering the blockaded enclave. Students for Palestine, one of the groups that called for a snap protest at the prime minister's electorate office in Sydney among others around the country, said Australia should expel the Israeli ambassador. "The Madleen crew represent the hopes of all those who stand for humanity against the starvation and bombardment of Gazans, and they must be immediately released," the group's co-convenor Jasmine Duff said on Monday. Carrying placards and umbrellas on a rainy Monday they vocalised their anger and demanded Australia diplomatically increase pressure on Israel. "We call on Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong to immediately expel the Israeli ambassador, cut all military and economic ties with Israel, and pressure Israel to release the illegally kidnapped crew," Ms Duff added. The Sicily-based coalition said the humanitarian boat was "unlawfully boarded, its unarmed civilian crew abducted, and its life-saving cargo - including baby formula, food and medical supplies - confiscated." But the Israeli foreign ministry pointed the finger at Thunberg saying it was a "selfie yacht of celebrities" and those on board would be deported to their home countries. The progressive Jewish Council of Australia also urged Australia to place sanctions on Israel. "The world is watching," the council's executive officer Sarah Schwartz said. "We don't have to be a 'major player' to show our commitment to the basic humanity of Palestinians and be part of the global movement to pressure Israel through sanctions to comply with international law," The lack of food reaching Gaza caused by Israeli aid obstruction is leaving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians "vulnerable to starvation", the United Nations warned earlier in June. More than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's ongoing military offensive, according to Gaza health officials. The retaliatory campaign was in response to Hamas militants killing 1200 Israelis and capturing more than 250 hostages in October 2023. Israel has imposed a naval blockade on the coastal enclave since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007. Protesters have demonstrated outside Anthony Albanese's electorate office after Israel blocked a boat carrying desperately needed aid to Gaza. Climate advocate Greta Thunberg was among a dozen activists on board the Freedom Flotilla Coalition's vessel Madleen when it was intercepted by Israeli forces in the Mediterranean Sea early on Monday. They were prevented from entering the blockaded enclave. Students for Palestine, one of the groups that called for a snap protest at the prime minister's electorate office in Sydney among others around the country, said Australia should expel the Israeli ambassador. "The Madleen crew represent the hopes of all those who stand for humanity against the starvation and bombardment of Gazans, and they must be immediately released," the group's co-convenor Jasmine Duff said on Monday. Carrying placards and umbrellas on a rainy Monday they vocalised their anger and demanded Australia diplomatically increase pressure on Israel. "We call on Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong to immediately expel the Israeli ambassador, cut all military and economic ties with Israel, and pressure Israel to release the illegally kidnapped crew," Ms Duff added. The Sicily-based coalition said the humanitarian boat was "unlawfully boarded, its unarmed civilian crew abducted, and its life-saving cargo - including baby formula, food and medical supplies - confiscated." But the Israeli foreign ministry pointed the finger at Thunberg saying it was a "selfie yacht of celebrities" and those on board would be deported to their home countries. The progressive Jewish Council of Australia also urged Australia to place sanctions on Israel. "The world is watching," the council's executive officer Sarah Schwartz said. "We don't have to be a 'major player' to show our commitment to the basic humanity of Palestinians and be part of the global movement to pressure Israel through sanctions to comply with international law," The lack of food reaching Gaza caused by Israeli aid obstruction is leaving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians "vulnerable to starvation", the United Nations warned earlier in June. More than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's ongoing military offensive, according to Gaza health officials. The retaliatory campaign was in response to Hamas militants killing 1200 Israelis and capturing more than 250 hostages in October 2023. Israel has imposed a naval blockade on the coastal enclave since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007. Protesters have demonstrated outside Anthony Albanese's electorate office after Israel blocked a boat carrying desperately needed aid to Gaza. Climate advocate Greta Thunberg was among a dozen activists on board the Freedom Flotilla Coalition's vessel Madleen when it was intercepted by Israeli forces in the Mediterranean Sea early on Monday. They were prevented from entering the blockaded enclave. Students for Palestine, one of the groups that called for a snap protest at the prime minister's electorate office in Sydney among others around the country, said Australia should expel the Israeli ambassador. "The Madleen crew represent the hopes of all those who stand for humanity against the starvation and bombardment of Gazans, and they must be immediately released," the group's co-convenor Jasmine Duff said on Monday. Carrying placards and umbrellas on a rainy Monday they vocalised their anger and demanded Australia diplomatically increase pressure on Israel. "We call on Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong to immediately expel the Israeli ambassador, cut all military and economic ties with Israel, and pressure Israel to release the illegally kidnapped crew," Ms Duff added. The Sicily-based coalition said the humanitarian boat was "unlawfully boarded, its unarmed civilian crew abducted, and its life-saving cargo - including baby formula, food and medical supplies - confiscated." But the Israeli foreign ministry pointed the finger at Thunberg saying it was a "selfie yacht of celebrities" and those on board would be deported to their home countries. The progressive Jewish Council of Australia also urged Australia to place sanctions on Israel. "The world is watching," the council's executive officer Sarah Schwartz said. "We don't have to be a 'major player' to show our commitment to the basic humanity of Palestinians and be part of the global movement to pressure Israel through sanctions to comply with international law," The lack of food reaching Gaza caused by Israeli aid obstruction is leaving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians "vulnerable to starvation", the United Nations warned earlier in June. More than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's ongoing military offensive, according to Gaza health officials. The retaliatory campaign was in response to Hamas militants killing 1200 Israelis and capturing more than 250 hostages in October 2023. Israel has imposed a naval blockade on the coastal enclave since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007. Protesters have demonstrated outside Anthony Albanese's electorate office after Israel blocked a boat carrying desperately needed aid to Gaza. Climate advocate Greta Thunberg was among a dozen activists on board the Freedom Flotilla Coalition's vessel Madleen when it was intercepted by Israeli forces in the Mediterranean Sea early on Monday. They were prevented from entering the blockaded enclave. Students for Palestine, one of the groups that called for a snap protest at the prime minister's electorate office in Sydney among others around the country, said Australia should expel the Israeli ambassador. "The Madleen crew represent the hopes of all those who stand for humanity against the starvation and bombardment of Gazans, and they must be immediately released," the group's co-convenor Jasmine Duff said on Monday. Carrying placards and umbrellas on a rainy Monday they vocalised their anger and demanded Australia diplomatically increase pressure on Israel. "We call on Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong to immediately expel the Israeli ambassador, cut all military and economic ties with Israel, and pressure Israel to release the illegally kidnapped crew," Ms Duff added. The Sicily-based coalition said the humanitarian boat was "unlawfully boarded, its unarmed civilian crew abducted, and its life-saving cargo - including baby formula, food and medical supplies - confiscated." But the Israeli foreign ministry pointed the finger at Thunberg saying it was a "selfie yacht of celebrities" and those on board would be deported to their home countries. The progressive Jewish Council of Australia also urged Australia to place sanctions on Israel. "The world is watching," the council's executive officer Sarah Schwartz said. "We don't have to be a 'major player' to show our commitment to the basic humanity of Palestinians and be part of the global movement to pressure Israel through sanctions to comply with international law," The lack of food reaching Gaza caused by Israeli aid obstruction is leaving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians "vulnerable to starvation", the United Nations warned earlier in June. More than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's ongoing military offensive, according to Gaza health officials. The retaliatory campaign was in response to Hamas militants killing 1200 Israelis and capturing more than 250 hostages in October 2023. Israel has imposed a naval blockade on the coastal enclave since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007.
