Latest news with #HeidiMatthews
The National
14 hours ago
- Politics
- The National
'Good case' Israel breached international law with Madleen seizure
On Monday, Israel imprisoned 12 crew members on board the vessel that was sailing along the Egyptian coast and heading towards Gaza to deliver aid. It is understood that the Madleen was captured in international waters some 200 kilometres (120 miles) from Gaza. Heidi Matthews, a professor specialising in international criminal law at York University in Toronto, Canada, said that as the naval blockade on Gaza is 'unlawful', there are several points of law that the Israeli forces breached by capturing the Madleen. READ MORE: LIVE: Gaza Freedom Flotilla, Madleen tracker and updates Matthews explained that there are two specific conditions which allow countries to enforce a blockade in international waters. First, if a vessel is making an 'effective contribution to opposing forces', for example, if it had weapons on board. Second, if it was posing an 'imminent and overwhelming threat' to Israel, that would allow them to 'invoke self defence on the high seas'. Matthews explained: 'Obviously, neither of these conditions have been met in these circumstances. 'So because of that, intercepting the vessel and taking custody of the crew members is not the enforcement of a lawful blockade, as Israel is claiming.' The Madleen, which carried campaigner Greta Thunberg and French member of the European Parliament Rima Hassan, was sailing under the UK red ensign, meaning it was under UK jurisdiction while in international waters. 'I think there's a good case that these actions, specifically the detention of crew members could constitute crimes against humanity, specifically unlawful confinement and unlawful appropriation of property, as well as an attack against civilians as such,' Matthews (below) added. (Image: Heidi Matthews) 'Others have made the case that could constitute a war crime too.' Mitchell pointed out that Israel's response to the capture of the vessel, such as deeming it a 'selfie yacht' and releasing pictures of Thunberg being handed a sandwich, were intended to undermine the mission as a 'silly thing'. However, she added that it was clearly being 'treated as though it were a threat' by the deployment of Israeli forces. Matthews added: 'Therefore arguably bringing in war crimes and in terms of crimes against humanity here like the way that would work, this is a little technical, but because the UK is a state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and Israel is currently conducting a widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza, intercepting this vessel on the high seas would trigger the territorial jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, and again, a couple of those crimes against humanity that I mentioned.' She added that the UK Government should be thinking about the incident 'in terms of international criminal law and the law of war' and that it should 'be acting accordingly'. The National have repeatedly pushed the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) for a response following the crew being detained on Monday. READ MORE: Labour Government 'must protect' UK-flagged Madleen aid ship After refusing to respond for hours, they directed our journalists to a BBC live blog with comments from the Prime Minister's spokesperson who said they wanted Israel to resolve the situation 'safely with restraint, in line with international humanitarian law'. Earlier, Israel was preparing to hold the 12 unlawfully detained activists in separate cells in Givon Prison in Ramla, according to local media. Israel Katz, Israel's defence minister, said that he had instructed the IDF to show the crew 'video of the horrors of the October 7 massacre when they arrive at the port of Ashdod'. Matthews said the UK should consider taking a case to the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, she noted the attack the Israeli navy committed in 2010 on the Mavi Marmara, a flagship of a flotilla crewed by pro-Palestinian activists who were attempting to deliver 10,000 tonnes of aid to Gaza. (Image: PA) Israeli forces attacked the boat, which like the Madleen (above) was trying to breach the blockade on Gaza, leading to the death of nine people, and leaving a further 50 injured. The UN Human Rights Council found that Israel's military had broken international laws by taking 'disproportionate action'. Prosecutors at the ICC declined to open an investigation into the alleged war crimes that took place during the attack. Matthews said it was 'unfortunate' the case didn't proceed as it may have 'acted as a deterrent'. READ MORE: LBC spark fury with pro-Israel report on seizure of Madleen Gaza ship 'The Madleen itself has obviously captured global attention, right? And so the purpose was always to do that,' she explained. 'Given the amount of media attention, I wasn't expecting them to actually sink the ship. "Instead, they're trying to create this alternative narrative where a military intersection is actually not an attack, but some kind of rescue mission.' She added: 'The battle is really over framing.'
Roya News
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Roya News
'Israel' not obliged to allow Gaza aid, US tells ICJ
On April 30, 2025, the United States presented its oral arguments before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague during hearings on 'Israel's' legal obligations to ensure humanitarian aid reaches Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. The US position, articulated by envoy Joshua Simmons, sparked controversy for asserting that international law does not compel an occupying power, such as 'Israel', to facilitate humanitarian aid, while deflecting responsibility onto Hamas and questioning the neutrality of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Context of the Hearings The ICJ hearings, held from April 28 to May 2, 2025, were prompted by a December 2024 UN General Assembly resolution requesting an advisory opinion on 'Israel's' responsibilities under international law to allow unhindered humanitarian assistance to Palestinians. The resolution followed 'Israel's' near-total blockade of Gaza since March 2, 2025, which halted food, medicine, and fuel deliveries, plunging the region into famine-like conditions. Over 40 states and international organizations participated, with the US joining Russia, France, Hungary, and Indonesia in presenting statements on April 30. The US argument: Key points The US delegation, led by Joshua Simmons, made the following claims during the ICJ session: No legal obligation for 'Israel' to facilitate aid: Joshua Simmons argued that international humanitarian law does not impose a duty on an occupying power, such as 'Israel', to allow or facilitate humanitarian aid to occupied territories like Gaza. He claimed that the Fourth Geneva Convention and other legal frameworks do not explicitly mandate such actions, particularly when neutrality in aid distribution cannot be guaranteed. This position stunned legal observers, with critics like Heidi Matthews calling it 'legally incoherent' and akin to 'malpractice.' Concerns over UNRWA's neutrality: The U.S. says an occupier can determine which relief schemes it agrees to. It says an occupier can fulfill its obligations while advancing its military & security interests considering the relevant circumstances. *None of this means an occupier can intentionally obstruct aid to… — Heidi Matthews (@Heidi__Matthews) April 30, 2025 The US raised doubts about the impartiality of UNRWA, the primary UN agency delivering aid to Gaza. Joshua Simmons echoed 'Israeli' allegations that UNRWA is infiltrated by Hamas, citing unverified claims that some staff members participated in the October 7, 2023, attack. He suggested that this perceived lack of neutrality justifies 'Israel's' restrictions on UNRWA operations, including its January 2025 ban from operating within 'Israel'. Blaming Hamas for aid blockages: Joshua Simmons attributed Gaza's humanitarian crisis to Hamas, alleging the group diverts aid for military purposes. He argued that 'Israel's' blockade is a lawful response to prevent resources from reaching Hamas, despite evidence from the World Food Programme and Amnesty International showing that 'Israel's' restrictions have caused widespread starvation. The US position sidestepped 'Israel's' control over Gaza's borders and crossings, which effectively throttles aid delivery. Neutrality as a legal prerequisite: The US claimed that international law requires humanitarian aid operations to maintain strict neutrality. Joshua Simmons argued that the absence of neutral aid distribution mechanisms in Gaza relieves 'Israel' of any obligation to cooperate with UN agencies. This assertion ignores the dire conditions faced by civilians, with over 2.1million Palestinians struggling to access food and water. Defense of 'Israel's' actions as potentially lawful: Joshua Simmons defended 'Israel's' attacks on UN facilities and personnel in Gaza as potentially lawful, provided they comply with principles of distinction and proportionality under international humanitarian law. The US arguement focused on UNRWA's alleged bias relies on unproven 'Israeli' claims, dismissed by UN investigations as lacking corroborated evidence. By scapegoating Hamas, the US ignores 'Israel's' documented obstruction of aid, including the closure of Rafah and Kerem Shalom crossings, which has left thousands of aid trucks stranded. The argument also sidesteps the US's own role, as a major supplier of military aid to 'Israel', in enabling the blockade and ongoing conflict.
