Amnesty International is promoting the Global Sumud Flotilla which it says is "attempting to break Israel's unlawful blockade on the occupied Gaza Strip."
Amnesty is an organization that grounds almost all of its reports and advocacy in careful legal argument, employing lawyers to parse the Fourth Geneva Convention, ICJ decisions, international conventions and other customary international law. It is not a street protest group making instinctive moral appeals. It is an institution that built its credibility on the claim that the law is on its side.
And in 2011, Amnesty admitted that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza was legal.
Following Israel's interception of the Mavi Marmara, the UN Secretary-General's Panel of Inquiry — chaired by former New Zealand Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer — found that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza was a legitimate security measure under international law. Amnesty's response published the same day was explicit: "The Palmer report's finding that the naval blockade is lawful should not be interpreted to mean that the entire closure regime imposed on Gaza is legal." Amnesty accepted the legality of the naval blockade finding and aimed its fire at the broader land and air closure regime instead. Israel and many others disagree about the legality of Israel's general policies in Gaza, but Amnesty didn't dispute the Palmer Report's naval finding.
Under the San Remo Manual, the leading restatement of customary law on naval warfare, a properly declared blockade may be enforced against any vessel attempting to breach it, including in international waters. Vessels can be captured; proportionate force may be used if they resist after warning. The cargo's humanitarian character and the passengers' "peaceful intent" are not exemptions.
Yet Amnesty now calls the naval blockade "illegal," demands states ensure "safe passage" for the flotilla, and frames any Israeli interception as itself a violation of international law. As far as I can tell, it has never advanced a legal argument disputing the Palmer Report.
This means that Amnesty, an organization that prides itself on supporting international law, is enthusiastically supporting breaking international law.
Which means that a human rights organization is encouraging thousands of civilians to enter a military zone and to risk their lives to do something illegal.
That doesn't sound like human rights, does it?
A human rights organization's core function is to protect human beings from foreseeable harm. Encouraging unarmed civilians to challenge a military blockade, while omitting any acknowledgment that interception is the predictable and legally permitted outcome, inverts that function entirely.
But it is even worse than that.
Amnesty has repeatedly accused Israel of genocide in Gaza. It claims Israel targets reporters, doctors, and rights workers. Amnesty says "Israel persists in its genocidal acts against Palestinians in Gaza" even after the ceasefire. If they genuinely believe that — if Israel is an army currently engaged in deliberate mass extermination — then encouraging unarmed civilians to sail directly into its path isn't solidarity. It's supporting mass suicide. This is a curious position for a human rights organization to take.
Or it reveals that Amnesty doesn't actually believe its own most extreme accusations — that the genocide rhetoric is agitprop, not analysis
Either way, Amnesty is not protecting human rights here. It is gambling with human lives.
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy