https://madrid.hostmaster.org/articles/sumud_flotilla_israel_vs_nato/en.html
The Global Sumud Flotilla - an unprecedented international convoy aimed at breaking Israel’s 17-year blockade of Gaza - is now less than 400 nautical miles from its destination. Sailing under multiple national flags, it carries passengers from over forty countries: Palestinians such as MEP Rima Hassan, Members of the European Parliament including Annalisa Corrado, Benedetta Scuderi, Emma Fourreau, and Lynn Boylan, former Barcelona mayor Ada Colau, climate activist Greta Thunberg, several sitting and former politicians, and even U.S. veterans. Among them is former Libyan Prime Minister Omar al-Hassi, aboard the Libyan vessel Omar al-Mukhtar. His participation makes him the highest-ranking official physically present, signaling that this mission is not a fringe gesture but a serious political act.
The flotilla is escorted by NATO naval vessels from Greece, Spain, Italy, and Turkey. Italy and Spain have committed ships to protective rescue positions, while Greece has guaranteed safe passage within its waters and notified Israel of Greek nationals on board. The convoy has already faced drone harassment near Crete, with stun and irritant devices deployed against unarmed boats. Despite these risks, it continues forward - testing not only Israel’s blockade but the credibility of international law.
For Palestinians, the flotilla is a lifeline. With over 64,000 killed since October 2023 and Gaza subjected to deliberate famine conditions, its food, medicine, and supplies are desperately needed. But it is also a political challenge. By assembling legislators, mayors, a former prime minister, and globally recognized activists, the flotilla insists that Gaza’s blockade is not simply a humanitarian crisis but a test of law itself.
Earlier voyages - the Mavi Marmara, Madleen, and Handala - demonstrated both the brutality of Israel’s enforcement and the legal frameworks it violates. Their lessons now shape how the world must view Sumud’s voyage.
On 31 May 2010, Israeli commandos stormed the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish ship leading the first Gaza Freedom Flotilla. The boarding took place in international waters and resulted in the killing of 10 civilians and the wounding of dozens more.
Legal Analysis
The Mavi Marmara set the precedent that Israel could attack civilian vessels with lethal force in international waters and avoid consequences.
On 9 June 2025, the Madleen, a UK-flagged humanitarian vessel, sailed 160 nautical miles off Gaza when it was intercepted by Israeli forces. Passengers included Greta Thunberg and MEP Rima Hassan. The crew reported electronic jamming, irritant spray, forced boarding, and detention.
Legal Analysis
The Madleen demonstrated Israel’s willingness to commit piracy and hostage-taking against high-profile civilians in broad daylight.
On 26 July 2025, the Handala, carrying activists and aid from more than a dozen countries, was intercepted 40 nautical miles from Gaza. Israel boarded, seized the vessel, detained the crew, and confiscated aid.
Legal Analysis
The Handala showed the blockade’s enforcement not as a defensive measure but as an offensive act of terror against humanitarian efforts.
These precedents - Mavi Marmara, Madleen, Handala - reveal a pattern of unlawful force. The Sumud Flotilla, however, is accompanied by NATO escorts.
Standing orders reportedly prohibit escorts from initiating fire or retaliation. Yet they are also instructed to protect the flotilla. In practice, this means moving into protective posture - interposing warships between Israeli attackers and civilian boats.
If Israel opens fire, standing orders of restraint are automatically voided. A naval commander has both the right and the duty to defend vessel and crew. This duty rests on:
The USS Vincennes precedent underscores the strength of this doctrine. In July 1988, the ship mistakenly shot down Iran Air Flight 655, killing 290 civilians, after misidentifying it as a hostile aircraft. The commander was not punished. The rationale was simple: a captain’s inherent duty to defend his ship and crew is paramount, even if tragically mistaken. Applied here, if Israeli fire hits a NATO escort, commanders will be legally compelled to respond in self-defense.
After fending off an initial attack, captains must notify their headquarters, which will report to the UN Security Council under Article 51. States may then invoke NATO Article 5, triggering alliance-wide consultation on collective defense.
At the core of the dispute lies the status of Gaza’s maritime space. Israel itself does not claim Gaza as sovereign territory. In 2005 it withdrew its settlers and permanent ground forces, and it does not administer Gaza as it does Israeli coastal areas. By the logic of international law, that absence of claim makes the adjacent sea Palestinian waters.
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a coastal entity is entitled to a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea and a 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), subject to geography. Gaza, as part of the occupied Palestinian territory recognized by over 140 UN member states, thus has lawful entitlement to maritime zones. Within the territorial sea, Palestinian sovereignty should apply; beyond that, the EEZ grants exclusive rights to resources, while the high seas beyond are governed by freedom of navigation.
Israel’s enforcement actions therefore occur in waters that are either:
By seizing vessels in those zones, Israel violates the foundational principle of freedom of the seas.
Israel justifies its actions by invoking blockade law under the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994). But the San Remo rules cut against Israel’s position in several ways:
Israel has not met these standards. The Madleen carried activists and humanitarian supplies, including baby formula and medical aid. The Handala carried food and medicine for a population already in famine conditions. At no point did Israel present verifiable evidence that either posed a security threat. Unless one absurdly considers infant formula a weapon, Israel’s enforcement actions were plainly unlawful.
By failing to establish a valid military necessity, Israel’s blockade cannot be considered lawful under San Remo. And because the blockade in practice produces famine, deprivation, and indiscriminate suffering, it amounts to collective punishment, prohibited under the Fourth Geneva Convention and condemned in multiple UN reports.
Thus, from the perspective of international maritime law:
An Israeli strike on NATO warships would create the gravest test in the alliance’s history. Article 5 declares an attack on one member an attack on all.
But abstention is not the same as siding with Israel. NATO allows differentiated contributions: members may choose the form of their response, but they cannot deny that an armed attack has occurred. Refusing to act altogether - or worse, openly siding with Israel against alliance partners - would devastate NATO’s credibility.
Such disunity would embolden adversaries. Russia would seize on the precedent, using it to test NATO resolve in Eastern Europe. China would note the fracture as evidence that Western alliances cannot enforce collective defense against politically sensitive aggressors. The very cohesion that deters war in Europe and Asia would be weakened.
In short: if NATO fails to defend its members against Israeli aggression, it undermines its own deterrence against Moscow and Beijing.
For Israel, escalation risks catastrophic isolation. Attacking ships carrying a former prime minister, current legislators, and world-famous activists would shred claims of self-defense. It would expose the blockade as collective punishment.
For the flotilla, interception itself is success: it documents Israel’s illegality, mobilizes global outrage, and reinforces Palestinian sumud - steadfastness. With senior politicians and high-profile figures on board, aggression resonates worldwide.
The Global Sumud Flotilla is more than aid delivery. It is a test of whether international law is enforced when Palestinians are the victims.
The chain of escalation is predictable: protective posture, attack, immediate self-defense under UNCLOS, customary law, and Article 51, reporting to the UNSC, possible NATO Article 5.
What is not predictable is whether NATO and the international community will uphold their laws, or whether yet again impunity will sail free. For Palestinians aboard and in Gaza, this is not theory - it is life or death.