Lahav

I write as a current professor of international law & retired US Army judge advocate with experience advising commanders in combat. 1) It doesn't matter that @gbsumudflotilla is (now, was) on the High Seas & not in @Israel's 12 mile territorial sea. Vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade. Source: San Remo Manual (SRM) ¶ 146 (pic 1, yellow highlight). 2) Maritime security measures conducted during peacetime are beyond the scope of SRM since the manual addresses international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. So, it doesn't matter how long @Israel has enforced a naval blockade. The current armed conflict was initiated by #Hamas on October 7, 2023 - and rules reflected in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea have applied since then. Additionally, @CIJ_ICJ does not have unilateral authority to establish int'l law - whether through advisory opinions or otherwise. Therefore it doesn't matter what ICJ "found illegal" in advisory opinions. 3) There is no provision in SRM requiring a blockade to be a "short term measure." By definition, blockades can be enforced for the duration of the armed conflict - no matter how long the armed conflict may last. Source: SRM ¶¶ 93-94 (pic 2). 4) In any event, SRM rules DO NOT "explicitly state that humanitarian supplies may not be blockaded." There are rules addressing that conduct, but these rules are subject to other conditions & restrictions. As such, there is no outright ban on blockading "humanitarian supplies." Source: SRM ¶¶ 102-04 (pic 3). 5) It doesn't matter what the "UN Commission of Inquiry has already determined." Like ICJ advisory opinions, no UN CoI has unilateral authority to establish int'l law. Substantive merits of this report are beyond the scope of this post, but for a brief discussion see @Aizenberg55's observations here (nitter.gq/Aizenberg55/status/196…) & here (nitter.gq/Aizenberg55/status/196…). The claim that the "blockade is plainly a part of the machinery of such genocide" is just as anecdotal & authoritative as the UN CoI report Craig Murray cites here for support. For reasons 1 to 5 nothing in Craig Murray's post constitutes a legitimate articulation or analysis of int'l law. Then, as one might imagine, the remaining "so what" points unravel from there. 6) Attack on a vessel attempting to breach a naval blockade is just an attack on that vessel - not "on the flag state of the vessel attacked." 7) Detaining a vessel & its crew for breaching or attempting to breach a blockade is not an act "of illegal possession of vessels or abduction of crew on the High Seas." For neutral vessels breaching or attempting to breach a blockade, capturing the vessel is exercised by taking such vessel as prize for adjudication. Source: SRM ¶ 146 (back to pic 1, blue highlight). 8) So Metropolitan Police and DPP have NO obligation to, well...do anything at all. Here's the thing. Given the extensive #legaldisinformation presented in Craig Murray's post, it's troubling how much it's circulated on @X even now < 24 hours since publication. My guess is that reflects 3 related factors: 1) his seemingly impressive claim of personal authority at the outset; 2) most ppl who don't specialize in int'l law don't know any better even when they read complete rubbish such as Craig Murray's analysis; and 3) part of the reason many ppl don't know any better is they want to be duped because they want to find some seemingly legit excuse to hate 🇮🇱 (+ Zionists as proxy for 🇮🇱 + Jews as proxy for Zionists). But these rampant misrepresentations of int'l law serve only 2 purposes: 1) support strategic objectives of terrorists like Hamas; 2) encourage hate & violence directed against Jews. Enough. Don't be fooled by "experts" like Craig Murray who don't actually know what they're talking about when it comes to int'l law. I hope you find this helpful, and thank you for your attention to this matter.