Imagine a terrorist organization, designated as such by the EU and the U.S.

, violently seized control of

an area, and smuggled in vast quantities of heavy weaponry via both land and sea. Now imagine that
this terrorist organization decided to wage a violent campaign against a neighboring state, by bombing
its civilians – including women, children and the elderly – with over 10,000 rockets. Then imagine that
over 500 protesters, the majority of whom belong to a radical Islamic organization known to fund and
support terrorist groups, wanted to join forces with this terrorist regime.
It would seem illogical that international law would not provide the tools to confront such a rogue
terrorist enterprise. And indeed, the body of international law that applies to armed conflict does not
remain silent on these matters, and provides states with legitimate, legal measures that they can
employ.
The scenario described above is the very situation in which the State of Israel currently finds itself. In
2005, Israel implemented its "disengagement plan," completely withdrawing from the Gaza Strip,
leaving no Israeli military or civilian presence.
While Israel hoped that disengagement would serve as a springboard for improving relations with its
neighbors, the very opposite occurred: Hamas, an EU and U.S. designated terrorist organization, took
control of Gaza and stepped up rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. To date, Hamas has fired over
10,000 rockets at civilian targets in Israel proper. The heavy armament used in these attacks is
smuggled into Gaza via land and sea, and one need not look any further than the Karin A episode, in
which the Israeli navy intercepted over 50 tons of advanced weaponry headed towards the Hamas
regime in Gaza, for proof of such maritime smuggling.
Israel, as a democratic State, looks for legal tools to curb such smuggling and respond to Hamas'
terrorist attacks against its citizens. One of the tools available under international law is the maritime
blockade. Israel, finding itself in a state of armed conflict with Hamas, has opted to employ this legal
measure.
A naval blockade is a recognized and legitimate tool under international law. Indeed, naval blockades
have been imposed throughout the 20th century, and the naval manuals of several western countries,
including the US and UK, , recognize the maritime blockade as an effective, legal measure available in
the face of armed conflict with a terrorist entity.
As set forth in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea, in
order for a maritime blockade to be valid, several conditions must be met. These include due
notification of the blockade and its location; the effective and impartial enforcement of the blockade;
the allowance for access to the ports and coasts of neutral states; and the creation of alternative routes
for the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians.
Israel has met its obligations under international law by providing due notice of the existence of the
blockade and its exact coordinates through professional maritime channels, government websites and
diplomatic channels; it has effectively and impartially enforced the blockade since its implementation;
it has not impeded access to the ports or coasts of neutral states; and it has provided an alternate land
corridor for the transfer of humanitarian goods, such that 15,000 tons reach the Gaza Strip weekly.
International law provides not only for the legal implementation of a maritime blockade but also for its legal
enforcement. Under international law, as reflected in the abovementioned San Remo Manual, any vessel that
breaches or attempts to breach a blockade, irrespective of the cargo on board, or the vessel's nature, enemy or
civilian, may be subject to legal measures to enforce the blockade. These legal measures include capture of, or
even attack upon, the vessel. Enforcement measures may be undertaken at a distance from the naval blockade
and in international waters if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a vessel intends to violate the blockade.
The U.S. Naval Handbook notes that an attempted breach of blockade occurs from the time a vessel leaves a port
with the intention of breaching the blockade.

Let us return to our initial scenario – on May 30th, six ships carrying over 500 protesters, including
hundreds of members of the Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH) - a radical Islamic organization that funds and
supports terrorist groups, including Hamas - set sail with the clear intent to violate the legal maritime
blockade in effect off the coast of Gaza. Many of these radical activists came armed with light
weaponry - knives and bats - and noted in interviews on Turkish television on the eve of their voyage
that should Israel attempt to enforce its naval blockade, it would be met with "fierce opposition." As
one protester put it, "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking
Israel's siege." (Greta Berlin, AFP, 27May10). These activists were warned of the blockade several
times, in real time, by Israeli naval personnel, and were told that if the ships did not change course,
legal enforcement measures would be undertaken. These activists were well aware of Israel's right and
intention to enforce the blockade.
Israel hoped to enforce the blockade in a peaceful and orderly manner, as with past successful missions
to enforce the blockade. On the ships in the May 30th flotilla where no violent resistance was
encountered, Israeli enforcement measures were peacefully implemented. However, on the ship where
Israeli personnel were met with violence, they were, unfortunately, forced to act in self defense.
Terrorist organizations constantly invent new methods of warfare. The challenge facing Israel and
other Western democracies is how, within the confines of the law, to fight terrorists who unabashedly
ignore the law. Israel's recent blockade enforcement efforts stand the test of international law.