Geopolitical repercussions of the Sumud Flotilla

Key research question: What is the geopolitical role of the Sumud Flotilla, and what political repercussions did it trigger in Europe?

Introduction

The journey of the Sumud flotilla represents a remarkable case in the current geopolitical situation in the Mediterranean and sets a first precedent for a kind of civil action that is likely to repeat itself in the future. Despite the different political biases and views on the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, it is undeniable that this mission has caused considerable political repercussions in Europe and brought more attention not only to the conflict itself but also to the role of civil action in the face of realpolitik and governmental inaction. The Global Sumud Flotilla is indeed the largest civil maritime solidarity initiative in history and its crew included not only activists but also politicians, journalists, lawyers, doctors and clergy. The Flotilla received support from many foreign ministers, NGOs such as Amnesty, politicians and political parties while also being condemned and harshly criticised by other political voices, media and governments in Europe and elsewhere. However, the Flotilla journey laid the groundwork for potential conflicts and diplomatic backlash between European countries and Israel.

The possibility of future emulations of the Flotilla’s journey in similar situations imposes the need to define its geopolitical role and the possible consequential effects that similar incidents can produce in the long run. The Flotilla case presents many aspects to be considered in order to analyse future similar cases.   

Political and legal implications

The mission of the Flotilla was conceived as an unarmed humanitarian expedition to bring symbolic aid to the civilian population of the Gaza Strip. This journey has been described as a value-based civil reaction in the face of the slowness of official diplomacy to take concrete steps, showing that civil society can also play an active role in geopolitics. Favourable voices have described it as “the birth of a transnational society that plays an active role” while less favourable voices have described it as a peace-risking, fake humanitarian interference and even potentially linked to Hamas.

The most evident consequence of the journey was increased awareness and direct involvement of many European governments in the security and protection of the Flotilla crew intercepted by the Israeli forces. While the aid cargo has been described as too modest for its aim – having a symbolic value – the Flotilla’s political and social effects had a considerable impact on how the conflict is perceived and underlined the clash between large segments of many countries’ public opinion, often in contrast with their governments’ geopolitical positioning. Beyond bringing aid and raising awareness, another goal of the Flotilla was to break the naval blockade and establish a maritime corridor to Gaza. For the Israeli authorities, this goal would have meant a concerning first precedent that would have paved the road for similar initiatives, allowing an uncontrolled traffic of people, packages and potentially also resources for Hamas. Israel has indeed declared that the main reason for the blockade was to prevent Hamas from importing arms and that humanitarian aid should only enter Gaza through the official and Israeli-controlled routes.

From a legal viewpoint, the Israeli authorities and the members of the Sumud Flotilla have availed themselves of various legal arguments to validate their positions following the interception of the expedition. Israeli authorities invoked the rules of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, according to which a belligerent party can intercept foreign ships if there is the possibility that such ships might carry military equipment to the enemy. Furthermore, Israeli authorities have claimed that the Flotilla had been warned multiple times that they were entering a war zone, therefore justifying the intervention of Israel’s naval forces.

On the other hand, supporters of the Flotilla have relied on the rules of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which states that ships in international waters enjoy freedom of navigation and cannot be intercepted by foreign states unless they fall under very limited exceptions — none of which apply to humanitarian vessels. Beyond that, supporters of the Flotilla also cite the San Remo Manual, in which it is stated that naval blockades are not permitted if they cause starvation for the civilian population and prevent humanitarian aid from reaching famine-affected zones. Manual also states that humanitarian missions should not be attacked or interfered with.

Repercussions

Moreover, the political implications have not only brought further international attention to the case but have also produced collateral effects within European countries, whose public debate on the issue has become much more polarised. The Israeli interception of the Flotilla and the arrest of its crew members (including Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and former Barcelona mayor Ada Calau) have had considerable repercussions within civil society and also at the governmental level. Large protests in Italy, France and Germany erupted in public squares, while government officials have openly declared the gravity of the situation and demanded Israeli authorities safeguard the rights of the European citizens participating in the journey. It is the case of the Belgian Foreign Minister, Maxime Prévot, who described the Flotilla’s interception as unacceptable, and Spain’s labour minister and deputy prime minister, Yolanda Díaz, who defined the interception as “a crime against international law.” Moreover, European diplomats and officials demanded consular protection for their citizens, immediate and unconditional release and respect of humanitarian law norms and maritime law.

While its members and supporters have repeatedly underlined the pacific and humanitarian nature of the expedition, the Israeli authorities have on multiple occasions presented clear accusations of the opposite. The Flotilla has been described as an offensive action with connections to Hamas. The Israeli Minister Ben Gvir has demanded that Flotilla members be treated as terrorists, causing indignation in many European countries. Furthermore, Israeli authorities have claimed to have information proving that the Flotilla has links to various Hamas-owned organisations and funding. Further accusations moved by Israeli officials have then been rejected by Flotilla supporters and members.

These aggressive exchanges generated a considerable decline in Israel-Europe relations and had the potential to generate further diplomatic conflicts and a consequential freezing of the diplomatic relations. A potential scenario in which Israel is isolated from Europe would lead to new geopolitical constellations with other actors and the strengthening of the country’s relations with other current allies. A degeneration of Israel’s relations with many European countries, due to the targeting of European civilians, would also mean possible fallout in the Europe-USA relations. Many pro-Israel voices are already sceptical of European governments’ attitudes, while large segments of Europe’s public opinion are firm in their positions concerning the ongoing conflict and operations in the Gaza Strip. More European nations have recently recognised the State of Palestine and others might follow. The potential for a fallout between Israel and Europe is concrete, and another incident similar to the Flotilla, in which European citizens are denied their rights (or if Israeli authorities can identify a concrete threat), might lead to disastrous consequences and the freezing of Israel’s diplomatic relations with several European countries.

Beyond possible scenarios, the effects of the Flotilla’s interception show how a civil act can produce diplomatic fallouts and potentially lead to geopolitical alterations when it clashes with security policies in a conflict zone or when civilian lives are threatened.

Conclusion

It is difficult to attribute one single geopolitical role to the Sumud Flotilla. One geopolitical role can be defined as the concrete manifestation of European civil societies’ desire to take an active role when they feel their values are not represented by their governments. The Flotilla can also be viewed as an alarm, as it signals the potential danger when official governments’ positions and national public opinions diverge, as actions taken by the latter might force the former to make decisions against the country’s geopolitical interests and act to preserve their citizens’ safety. Another geopolitical role might be a norm-challenging actor that is able to pressure governments to take action. Furthermore, one or the other side can instrumentalise the Flotilla as a semi-passive actor to advance their narrative. All in all, the Sumud Flotilla also shows how moral gestures, international law, diplomacy, and military calculations can intersect and how unpredictable the consequences can be depending on how severe the actions or reactions of one or more actors are.

Questions for Further Reflection

1. Could the Sumud Flotilla represent the emergence of a new kind of non-state geopolitical actor rooted in civil society?
2. What risks does the Flotilla face in terms of legitimacy, security, and political backlash?
3. Can grassroots movements like this shape international conflict resolution or merely influence discourse?

Resurgence of the Israeli-Palestine conflict: implications and consequences in a regional balance more precarious than ever

The Cycle of Conflict: Why the Status Quo Between Israel and Palestine Remains Unchanged

(ARTICLE) EU – Israel Relations: Between Strong Ties and Strategic Ambiguity