By Noor ul Ain Kazmi
“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” The observation by the ancient Greek historian Thucydides continues to echo through the corridors of modern geopolitics. In an international system that claims to uphold justice, human rights and the rule of law, recent events surrounding the Global Sumud Flotilla have once again exposed the uncomfortable reality that power often prevails over principle. The interception of the humanitarian flotilla by Israeli forces in international waters has triggered renewed debate over the credibility of international law and the selective manner in which it is enforced. The flotilla, according to organisers and activists aboard the vessels, was carrying humanitarian aid intended for the people of Gaza, who have endured years of blockade, displacement, destruction and deepening humanitarian distress. The mission was presented as a peaceful attempt to deliver relief supplies and draw global attention to the worsening conditions in the besieged enclave. Yet before the vessels could approach Gaza, Israeli naval forces reportedly intercepted and boarded them while they were still in international waters. The legal and moral implications of the incident are profound. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), international waters are not subject to the sovereignty of any single state. Freedom of navigation is a recognised principle of international maritime law, limited only in exceptional circumstances such as piracy, slavery or terrorism. Human rights advocates and international observers have argued that the flotilla did not constitute an armed or military threat. Critics therefore contend that the interception of civilian humanitarian vessels raises serious questions regarding the legality of the operation. Beyond maritime law, the incident also intersects with international humanitarian law, which prohibits collective punishment, obstruction of humanitarian assistance and actions that endanger civilian populations during conflict. For years, Gaza has remained trapped in a cycle of blockade, war and humanitarian collapse. Restrictions on food, medicine, fuel and essential supplies have deepened the suffering of ordinary civilians, particularly women and children. Against this backdrop, humanitarian initiatives such as the flotilla are viewed by supporters not merely as political gestures, but as attempts to challenge what they describe as an unsustainable humanitarian catastrophe. The controversy surrounding the flotilla is not occurring in isolation. The world witnessed a similar episode in 2010, when Israeli commandos intercepted the Gaza Freedom Flotilla and boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara, resulting in the deaths of several activists and triggering widespread international condemnation. More than a decade later, the recurrence of similar confrontations reinforces the perception that accountability within the international system remains inconsistent and selective. The ancient Greek statesman Solon once remarked that laws resemble spider webs: they trap the weak, while the powerful tear through them unharmed. The statement remains strikingly relevant in contemporary international politics. Weaker states are frequently subjected to sanctions, diplomatic isolation and international scrutiny for violations of international norms. Powerful states, however, often evade meaningful consequences due to their military strength, geopolitical alliances or strategic importance. Such selective enforcement undermines confidence in international institutions and weakens the moral authority of the global legal order. Israel maintains that its naval blockade is necessary for national security and to prevent weapons from reaching Hamas. Every sovereign state possesses the right to protect its citizens and safeguard its security interests. Yet international law also imposes obligations, even during armed conflict. Security concerns cannot become a blanket justification for unrestricted use of force or interference with humanitarian missions operating under civilian mandates. The larger concern extends beyond the flotilla itself. If international waters increasingly become arenas where military power overrides legal protections, and if humanitarian initiatives are routinely framed as security threats, then faith in the international legal system will continue to erode. History has repeatedly shown that international institutions lose credibility when laws appear to apply differently to the powerful and the powerless. At its core, the Gaza crisis is not solely a geopolitical issue; it is a human tragedy. The people living under siege are not abstract political symbols, but civilians struggling for survival under extraordinarily harsh conditions. Likewise, the activists aboard the flotilla sought, at least in their own understanding, to confront global indifference through nonviolent humanitarian action. Whether one agrees with their politics or not, the use of military force against civilian humanitarian efforts inevitably raises difficult legal, ethical and humanitarian questions. The Global Sumud Flotilla incident has therefore become more than a maritime confrontation. It reflects a deeper crisis facing the international system itself: whether international law will continue to function as a universal standard equally applicable to all states, or whether it will increasingly become subordinate to geopolitical power. Until accountability is applied consistently rather than selectively, the warnings of Thucydides and Solon will continue to define the harsh realities of global politics.
The writer is a student of BS Peace and Conflict Studies at the National Defence University, and writes on human rights, women’s rights and contemporary global issues.
