|
The international law is there, but it's pretty murky. International law is very flaky when it concerns regions of the world that are not part of any particular state.
I know perfectly well that might makes right in International law(as unfortunate as it may be). This is a case however, where Israel is now coming up against someone that is practically it's equal, Turkey.
The fact that Turkey is part of Nato is very relevant. If this was, say, Iran getting into a dispute with Israel there would always be the possibility of the US, UK and other Nato members intervening on the side of Israel. In this case that cannot take place, because Turkey is a NATO member. Furthermore, a lot of other NATO members similiarly disagree with Israely actions regarding the blockade, and might give support to Turkey.
Israel is not exactly popular in Europe at the moment.
Whether or not NATO is obliged to intervene due to the mutual defense treaty is a matter of debate, largely because both countries are claiming to be acting out of self defense, and both have some legal basis for that claim, as the UN has ruled in each of their favour on the matter. It's ruled in favour of Israel in that the blockade was legal, but also in favour of Turkey in claiming that the attack on Turkish civilians was unwarranted. Both can reasonably claim to be the defender. And you can also reasonably argue that both are the aggressor. Turkey for obvious reasons, but Israel for actually initiating the blockade in the first place, and killing turkish citizens.
|