Although the wisdom of Israel's actions in stopping the Gaza flotilla is open to question, the legality of its actions is not. What Israel did was entirely consistent with both international and domestic law. In order to understand why Israel acted within its rights, the complex events at sea must be deconstructed.
First, there is the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which included a naval blockade. Recall that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, it did not impose a blockade. Indeed it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area. Instead Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel. These acts of warfare featured anti-personnel rockets, nearly 10,000 of them, directed at Israeli civilians. This was not only an act of warfare, it was a war crime. Israel responded to the rockets by declaring a blockade, the purpose of which was to assure that no rockets, or other material that could be used for making war against Israeli civilians, was permitted into Gaza. Israel allowed humanitarian aid through its checkpoints. Egypt as well participated in the blockade. There was never a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, merely a shortage of certain goods that would end if the rocket attacks ended.
The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This, despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerency against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.
The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.
Third, were those on board the flotilla innocent non-combatants or did they lose that status once they agreed to engage in the military act of breaking the blockade? Let there be no mistake about the purpose of this flotilla. It was decidedly not to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, but rather the break the entirely lawful Israeli military blockade. The proof lies in the fact that both Israel and Egypt offered to have all the food, medicine and other humanitarian goods sent to Gaza, if the boats agreed to land in an Israeli or Egyptian port. That humanitarian offer was soundly rejected by the leaders of the flotilla who publicly announced:
"This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians." (AFP, May 27, 2010.)
The act of breaking a military siege is itself a military act, and those knowingly participating in such military action put in doubt their status as non-combatants.
It is a close question whether "civilians" who agree too participate in the breaking of a military blockade have become combatants. They are certainly something different than pure, innocent civilians, and perhaps they are also somewhat different from pure armed combatants. They fit uncomfortably onto the continuum of civilianality that has come to characterize asymmetrical warfare.
Finally, we come to the issue of the right of self-defense engaged in by Israeli soldiers who were attacked by activists on the boat. There can be little doubt that the moment any person on the boat picked up a weapon and began to attack Israeli soldiers boarding the vessel, they lost their status as innocent civilians. Even if that were not the case, under ordinary civilian rules of self defense, every Israeli soldier had the right to protect himself and his colleagues from attack by knife and pipe wielding assailants. Less there be any doubt that Israeli soldiers were under attack, simply view the video and watch, as so-called peaceful "activists" repeatedly pummel Israeli soldiers with metal rods. Every individual has the right to repel such attacks by the use of lethal force, especially when the soldiers were so outnumbered on the deck of the ship. Recall that Israel's rules of engagement required its soldiers to fire only paintballs unless their lives were in danger. Would any country in the world deny its soldiers the right of self-defense under comparable circumstances?
Notwithstanding the legality of Israel's actions, the international community has once again ganged up on Israel. In doing so, Israel's critics have failed to pinpoint precisely what Israel did that allegedly violates international law. Some have wrongly focused on the blockade itself. Others have erroneously pointed to the location of the boarding in international waters. Most have simply pointed to the deaths of so-called peace activists, though these deaths appear to be the result of lawful acts of self-defense. None of these factors alone warrant condemnation, but the end result surely deserves scrutiny by Israeli policy makers. There can be little doubt that the mission was a failure, as judged by its results. It is important, however, to distinguish between faulty policies on the one hand, and alleged violations of international law on the other hand. Only the latter would warrant international intervention, and the case has simply not been made that Israel violated international law.
Ahmed Rehab: Israel Gaza Attack: Do Actions of the 'Jewish State' Represent Jewish Values?
Israel's failure is not a failure of Jewish values. If anything, it's a failure to apply Jewish values.
Loading comments… 
Please read this:
http://www
and reconsider your support of Obama.
http://www
He does not attempt to address the moral issue because in the case of izrael, its indefensib
One has to ask, why are the izraelis so against humanitari
Whats wrong with saying, "If youd like to donate supplies, thats fine, but you will be stopped and searched prior to". izrael simply said "NO". "You will not be permitted to make charitable contributi
Theres no reason why the izraelis couldnt have handled the situation in a reasonable manner unless of-course they didnt want to, PERIOD. They are denying human beings of charitable supplies. Why? For what possible reason when they can easily search the supplies prior to delivery?
The only logical conclusion is that the izraelis simply want to starve the Palestinia
I beg to differ with nearly evrything you said, but most importantl
"The flotilla preanounce
You assert that "Israel simply said no" to delivering the humanitari
"Israelis want to starve gaza." Again, you are misinforme
Note: when is an Arab an Israeli? When s/he has been wounded by one of these rockets. Most of them, however, land harmlessly in open fields. Palestinia
And thus, Israel feels justified in attacking ships in internatio
But do please note that the activists on these ships would not have needed to fight the Israeli soldiers, if the soldiers had not first traveled 65 miles out from Israel, jammed their communicat
Look at the West Bank as a clear example--t
Israel onlywanted to inspect the cargo. They did not, and have never shot at any ships unprovoked
http://www
The purported purpose of the blockade is to keep Hamas from rearming, but the list of items that Israel prohibits from reaching the strip is raising more than a few eyebrows..
The list of prohibited items, only recently released under legal pressure from civic groups inside Israel, includes items such as 'chocolate
This revelation leads many to question Israel's real motive for the blockade. Bombs are not of chocolate made. The leading suggestion
This plan has been less than successful
http://www
it indeed sounds more like harassemen
http://www
land. that's what its all about. land
So the question now rests - what will be the result of this ill-concei
Till next time.
http://www
So, this is funny? Sorry, I can't laugh. There are 9 persons dead, one of them a U.S. citizen, and an internatio
Just my thoughts..
Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that internatio
There are therefore two clear legal possibilit
Possibilit
part two to follow
In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigat
Craig Murray is a former British Ambassador
http://www
Most of the article was extremely lucid. I am still unclear as to what exactly was 'probably unwise' about what Israel did. Was it unwise because it received [inaccurat
Note that once dealing with 'assymetri
Post script: In paragraphs 8&9, spelling:
Paragraph 8
It is a close question whether "civilians
>> TO participat
Paragraph 9, middle
Less there be any doubt that Israeli soldiers were under attack,
>> did you mean 'Lest'?
★★★ http://www
A strait forward analysis of the flotilla issue.
And to get the real picture of the situation in Gaza you should see this:
★★★ http://www