This is a good response to my earlier question. Please note that my first post was about the assertion of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition that they had the right to run the blockade. When someone said that the blockade itself was illegal I asked for a source which you and they have provided.

You could make the argument that since the blockade is illegal then the right to defend it would be ceded, but I don’t think it works that way. Much like how if a cop illegally arrests you you still don’t have the right to resist arrest.

The UN Panel that investigated the 2010 incident said both that the loss of passenger lives on the IDFs fault was unacceptable (especially including shooting some of the dead multiple times or in the back) and that the treatment of the passengers was unacceptable.

That same panel also stated, “The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.”

You can phrase it how you want, but at the end of the day they are smuggling goods in an area internationally recognized as being under the control and jurisdiction of a country. Part of nonviolent civil disobedience is that you are breaking the law. I don’t think it’s good that activists get hurt, but it’s definitely not surprising.

In the incident a UN Panel found that the IDF boarded the Mavi Marmara and were met with resistance from ~40 of the passengers where were said to be armed with iron bars and knives.

The panel had this to state about the actions of the flotilla:

“However, the Panel seriously questions the true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, a coalition of non-governmental organizations. The leading group involved in the planning of the flotilla was the Turkish NGO “İnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri Vakfı” (IHH), a humanitarian organization. It owned two of the ships; the Mavi Marmara and the Gazze I. There is some suggestion that it has provided support to Hamas, although the Panel does not have sufficient information to assess that allegation. IHH has special consultative status with ECOSOC, a status which in the Panel’s view raises a certain expectation with respect to the way in which it should conduct its activities.”

“Other elements also raise questions concerning the objectives of the flotilla organizers. If the flotilla had been a purely humanitarian mission it is hard to see why so many passengers were embarked and with what purpose. Furthermore, the quality and value of many of the humanitarian goods on board the vessels is questionable. There were large quantities of humanitarian and construction supplies on board the Gazze 1, Eleftheri Mesogeio and Defne-Y. There were some foodstuffs and medical goods on board the Mavi Marmara, although it seems that these were intended for the voyage itself. Any “humanitarian supplies” were limited to foodstuffs and toys carried in passengers’ personal baggage. The same situation appears to be the case for two other of the vessels: the Sfendoni, and the Challenger I. There was little need to organize a flotilla of six ships to deliver humanitarian assistance if only three were required to carry the available humanitarian supplies. The number of journalists embarked on the ships gives further power to the conclusion that the flotilla’s primary purpose was to generate publicity.”

“It should be noted that flotilla passengers specifically committed not to bring weapons on the journey. Neverthless, it is alleged that the IHH participants on board the Mavi Marmara included a “hardcore group” of approximately 40 activists, who had effective control over the vessel during the journey and were not subjected to security screening when they boarded the Mavi Marmara in Istanbul. The Turkish report refers to 42 volunteers who acted as “cleaning and maintenance personnel” who boarded the Mavi Marmara in Istanbul and asserts that these individuals were subject to security screening. The Panel notes in this regard that all participants agreed to follow the decisions of the IHH organizers during the voyage and that at least one witness described himself as working for IHH ‘like a security guard.’”

“Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade. The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH. The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation.”

So the event organizers had alleged ties to Hamas, there were 10 tonnes of supplies provided by the organizers but the only supplies intended for the Gazans was that which was brought by individual volunteers, and a core group of armed volunteers tried to resist the IDF when they boarded. These were the UN’s findings.

Hey thanks for providing this, it actually answers the question. For those who didn’t read through this, the main International Laws Israel is accused of violating are:

• Human Rights violations - Israel is a member state of the UN and as such the UN asserts that Israel must follow the laws set forth. In reality Israel has been a signatory on 9/18 human rights treaties. (EDIT: Specifically Collective Punishment.)

• Invading a UN recognized State - Palestine was recognized in 1988 and is considered part of the UN. Israel occupying Palestine is tantamount to a violation of International Law.

I started this post and then had to step away and by the time I got back I had a bunch of responses, but you were the first.