Okey Dokey Artichokey,
Lots and lots of nonsense flying around what should be a skeptical thread, but- well you know.
I've not read the entirety of this thread, because it's now at multiple pages and frankly, I've got things to do in real life. I will address those few arguments I've seen here, as well as those arguments I've seen elsewhere. So I'm going to describe the events in question in the clear sunlit sheen of black-letter humanitarian and international law, as it is commonly understood, interpreted, and applied.
The Mavi Marmara was in international waters at the time of the incident. Whether or not it was conceivably in Israel's Economic Exclusion Zone is irrelevent, since that defines only Israel's rights to harvest and otherwise draw resources from the sea. They are not permitted to enforce Israeli law on ships not flying Israeli colors. Nor are they permitted to harass, or otherwise move along ships loitering or in transit. EEZ does not equal territiorial waters.
The naval blockade itself is illegal, and even if it were not, the Israelis make no claim to sovereignty (which is a specific legal concept) over Gaza, which means that they do not have territorial claims over Gaza, which in turn finally means that they have no legal right to enforce Israeli laws off of the Gaza coast. Palestine need not be a state in order for Israel to lack a claim to Gaza's implied territorial waters (defined by convention as 12 nautical miles from the shore). Similarly even if Paraguay was not a state, it does not immediately or indisputably give Bolivia the right to police its shores. (I've chosen two land-locked countries for giggles.)
Attacking a ship bearing the flag of another country in international waters outside those few and very specific instances where the burden of proof rests with the raiding navy (drugs, etc.) is not a war crime in and of itself per se. (The fact they attacked a humanitarian vessel is, as I'll describe.) However it is a very clear act of war. Which is why Ireland has been stern in its warnings to Israel regarding the ship bearing its flag, the MV Rachel Corrie. It's also why the UN Security Council met, and why Turkey recalled its ambassador. Some have described it as piracy- it isn't. It isn't because it was attacked by ships commissioned by the Israeli Navy.
The videos provided by the IDF lack timestamps. The videos provided by IHH were broadcast live, by contrast. The IHH shipboard video and testimony is that Israel had shot and killed people well before boarding. The Israeli video of the commando descent lacks a timestamp, making it impossible to verify or deny. Regardless their is little doubt that it was the Israeli navy that illegally surrounded them and impeded their progress, and whether they fired or used stun grenades panicked the passengers who perceive, rightly or wrongly, the IDF as being willing to kill humanitarian aid workers. The crew panicked, and responded accordingly. It was the Israeli Navy's job not to instigate, and to behave appropriately and according to the rule of law. The Mavi Maramara did nothing illegal, and only responded to unwarranted and disproportionate aggression.
The Mavi Marmara was also a vessel carrying humanitarian supplies and well known to be carrying humanitarian supplies long before the incident. According to the Geneva conventions regarding the treatment of civilians in war, as well as those governing care of the sick and wounded, humanitarian aid and medical supplies are to be permitted to pass at all times. The Israeli government does not dispute now, nor did they dispute then, that IHH was an impartial humanitarian organization as understood and defined by the Geneva conventions. Meaning they have no right to stop them regardless of naval blockade. Depriving people of sustenance is a war crime, and it was Benjamin Netenyahu himself who stated that his intention was to place Palestinians "...on a diet." The nature of this act and that of collective punishment is forbidden under the fourth Geneva convention. This makes what Israel did, by raiding the vessel and impeding its progress, not only an act of war against Turkey, but a war crime in its own right.
Apologists for Israel have been very active in recent days, but they often cannot respond to the legal issues because these laws have been around for a long time, and are specifically designed to remove any gray areas that might lead to unnecessary conflict. The laws Israel chose to break are among the clearest, most pragmatic, and well put-together instances of international law. The laws and conventions pertaining to the seas are not joking matters.
I would also like to address the ridiculous accusations against Cleon. I recently signed onto this site, and I seem to recall a guideline, "Attack the argument, not the arguer," -or something like that. I've met him personally in real life, and no, not with his facespace or mybook group or whatever the hell it is people seem to have a problem with, but at the Atlanta Skepticamp and other local skeptical events. Accusing him of being in cahoots with, sympathy with, or otherwise making sweet, sweet love to Hamas is all kinds of hilarious- and I would add, a fairly extraordinary claim.
