Completly and willingly egnoring that Israel was within their rights.
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or BREACHING A BLOCKADE, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
More here:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce
Thanks!Thats enlightening.... I was under the assumption that Israel was in violation of international law when they boarded the ‘peace-activists’ but apparently not! Should be a useful riposte to some of the lefties that surround me at work (some of them , lo and behold.... jewish). It would be instructive to delve into the precise legalities though, because I don’t quite why Israel isn’t using this argument more forcefully.