Israel Blockade: Legal?

Israel's blockade and subsequent raid on the Freedom Flotilla has garnered world wide attention. Israel has been called war criminals and pirates by their critics, but supporters cite the right to self defense.

First of all, though, I would like to note that the confrontation reminds me of a row between two school children. One child (Freedom flotilla) acts in such a manner that he knows will provoke the other (Israel), in the hopes a teacher (the international community) will take note and come to his aid. And it has worked spectacularly because the international community is in an uproar. Now I'm not defending Israel for their actions; they should have been the bigger party and either allowed the flotilla through (perhaps with a military escort), or resorted to a more peaceful method (inspection by neutral party with impartial media, or taking this to international court), which would have earned them the support of the international community, instead of antagonizing them.

Now let's examine the legal aspects of the blockade (defined as "a belligerent operation to prevent vessels and/or aircraft of all nations, enemy as well as neutral, from entering or exiting specified ports, airfields, or coastal areas belonging to, occupied by, or under the control of an enemy nation".

In "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea", Section II: Methods of Warfare, Subsection: Blockades,
Blockades must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, they must be upheld (to prevent blockades "on paper"), military force may be used (in proportion to the threat) to uphold the blockade, it must be applied to all states (even neutral ones), and cannot be declared if the the only purpose is to starve civilians and/or the damage to the civilian population exceeds the military advantage given. In any of those two cases, ships carrying humanitarian aid must be allowed after a search by the blockading party and the distribution of the aid should both be overseen by a impartial third party.

Israel seems to have followed most of the conventions, however the points in contention are whether appropriate force was used and the effect on the civilian population.

Contradictory reports have come from both sides of the conflict; Pro Freedom flotilla videos focus on Israeli commandos shooting from rafts alongside flotilla ships, and prop Israeli videos focus on the use of bats, knives, and slingshots in resistance to the commandos. However with the result being (a range of) 9-19 activist deaths and no Israeli deaths, it is apparent which side was on the receiving end of the most punishing blows.

On the humanitarian front, the blockade (both on land and sea) has resulted in just a bit more than one fifth of the required humanitarian aid actually reaching its destinations. This confrontation has also most likely resulted in other aid groups becoming increasingly reluctant to bring aid to civilians, which I believe violates the point of "civilian damages exceeding military benefit".

The main threat which lead to the blockade was a fear of Hamas rearming through weapons smuggled into Gaza and continuing their war on Israel. I believe the only solution is through reconciliation with people on both sides, and starving them does not appear to be a smart move in fostering good will between the two sides.

The naval blockade is not legal, but if it is maintained (in the name of Israeli "self defense"), it must be radically overhauled to allow humanitarian aid/other goods that can not be used for war to go through, and weapons smuggling prevented through strict screenings at land checkpoints and ports. The process must become much more transparent that currently, perhaps even the appointment of a permanent neutral third party watchdog.

Israel deserves to be held responsible for its actions during the confrontation, but Israel should also take note that its actions are, in actuality, detrimental to their efforts for peace in the Middle East.