Reuters: Israeli blockade is legal

Reuters news agency, not exactly part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, interviewed US and European experts of maritime law and concluded that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza is entirely legal under the terms of international law ("Q&A-Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal?").

CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?
Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognised document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea". Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.

"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.

That the MV Mavi Marmara was in international waters when Israeli commandos boarded it is not relevant to the legality of the action. The intention of the vessel, not its location, constitutes whether the vessel is attempting to breach the blockade. Leaders of the two main organizers of the voyage were the Turkish Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH and the Free Gaza Movement said publicly before the flotilla set out that its intention was the breach the blockade.

Because the blockade was legal and the boarding was legal, charges that some have made that Israel's actions were "piracy" are not merely false, they are deliberately toxic.

[U]nder international law it was considered a state action.

"Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," [James] Kraska [professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College] said.

Finally, under the terms of the San Remo Manual, the governing international convention,

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

See also Harvard law Prof. Alan Dershowitz's explanation of why, under law, Israel's actions were legal. Prof. Dershowitz also makes this key point:

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.

Certainly when the people aboard Mavi Marmara started clubbing and then shooting at the legally-boarded Israelis, their status as noncombatants evaporated. Everyone wishes events had turned out differently and that no one, Israeli or not, had been injured or killed. But the Left's accusation that the people aboard Mavi Marmara were innocent civilian noncombatants is simply untrue. They were not innocent but were in fact breaking a blockade that was legal under international law. They made themselves combatants by attacking the Israeli boarders. At that moment, in the heat of the moment, their civilian status is not very relevant.

Update: Consider also from the San Remo Manual,

SECTION VI : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS

146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:

(a) are carrying contraband; ...

(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.