Some folks are falling for the claim that Israel's attack was in "self-defense". And even many of those who are not buying the Israeli propaganda are distracted by some details about the proportionality of the attack, and whether Israeli soldiers started violence or not.
While the attack was obviously not proportional and Israeli forces could have used many other types of weapons to control the situation without the need to kill and injure dozens of the civilians on the ship, I don't think it matters if the attack was "proportional" or not because it is unlawful to start with.
Law scholars and experts believe the attack was unlawful because it happened in international waters. The location of the ship during and after the attack was more than 70 miles off the Israeli shores. The location is well documented, and no one in the Israeli government is denying the fact that it happened in international waters. The Israeli raid is a clear violation of the Law of the Sea. Israel cannot board foreign vessels in international waters without their consent.
Nevertheless, a few politicians have been citing Paragraph 67 (Section V) of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea to justify the attack. This paragraph states that "Merchant vessels" may not be attacked unless they are believed on reasonable grounds to be "breaching a blockade". International law scholars and experts are very critical of this claim though, because according to them the San Remo Manual does not apply to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian groups in Gaza. It only applies to wars between states, and Gaza is not a state.
But even if the San Remo Manual applied to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, there are a number of reasons to believe it does not apply to this particular attack. For one, the "blockade" these ships were breaching is itself unlawful, because it constitutes collective punishment of Gaza's civilian population in violation of article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the blockade is in violation of Paragraph 102 of the San Remo Manual itself that prohibits the establishment of a blockade if "the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.". There are other reasons for why this attack violates the San Remo manual if it applied to the conflict. For example, Paragraph 47 (Section III) prohibits attacks on "vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations", even if such vessels are "enemy vessels". Another Example is Paragraph 46 (Section II) where an attack must be "canceled or suspended as soon as it becomes apparent that the collateral casualties or damage would be excessive". It is obvious that whomever is citing Paragraph 67 of the San Remo Manual is cherry picking to deceive public opinion and justify the Israeli massacre.
Based on all the information we have so far, Israeli's claim that the attack was in "self-defense" is absurd, because Israel did not have the right to board Mavi Marmara in the first place. This is like a burglar who claims he or she killed the house owners in self defense because they defended their property with a kitchen knife. The Israeli use of force is unlawful and illegal under international law because the ship was in international waters.
That said, it is still very important to conduct an investigation into the massacre in in accordance to the from the UN Security Council and many other international organizations. Such an investigation would give us all the information and details we need for a final judgment.
