No, they didn't.

As I said before, Admiral Doenitz was found not guilty in Nurnberg based on Admiral Niemitz's statement that the US did the same thing to merchant ships heading to Germany.

You are now beginning to make up your own history for your narrative that Israel must have committed a crime, no matter what.

Says who? Now a brother may not fight a war without UN approval?

Can you find me the written law that says that the UNSC must now approve blockades? How do countries run a blockade if the UNSC doesn't like them?

And don't say "additionally" when every one of your arguments has been disproven already.

Or, alternatively, back up anything you say. Point me to these "international laws" you are referring to. You keep using them as arguments pretending that they are common knowledge but I'm afraid I am either ignorant of them or they don't exist but either way I don't know of them.

If you can find a written law somewhere that says what you claim "international law" says and can give me an example of a country following it at any relevant time, I guess you can win this discussion.

I still think a population exchange would solve the problem.

The Arabs from Gaza can go to Darfur, and the Darfurians can go to Gaza.

Sorry, responded before reading.

We could even use more current info than WWII. For example the boarding of ships during the first Gulf War. Quite far from US territorial waters. Perhaps Israel should just mine the waters, like Iraq did.

Give it a few more years - no one will be left except Raul.

Beat me to it, Leauki.  Yep, it's all about the humanitarian aid, you see.

This wasn't the goal of the flotilla operation.  Its organizers have proudly proclaimed that the intent from the very beginning was to break the naval blockade or provoke a clash with Israel, using humanitarian aid as a pretext, the amount of which on board was trivial compared to what regularly moves into Gaza by land with Israel's blessing (delivery of which has now been refused by Hamas).  They could have easily accomplished delivery of humanitarian aid by proceeding to Ashdod, but that was not their reason for being there.  It was to provoke a confrontation which was inevitable and successfully accomplished.

If humanitarian aid is the only issue, why bother with this little skirmish when humanitarian aid can be delivered with ease via Ashdod?  The aim was to see if they could establish & legitimize a means to deliver weapons & munitions unfettered by Israeli security.  If Israel didn't stop them, primary mission accomplished; if Israel did stop them, alternate mission accomplished, with the reliable aid of the idiot media & anti-semitic regimes.

Yes. And Israel has the right to check the goods to make sure they are indeed humanitarian aid.

This is exactly what Israel has done. And the goods have now arrived in Gaza.

Your X-ray vision must be better than mine. I had only the word of a Turkish terrorist group.

Not the issue here. Israel is not denying supplies to the civilian populace.

This is about stopping a ship to check the goods. It was never about stopping the supplies.

Stop changing the subject!

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/biden-israel-right-to-stop-gaza-flotilla-from-breaking-blockade-1.293833

I found this mentioned by several news sites, including Bloomberg.

If it is true Obama and Biden have just earned their first badge for standing up to the world.

In an interview with Charlie Rose, Biden pointed out that Israel had given pro-Palestinian activists the option of unloading their cargo at the Ashdod port, and offered to bring it to the Gaza Strip on their behalf.

"They've said, 'Here you go. You're in the Mediterranean. This ship -- if you divert slightly north you can unload it and we'll get the stuff into Gaza,'", he said. "So what's the big deal here? What's the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza? Well, it's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping… 3,000 rockets on my people.
 

"Look, you can argue whether Israel should have dropped people onto that ship or not  -- but the truth of the matter is, Israel has a right to know -- they're at war with Hamas -- has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in."
During the interview, Biden also blamed Hamas for the crisis that has wracked the coastal territory and for the ongoing state of conflict with Israel.

"As we put pressure, and the world put pressure on Israel to let material go into Gaza to help those people who are suffering, the ordinary Palestinians there, what happened? Hamas would confiscate it, put it in a warehouse [and] sell it.
 

"So the problem is this would end tomorrow if Hamas agreed to form a government with the Palestinian Authority on the conditions the international community has set up," Biden told Rose.

The good thing is that Obama has street cred among the idiots. When his administration says something, most liberals will think it's true. And if facts come from someone who isn't George W. Bush, they can indeed be appreciated.

When Obama defends Israel and the west, I prefer him over Bush; not because I think he does a better job as such (he does not*), but because he in untouchable by the mainstream left.

*For example, as I mentioned before, he ignores the plight of Africans where REAL poverty and REAL oppression are rampant. George Bush increased aid to Africa and his administration worked out peace treaties in Liberia and southern Sudan. Obama has ignored Africa and was widely criticised by African human rights groups who had found an ally in George Bush.

The next blockade runner is coming and as usual the peace activists" promise they come in peace and won't resist IDF soldiers:

The activist said those on board were coming "in peace", and that they would not resist IDF soldiers if they insisted coming on board. 

But their tone has changed:

"We are not afraid, despite what happened on the Marmara," said Derrick Graham, who is on board with wife Jeanie. "The violence there was a product of fear, I saw the fear in the eyes of the soldiers. You need to send your veteran soldiers, not the young ones."

Hearing the "peace activists" themselves defending the IDF is a remarkable change.

I don't for a moment think that somebody who wastes money on bringing ever more goods to Gaza while Africans are starving really has a conscience, but I do think it is likely that they are afraid of something. Something has changed. I already pointed out that the tone in some media outlets had changed. Something is going on.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898334,00.html

I have no television.

I am going to go walk my dog, Gedalyah, with my Isaeli t-shirt :->

Israeli officials are standing defiantly saying soldiers had been defending themselves after they were "clubbed, beaten and stabbed" during a raid of a flotilla of Gaza-bound aid ships.

I find it interesting how the BBC state that Israeli officials "say" soldiers had been defending themselves, while showing the video that proves it. Even a proven fact in favour of Israel is merely the Israeli point of view and is to be treated as such.

I am sure that the BBC will claim that gravity is some Israeli claim when Israel says that soldiers were thrown overboard.