So, to summarize:
Some of us believe the aid flotilla was a genuine humanitarian effort to relieve the suffering of the hapless Palestinian people. And the Israelis were bad to stop it.
While others feel that the aid flotilla was a deliberate provocation to break the embargo and allow proper weapon shipments to reach Hamas. And the Israelis were right to stop it.
It's a fundamental difference in outlook that we're not going to settle here and now, but I guess it's interesting to talk about.
SUMMARY:
True, although in addition to the two subjective position you have described there is a third - the objective analysis of the facts.
While most people have made descriptive statements concerning their subjective feelings or interest, there seems to have been little agreement concerning what ought to have been objectively agreeable principles and facts - vis a vis:
1) the legality of the boarding action
2) the precedent for such actions in international waters
3) the necessity of the convoy to ship aid [and thus not stand down]
4) the necessity of the Israelis to use force [in self-defence]
Of these four elements, the first is not yet clear, although it appears to be legal.
The second is that there have been many such actions and there is a precedent.
The third is that alternative means were available so there was no necessity.
The fourth is that warnings were issued and Israel fired in self-defence.
So restricting the discussion purely to the incident (not wider Palestine-Israel question) the balance of
purely objective analysis rests heavily in favour of the Israelis. Repeated attempts to demonstrate otherwise, through objective fact, have failed, and degenerated into descriptive, subjective statements without analytical value.
