Intent to Kill

>> Oh, yes--I should like to point out that the Israelis
intercepted a blockade runner.<<

The blockade is also killing people, inasmuch as someone who dies for lack of health care/food/water/other supplies is just as dead as someone killed by a bullet. Some folks are just not okay with killing people or starving them to death because you dislike them.

>> They killed nine people. <<

... who, insofar as I have heard, were not threatening violence to the Israeli patrol. (If the reports are incomplete, and the activists were armed and posing a credible threat, then armed conflict is more justified; but it still should not have happened in international waters.) In such circumstances, detaining the offenders is sufficient. Unless, of course, one's goal is to use terrorism, violence, and death threats to discourage everyone else from coming near one's territory; while this is a popular choice, it is not generally considered civilized and can backfire.

>> For that matter,
in spite of having both nuclear and chemical weapons
at their disposal,
they have refrained from using them,
or threatening to use them.<<

I'll allow that they haven't used what they have. I think I've heard complaints about Israel doing some saber-rattling in that regard, though.

>> Perhaps sending innocent people into harm's way
is not the best way to approach the problem? <<

That may well be true. I'm always on the lookout for other possibilities. It still doesn't excuse the unnecessary killing of noncombatants in international waters.

However, conceding that some other approach is necessary pretty much confirms that Israel can't be trusted to honor the rules of engagement -- and not everyone is (or was, prior to this incident, which may have changed some minds) willing to take that stance.

Activism has never been a safe practice. People who do it should be aware of that. But it's still generally considered wrong to shoot activists or other noncombatants.