My own opinions are irrelevant--the flotilla didn't comply with the IDF's instructions and instead attempted to run the blockade; the IDF boarded the ships and had them towed to an Israeli port. Both sides accuse the other of initiating violence, with reports that the flotilla passengers attacked the troops and tried to grab for their weapons. The IDF also seems to be claiming to have discovered weapons aboard the flotilla.

So you have one side possibly murdering civilians in international waters, or possibly maintaining in conjunction with one of its neighbors a blockade in order to protect their own people from the terrorists who control Gaza; you have another side openly defying this blockade and intentionally running it just to create this kind of confrontation in the name of civil disobedience. Does it still sound like I'm "justifying" one side over the other? This blockade has been up for three years and the full context behind today's events stretches back to decades of conflict; it's difficult to give an impartial account of things. I only ask that you take my attempts in good faith and add whatever information you have in similar good faith, instead of just collapsing everything down to "IDF are murderers and Phil is justifying it".