[NomDePlum]

It is contested but the general consensue is that the actions are illegal.

The interception of the Gaza-bound flotilla is illegal because it occurred in international waters against civilian vessels carrying humanitarian aid, because the underlying blockade of Gaza itself is widely considered unlawful under international law.

A blockade that causes severe deprivation to civilians, through actions such as restricting food, medicine, and essential supplies violates the prohibition on collective punishment in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Since the blockade has this effect, enforcing it through the seizure of peaceful ships breaches international humanitarian and maritime law.

The interception also infringes on freedom of navigation and fails the tests of necessity and proportionality, making the action likely inconsistent with accepted legal standards.

The arguments put forward for it being legal are really just cover/propoganda for punitive actions by Israel to aid in its continued genocide.

[halflife]

If you decide that a law is unlawful you can’t act on it, you need to go to courts, which have been tried and dismissed since laws are not a matter of popular opinion, but a matter of informed and professional opinion.

You can get 2 billion people to say that the blockade is illegal but it doesn’t make it so.

[NomDePlum]

Likewise Israel saying it is legal doesn't make it so.

Given the number of international laws it has broken and that it refuses to abide by, or deliberately avoids, decisions by international courts it's slightly more complicated than going to court

[halflife]

No, the fact that the UN has acknowledged it as legal makes it legal.

[NomDePlum]

In 2010 under specific circumstances, which have clearly changed.

I've outlined the rationale above. So I wouldn't agree with your conclusion.

[halflife]

If the situation has changed, why won’t anyone try to challenge the decision in court?