Yes indeed Sir Vivor,
Certainly in different times the ships would have been sunk by aircraft.
That they took the risk of actually boarding the ships is an indication
of those different times.
What the people who ran those ships have done is to up the anti.
The next time there is strong risk that they will not place their
servicemen at risk and will sink the ships.
They might allow those on board to enter the lifeboats but I suspect
that they will be too stubborn and challenge the Israelis to sink
the ships.

They will then complain that the Israelis committed a war crime.
Anyone want to put bets on it ?

A few more (secondhand) details of the Hamas refusal to allow aid across the border into Gaza. The aid may be seen as a bargaining chip to assure cotinuing publicity until all on the manifests of the interdicted ships are accounted for.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/world/middleeast/04flotilla.html?th&emc=th

" ... the Hamas authorities were not allowing supplies from the ships to enter Gaza on Thursday, said Maj. Guy Inbar, a spokesman for the Israeli authority responsible for the crossings. About 30 truckloads had been unloaded from the ships, he said.

Ahmed al-Kurd, the minister of social affairs in the Hamas government, said that first, “Israel has to release all hostages,” referring to the flotilla activists.

In addition, Mr. Kurd said that it was up to Turkey to decide on “the mechanism to distribute or to handle the aid,” whether through international or Turkish organizations, and that the aid must arrive complete."

More proof of Jewish perfidy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg&feature=player_embedded

Neve Gordon's piece is generally clear and worthy of thought. Some additional comments are:

1. He speaks of Israel giving up its soverignty over the Gaza. Strictly speaking he is wrong. It is an Occupied Territory as a result of the Six Day War. Unlike Jerusalem, israel enver incorporated this territory into Israel. In addition, the international community never accepted it as Israeli territory. Note the terms of Resolution 242.

2. Gordon speaks of a country relinquishing sovereignty and that is unique. The Australian excision of its offshore islands as aprt of its response to refugees is similiar!

3. In addition to Gordon's comments about Lieberman's defense of a moral Israeli army, I would add there must be a consideration of "disproportionate force". The more we know about what occurred, the less it appears that the army acted in an appropriate way.

4. Lieberman also argues it was legal according to the San Remo Convention. That presumes that Israel is either the sovereign government over Israel and is at war with, perhaps, Turkey, or it is not the governing country of Gaza and is at war with a state called Palestine. It appears that its argument is tying itself into knots.

5. Finally, when considering the "lesser evil", is delivering humanitarian aid through a blockade a greater or lesser eveil that the use of deadly force?

Your point 5.
Delivering humanitarian aid is not the point, it is what could be in
the cargo that the Israelis would not want delivered to Hamas.
Previous shipments that were seized included armaments and rockets.
They are probably concerned particularly about more sophisticated
rockets than the ones being made in Gaza.

If you were them would you allow cargos from Islamic countries, or
indeed any country to enter uninspected ?
Please answer that question.

The Barbary Pirates never looked like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg&feature=player_embedded