Just for the purpose of discussion, the analogy you provided seems a little off. Gaza isn't a nation like America is. Also, I understand the reasoning and position Israel is in. But there had to be a better way to go about this. They could have waited until it was with in the 12 miles zone considered territorial waters. To attack it outside of the 12 mile territorial water zone. Which brings in fault on their part.
That wasn't the point. She was using the countries as an analogy and I was pointing out the bias.
Why should they have waited? What does international maritime law state? What is the supporting case law? What are the relevant legal histories. I don't have a clue. I just keep seeing people like you throwing out "international waters" like your some legal expert. For example, this passage that I found when snooping around on the subject seems to suggest there may be reasons a country can board on the high seas.
"(5) Universal jurisdiction. According to Henry Kissinger, "the doctrine of universal jurisdiction asserts that some crimes are so heinous that their perpetrators should not escape justice by invoking doctrines of sovereign immunity or the sacrosanct nature of national frontiers." Under the relevant treaties, any State can board a ship on the high seas if the ship is suspected of piracy, transporting slaves, or broadcasting illegally. A ship and its occupants can be arrested for piracy and illegal broadcasting by a warship of any State. For other crimes, the arresting State must get the consent or assistance of the flag state. Also, a ship that flies two flags (flags of convenience) or a ship flying no flag may be visited for further inquiry by any State's ships. Ships without flags, and those that fly flags of convenience are subject to the jurisdiction of any State. While some scholars disagree, national courts have upheld convictions based on such arrests. "Keep in mind, this passage is not on point with what we are discussing, I'm simply illustrating that Israel, depending on what treaties it's engaged in, how the law is interpreted, etc., may very well have been within their rights. Not being a legal expert, I simply don't know. But people acting as though "international waters" means hands-off, are clearly just as clueless.