The Israeli interception of a flotilla of civilian ships bound for Gaza in May of 2010 fueled ongoing questions about the content, efficacy, and adequacy of the law of armed conflict (LOAC). Debate focused quickly concerning fundamental substantive legal issues such as proportionality, humanitarian assistance, treatment during detention, and even the overall legal character of the hostile relationship between Israel and Hamas. Public reactions revealed, at once, misconceptions of and dissatisfaction with the legal regime applicable to the operation. Given the highly political context of Gaza itself and the longstanding Israeli naval blockade, it is unsurprising that the substantive legal gap between the Israeli Defense Forces and their critics remains wide. Publication of the legal analysis and conclusions of a commission of three Israeli jurists aided by international legal observers and consultants appears to have done little to quell dissent.