These metal objects fired at the helicopter I can't see how you know what they are throwing at the helicopter, because the news papers couldn't tell what they were firing at the helicopter. I for one couldn't tell what the hell they were throwing up at the helicopter, and yes International water do mater in this, and I am not sure on the kidnapping part yet, so I am undecided on that part.
They were firing at the helicopter with slingshots, three men (at least). They fired then took cover several times. There is absolutely no doubt what they were doing or what they were aiming at. It is absolutely clear as day, in the video of the OP, at ~3:35. No one can deny this.
Again, a blockade trumps international waters regarding juristiction according to maritime law. Being in international waters means absolutely nothing if someone is trying to run a blockade. I cannot believe anyone would continue this "international waters" crap, as anyone with half a critical-mind figured this out a week ago. The law is very clear, try reading it.
The boat was not safe then. They had people of their own dying downstairs. Obviously given that their was gun shot going on upstairs it was safer for the soldier to take him down.
Your telling me that an incapicated soldier was not safe upstairs? Then who was doing the attacking? The gunfire upstairs was probably soldiers trying to get to their wounded and presumably endangered comrade.
Look, if someone in your house gets hurt... do you drag them down to the cellar and apply pressure? No, you call an ambulance. Well, the soldier's ambulance (in the form of a medical bird or boat) was waiting for them right outside, and that med-vehicle could transport them to a real hospital in quicktime.
Are you telling me that they had to bring the soldiers downstairs because "activists" on the deck were trying to kill incapacitated people? What does that say about the "activists"? Could they need to defend themselves from incapacitated people, by killing them? Ultimately, the question is: why would an incapicitated soldier's life be in danger during extraction from the deck, if people were merely defending themselves.
Anyway, even if the activists
were trying to shelter the soldiers from further violence at the hands of other "activists", it created the impression of kidnapping and the IDF could not be sure why the men were being kidnapped. It escalated the conflict, needlessly if we are to believe that "activists" merely defended themselves.
If people incapacitated my fellow soldier and tried to kidnap him, I would fight to retrieve him and get him to the med-vehicle asap. I wouldn't be like "ok, you can have him".
All the "activists" needed to do was secure the soldier on the deck and allow extraction. Taking the soldiers was an escalation, and I think a pretty obvious one. Presuming this escalation was necessary only makes the "activists" look worse.