"The United States understands that after Israel withdraws from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, and pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue." - Letter of G.W. Bush to A. Sharon (April 14, 2004) haaretz.com/news/ariel-sharon-and-george-w-bush-s-letters-in-full-1.277418 This quote shows that Israel continued to occupy Gaza territorial waters (and did not allow any foreign ship to reach Gaza) even before Hamas took over Gaza in 2007. So this is a matter of continued occupation, not "armed conflict". Why invoke "armed conflict" instead of a straight occupation to justify the naval blockade? Because occupation alone would not allow stopping ships in international waters, which the IDF claimed (before the Turkish flotilla incident) might give too little time to effect seizure of the ships. Sorry, but this is not a good enough reason to violate international conventions.
Beirut protesters must leave environment ministry, interior minister says (Reuters)
from the article: Netanyahu: Security blockade on Gaza will only get stronger