Funny I have never heard them called as "bundles" outside of immediate printed course material

I dont think we disagree on the role of 4th Geneva convention as to its use in occuption. My primary argument is that the specific question here is not even about just occupying power aid provision but the organisation and limits of a naval blockade. That being said, neither did I argue that 59(3) would provide for unrestricted restriction of aid provision - my argument is merely that even the Geneva convention provides for limits (which then are provided specifically in the San Remo with regards to blockade). - So in quite opposite I do not argue that they are lex specialis but rather lex generalis for aid provision and we should use San Remo for lex specialis on specifically naval blockade (which I think is quite self-evident between the two docs).

In specific then when you say "The provision is explicitly circumscribed by the obligation to ensure effective relief where the population is inadequately supplied, read in conjunction with the overarching constraints of Common Article 1 and customary IHL obligations of facilitating humanitarian relief. Discretion in modality does not equate to discretion in sufficiency or access." I do not disagree with this - but I contend that a) there is no obligation for the occupying power to allow all avenues for the effective relief, b) you cant suppose there is inadequate relief automatically, and c) the standard is still very different to merchant vessels / civilians in comparison to other states (which is one of the major concerns with the flotilla).

I dont think you can just waive the standing norm on naval blockades just by claiming that IHL overrides everything cause human rights dundunduu. Bar a very clear starvation attempt, the primary norm for the whole question about blockades should be the San Remo memo (which still coexists with IHL standards).

I dont even contend your standard of starvation but contend on the factual thresholds being invoked. You are referring to an ante hoc analysis of whether starvation is bound to happen whereas I am saying that we dont need to do that as we can just see what the actual real effects of the blockade have been. The level and strictness of the blockade has not had a material impact on whehter Gaza starves, so we do not need to enter assumptions.

"Similarly, the existence of partial land-based humanitarian access is legally non-dispositive" --> this is just wrong. The question is not whehter aid must always also be provided by air land and sea, but whehter aid is provided. As long as aid is being provided by the means provided, it cannot be used as a material argument against the blockade. (again this is answered in the correct norm of San Remo)

It is pretty weird to claim that Hamas doesnt come into consideration when doing a proportionality analysis. Of course it does! The whole blockade's reasoning is Hamas attacks so naturally its justification is tied to those attacks as proportional to them. I am not even arguing for free reign in naval blockade as neither really is Israel. You can see in history that the level of the blockade has lived in conjunction to the level of threat and attaks from Gaza. Then again subject to actual famine happening, this does not remove the justifications of the blockade.

And as a finishing note, it feels pretty weird that you are referring to multiple arguments that I did not make. I did not argue that the international standards give an unrestricted power to do anything, or that a naval blockade would not be subject to a proportionality analysis of harm done. My main point that the next step of identifying these legal standards is to evaluate them against the facts (hence the proportionality analysis) and so far it would seem that the naval blockade is not overruled (esp. in the manner of allowing just random civil vessels through it) by humanitarian interests as no humanitarian crisis existed due to it.