"By failing to inform readers that the Madleen was intercepted in international waters — and that such an act violates multiple instruments of international law — your reporting presents Israel’s abhorrent actions as permissible, rather than as grave breaches of international humanitarian law that is supposedly designed to protect civilian vessels and humanitarian missions."
June 10, 2025
To the CBC News team,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) regarding a troubling pattern our media team observed in your coverage of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla’s Madleen, which was intercepted by Israeli drones in international waters — approximately 100 nautical miles (185 km) from Gaza.
At around 10:30am on June 9, CJPME observed 39 mentions across CBC radio stations of the Freedom Flotilla during the previous 36 hours. There may have been more mentions that we did not pick up. What was striking is that the phrase “international law” was not mentioned in any of that coverage. In statements following the Israeli seizure of the ship, the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, Amnesty International, and other leading human rights organizations framed their concerns overwhelmingly through the lens of international law. CBC’s coverage omits that essential aspect of the story. This is an alarming failure that merits clarification in follow-up reporting.
To provide legal context, the right to freedom of navigation at sea depends on a vessel’s distance from the coast, as established under international maritime law. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), maritime space is divided into zones that grant varying degrees of jurisdiction to coastal states, including territorial seas, contiguous zones, exclusive economic zones (EEZ), and the high seas.
High Seas (International Waters): Waters beyond 12 nautical miles from any coastline are considered international waters. All vessels enjoy full freedom of navigation here, and no state may exercise sovereignty over them.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): Extending up to 200 nautical miles from the shore, this zone grants a coastal state special rights over the exploration and use of marine resources. However, it does not limit the navigation rights of other states, which remain intact
Contiguous Zone: This zone extends up to 24 nautical miles from the coast. While the coastal state may exercise limited control to prevent or punish infringements of customs, immigration, fiscal, or sanitary laws, the right to free navigation is still upheld.
Territorial Waters: Extending up to 12 nautical miles from a state’s coastline, these waters are considered sovereign territory. Foreign vessels must generally comply with the laws and jurisdiction of the coastal state while passing through.
Given that the Madleen was intercepted approximately 100 nautical miles from Gaza, it was operating well within international waters — beyond both Israel’s territorial sea and its contiguous zone — where it had every legal right to navigate freely. As such, Israel had no legal jurisdiction to interfere with the vessel, let alone to intercept it. The Madleen was a civilian ship transporting humanitarian aid — not a military threat — and its interception constitutes a direct violation of international law.
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Articles 87, 89, 92, 97, and 110 guarantee the right to freedom of navigation on the high seas and explicitly prohibit the interdiction of peaceful vessels, except in narrow cases such as piracy — none of which apply in this case. Israel’s actions therefore represent a clear breach of the internationally recognized legal order governing maritime conduct.
Articles 23, 55, and 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention impose a legal obligation on occupying powers to allow the free passage of humanitarian aid and to refrain from interfering with relief operations or targeting civilian infrastructure. The Madleen was fulfilling such a humanitarian function, and its interception in international waters falls squarely within the scope of prohibited conduct under this Convention.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, under Article 8(2)(b)(xxv), criminalizes the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, including the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid. The Israeli occupation forces’ interception of the Madleen and confiscation of its cargo — including baby formula, medical equipment, and water filters — constitutes a clear violation of this statute and amounts to a war crime.
None of this critical legal context appears in your coverage, not even a passing reference.
By failing to inform readers that the Madleen was intercepted in international waters — and that such an act violates multiple instruments of international law — your reporting presents Israel’s abhorrent actions as permissible, rather than as grave breaches of international humanitarian law that is supposedly designed to protect civilian vessels and humanitarian missions.
While I cannot be on that ship, I offer my words instead — because words matter, and journalism, by extension, has the power to shape public opinion. I, therefore, ask to see correction or follow-up that reflects this legal context.
Media Accountability Team
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East