The interception, occurring in international waters, led to the detention of 443 humanitarian activists from 32 nations, NGO workers, journalists and former public officials. They were attempting to deliver food and medical aid to Gaza, a territory under an 18-year blockade.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the naval operation as “the most professional and efficient mission” to prevent “unauthorized vessels.” Yet, for much of the international community, it exposed a grave violation of international maritime law and humanitarian principles. Amnesty International condemned it as an act of “systematic intimidation designed to silence humanitarian voices.”

Beyond its immediate tragedy, the incident raises fundamental questions about the legitimacy of Israel’s maritime blockade, the integrity of international law and global moral consistency. For Indonesia, a staunch supporter of Palestinian self-determination and a champion of international law, the episode presents a defining test of its newly articulated Good Neighborhood Policy and its long-standing bebas-aktif (independent and active) foreign policy doctrine.

At the crisis's core is deep ambiguity in interpreting international maritime law. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which Indonesia is a party, protects the freedom of navigation on the high seas (Article 87).

The interception of a civilian humanitarian flotilla in international waters, therefore, violates UNCLOS on a prima facie basis. As Israel is not a party to the convention, its invocation of maritime enforcement powers is legally tenuous.

The Gaza blockade, imposed since 2007, rests on fragile legal ground. Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention obliges parties to allow the free passage of humanitarian relief. Israel’s prolonged blockade, which has caused chronic food insecurity for up to 90 percent of Gaza’s population (according to the World Food Program), directly contradicts the spirit of humanitarian law.