Maritime Court Case (Haifa) 73124-07-25 Madleen v. YMA 26554-06-25

Decision

(Request No.  12 in file 73124-07-25 and 26554-06-25

Application No.  1 in file 22749-11-25)

1. In the three claims filed by the State in the proceedings before me, the State petitions to order the confiscation of the vessels under the Maritime Clients Act of 1864 (Naval prize Act 1864). The lawsuits were filed following attempts by the vessel to violate the naval blockade imposed on the waters of the Gaza Strip, both in the framework of separate flotillas and in the large flotilla known as the "Sumud flotilla," which included about 50 different vessels.
2. In the motions before me, the petitioners, victims of terrorism and relatives of terror victims, are asked to be allowed to join the proceedings as a party. The motion argues that in order to secure damages awarded in favor of the applicants against the "Hamas" organization, foreclosures were imposed on the vessels, and therefore the applicants should be allowed to join the proceeding and protect their interest in the realization of the vessel.
3. The plaintiff, the State of Israel, and the owners of most of the vessels, oppose the requests. At the center of the dispute arises the question of whether the applicants have any interest in the seized vessels that entitle them to join as a party to the legal proceeding.  It is also necessary to clarify what is the proper procedural procedure for interested parties in the vessel to join a confiscation claim.

Background

4. On January 3, 2009, the State of Israel announced the imposition of a naval blockade on the Gaza Strip and prohibited the entry of vessels into the Gaza Strip's maritime space (for an overview of the validity of the naval blockade, see my judgment in the Heftza 7961-07-15 State of Israel v.' The Ship Marianne (20/11/2016) (Appeal filed against the judgment was rejected on the recommendation of the Supreme Court). Since the closure was declared, various vessels have attempted to break through the closure and reach the Gaza Strip's shores.  In all these cases, the navy forces took action, stopping the vessels before they entered the closed zone, and then seizing them and bringing them to a port in Israel.  All vessels seized until 2013 were eventually returned to their owners.  In 2013, for the first time, the state filed a lawsuit to confiscate a vessel that tried to break the naval blockade.  It's a ship Estelle which was apprehended on October 20, 2012 and the claim for its confiscation was discussed in file 26861-08-13 State of Israel v.' The Ship Estelle (31/8/2014) (hereinafter: Estelle Matter)).  The confiscation claim was filed according to the law The Marine Client of 1864 (Naval Prize Act) and the Client Regulations of 1939 (Prize Court Rules 1939).  The lawsuit in the Estelle case was dismissed due to the long delay in filing it (see also the judgment in the appeal Civil Appeal 7307/14 State of Israel v.  The Ship Estelle(7/8/2016)).
5. In the following years, further attempts were made to violate the The closure, and again and again, the vessels were seized by the navy and brought to a port in Israel. In all those cases, lawsuits were filed by the state to confiscate the vessels (see a review of my judgment in case 26933-08-18 State of Israel v.' The Ship Freedom (30/9/2021)).  All vessels that tried to violate the blockade after the judgment in the Estelle case were confiscated.
6. On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists in Gaza breached the border fence and began a brutal terror attack against the country's citizens and residents. Some 1,200 people were murdered, thousands more were injured, and 251 men, women and children were abducted into the Gaza Strip.  A few hours later, a war broke out between the State of Israel and the terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip, led by Hamas.  This war, which was dubbed the "Iron Sword War", continued with great intensity for about two years, until the ceasefire.
7. Since the beginning of the war, and against the backdrop of claims regarding the situation of the residents of the Gaza Strip, organizations have begun around the world to send flotillas of various vessels to try to break the naval blockade. On June 8, 2025, the ship approached Madleen to the closed area and captured by the navy forces.  On June 11, 2025, the state announced its intention to petition for the confiscation of the ship, and on July 23, 2025, a claim for confiscation was filed (file 26554-06-25).  On July 26, 2025, the ship was seized Handala near the closed area, and on July 28, 2025, the state announced its intention to request the confiscation of the ship.  The confiscation claim was filed on August 18, 2025 (file 73124-07-25).
8. About two months later, a large flotilla called the "Sumud Flotilla" approached the closed area and included about 50 vessels. The vessels were seized by the navy forces on the 1-2 days of October 2025.  On November 9, 2025, the state filed a lawsuit for the confiscation of 50 vessels (Heftza Claim 22749-11-25) and on January 1, 2026, it filed a request to add two ships that were dropped from the original lawsuit.
9. I will mention here that after the seizure of the ships Madleen and HandalaInstalled Maritime Court Regulations (Special Procedures in Application for the Seizure of a Ship) (Iron Swords) (Temporary Order), Declaratory Law - General - 2025, These apply only to the claim in case 22747-11-25 (hereinafter: 2025 Regulations). The enactment of the regulations is intended to facilitate and reduce confiscation proceedings.  However, the 2025 regulations do not repeal the 1939 regulations.
10. In the Ship Confiscation Lawsuits Madleen and HandalaStabilize in the oil of the shipowners. The shipowners submitted answers to the confiscation claims, and instructions were given regarding the submission of the parties' evidence.

In the demand for the confiscation of the Sumud flotilla ships, a significant number of the ships appeared on behalf of their owners, but no responses have yet been submitted to the confiscation claim.  Some of the ship's owners have not yet been located, and therefore they have not yet been given the pleadings.