Applications
- The applicants, Shimon Ilan, Shira Garcia Necham, the estate of the late Reuven Munk, the estate of the late Barak Lupin, are victims of terrorist acts and relatives of victims of terrorism who filed claims for compensation against the Hamas organization in the courts. According to what is claimed in the application, the applicants were awarded damages in the total amount of approximately ILS 170 million. In order to realize their right to compensation, and in order to collect the outstanding debt from the Hamas organization, the applicants opened writ of execution files at the Writ of Execution Office in Jerusalem. As part of these proceedings, orders were issued for the seizure of property belonging to the Hamas organization at the request of the applicants. Among other things, orders were issued for the seizure of Hamas vessels held by the State of Israel/the Ministry of Defense, including a seizure order directed against one of the ships that are the subject of the present application, the ship Handala (The foreclosure orders were attached to the applications submitted by the applicants).
- Shortly after the foreclosure orders were issued, the Applicants filed the motions to join the confiscation claims in the previous cases (Applications Nos. 11 and 12 in File 26554-06-25 and File 73124-07-25 and Request No. 1 in File 22749-11-25).
In their applications to join, the applicants argued that in light of the foreclosure orders that were issued, they have an economic right to the vessel, which could be harmed if the confiscation request is granted without their rights being guaranteed. The requests claim that it is known that the flotillas, in which the vessels arrived, are funded by the Hamas organization "[...] In a variety of crooked ways". Therefore, they petition to implement the seizure orders and to allow them to be repaid from the seized vessels.
- In my initial decisions in all the cases, I emphasized that according to what is stated in the confiscation claims, Hamas does not own rights in the various vessels, and therefore the applicants were given the opportunity to complete the argument and attach documents. On December 16, 2025, the applicants filed a supplementary argument and attached additional documents. Therefore, I will refer further to the Applicants' arguments as detailed in both the original application and in the supplementary argument.
0
- In their motion and in the supplementary argument, the applicants claim that Hamas has taken various measures to conceal its involvement in the flotillas; Among other things, in the establishment of shell companies such as the Cyber Neptune established by a senior activist in the organization PCPA (Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad), which is An organization established by Hamas. According to them, the private owners of the ships are also Madleen and Handala They act out of solidarity with Hamas. It was claimed that various documents seized and studies conducted by the State of Israel indicate that Hamas planned and operated the flotillas, was involved in their organization, and that the flotillas was intended to assist and strengthen the Hamas organization. Therefore, the motion argues that the right of the applicants to seize the seized vessels should be recognized in order to enable them to repay them in order to collect the outstanding debt against the Hamas organization.
- The requests to join were forwarded to the response of the state and the shipowners. The state opposes the applications to join. In the state's response, it was explicitly stated that "The State is honored to announce that it Inna Owns vessels that have information that they are registered as owned by the "Hamas movement" or the Hamas terrorist organization [...]" (emphasis in original) - see S., section 4 of the responsa). Therefore, the State is of the opinion that the seizure orders do not apply to any vessel among those caught in the flotillas, and therefore the law of the application to join should be rejected.
- The state confirms that there are a number of vessels registered in the name of a foreign company, which is allegedly "Straw Company" under the management of a central activist in thePCPA which was established by Hamas. However, it is claimed, there is no This is enough to indicate that Hamas has a proprietary right in the vessel. The state is also of the opinion that Hamas was involved in the removal of the flotillas, but this is not enough to point to the organization's proprietary right in the vessels.
- The state emphasizes that the confiscation claim is an "object claim", i.e., it is directed against the vessel itself, and therefore the identity of the owner is not relevant to the proceeding. According to her, the result of the confiscation is the transfer of the property rights in the vessels to the state, free of any right of ownership, lien or foreclosure.
- The owners of the vessels that showed up are also opposed to the requests to join. They claimed that they were not at all a party to the proceedings in which the foreclosure orders were imposed and were not given an opportunity to respond to the foreclosure requests. They also claimed that there was no factual basis for the request and that there was no evidence that Hamas owned the vessel. It was argued that there is no anchor in the law for creditors seeking to enforce a judgment to join the confiscation proceeding. The respondents also claim that the vessels sailed under the flags of various countries, registered in the names of legitimate companies, and that the purpose of the flotillas was to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of the Gaza Strip.
Discussion and Decision
- As will be detailed below, I have come to the conclusion that the applications to join should be rejected. I have found that there is no reason to add to the confiscation proceeding under the law that ordinary creditors of the shipowners are taken. In addition, the application and the answers indicate that there is no evidentiary basis, even prima facie, that the proprietary rights in any of the vessels belong to the Hamas organization.
The Legal Framework - General Comments
- The requests for the confiscation of the vessel were submitted by the State of Israel, in accordance with the Maritime Client Law of 1864. As I have already noted in previous resolutions, procedures for the confiscation of vessels are anchored in customary and contractual international law, and they are part of the laws of war at sea (see decision in file 26861-08-13, supra, paragraph 33; Civil Appeal 7307/14 above, paragraph 17 of Justice Naor's judgment). Procedures from ships as part of an armed struggle have been recognized since the dawn of history and have been regulated many years ago. Many countries have adopted legal provisions that establish specific mechanisms for the seizure and confiscation of ships. Similarly, the Maritime Client Law of 1864 was enacted by the English legislature, which also applies in Israel in accordance with the chain of laws as clarified in the Estelle case.
- The Maritime Client Law establishes the legal arrangements for the seizure and confiscation of vessels during war. As clarified Other Municipality Requests 7307/14 The above, paragraph 18 of the judgment of Justice Naor, the process is made up of several stages:
In the framework of the laws of the maritime client, a four-stage procedure was established for execution by the maritime client (ibid., at p. 238). The first stage is the physical seizure of a ship at sea. This seizure is considered to be captured in prize, and from the moment of seizure, the ship is subject to the authority of the court to the customer (ibid., at p. 247). The case law emphasized that any other type of seizure is illegal (ibid.). The other three stages are collectively referred to as an adjudication process, i.e., a judicial determination or judicial approval by the client. In this framework, the occupying State is required: (1) to bring the ship to one of its ports and deliver it to the relevant parties therein; and (2) to deliver the ship's documents together with the affidavit of the party who seized the ship to the competent court, which is, as aforesaid, the customer's court. In the absence of documents, an affidavit substantiating this must be attached. The court then required the customer to hear the state's claim to take the ship as a customer. If the court decides to accept the claim, a customer-to-customer order (WRIT) is issued (ibid., at p. 238).