Shipping 2026

ISRAEL Trends and Developments Contributed by: Yoav Harris and Domiana Abboud, Harris & Co Maritime Law Office

seafarers who sadly lost their lives while serving on the vessels. In both cases, the owners denied liability and at the same time did not pay any compensation to the heirs, which led to the arrest of the vessels on their call at an Israeli port. In both cases, the amounts awarded by the Court exceeded the amounts stated in the collective agree - ments as compensation for the seafarers’ deaths. Although judgments were awarded without reason - ing, with the parties’ consent, the amounts awarded seem to imply the Israeli law proposition that owners’ limitation of tortious and other liabilities in relation to casualties of seafarers will be void, as such limitation is not within the public policy. Grounding and marine casualty investigations Under Folio No 67484-03-19 HDI and Others v State of Israeli/Ministry of Transportation and the Owners of MV Diana , the Haifa District Court held that the Admin - istration of Shipping and Ports (within the Ministry of Transportation) will disclose to foreign cargo interests the rescue co-ordination centre (RCC) communica - tions that took place between the distressed MV Diana and the RCC at Haifa prior to its grounding on 19 January 2018, 250 metres from the Haifa Bay shore. These communications were collected by the Admin - istration while investigating the incident, in accord - ance with their authority under the Port Regulations (Navigation safety) of 1982, and the Court held that the parties with cargo interests on board the MV Diana , whose cargo was damaged due to the ves - sel’s grounding, were entitled to receive the commu - nications based on the Israeli Freedom of Information Act, 1998 and the Arbitration Act, 1968, and in view of the London arbitration being conducted between the cargo interests and the owners. Enforcing a foreign order In MV Tiber River , an arrest order was obtained under a claim for executing a judicial bailment order issued a few days before by the Piraeus Court. The latter order transferred legal and physical possession of the vessel to the claimant nominated as the judicial bailee, in order to keep the vessel as a security for its claim regarding management services and payments made for the vessel. The issuance of the arrest order

indicates that, in certain circumstances, the Haifa Maritime Court is willing to enforce a foreign order regarding the detention of a vessel even if the foreign order has just been issued (and is still appealable). The authority to act as a prize court On 9 November 2025, the state of Israel applied to the Haifa Maritime Court to confiscate the 50 vessels comprising the Sumud Flotilla, captured by the Israeli navy while attempting to break the naval blockade imposed offshore of the Gaza Strip. In the application, it was stated that 16 of the vessels were registered to a company named “Cyber Neptune”, owned by a member of the Palestinian Conference for Palestin - ians Abroad (PCPA, which the application claims was affiliated with Hamas). It was further claimed that the total amount of humanitarian aid in those vessels was not more than five tons – less than one-third of what is carried in one aid truck, hundreds of which entered the Gaza strip every day at that time (currently more). The validity of the naval blockade declared and imposed in January 2009 was recognised by the UN Panel of Inquiry, headed by Sir Geoff Palmer, which investigated the “31 May 2020 Flotilla Incident” (involv - ing the Marmara flotilla), finding that a “blockade in those circumstances is a legitimate exercise of self- defence”. The “circumstances” included more than 5,000 rockets, missiles and bombs being fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel between 2005 and Janu - ary 2009, causing more than 25 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The Sumud Flotilla took place against the backdrop of the current war between Hamas and Israel, which began with Hamas attacks on 7 Octo - ber 2023. The attempt of the vessel Estelle to break the block - ade in October 2012 resulted in its detention and an application for confiscation filed before the Haifa Mari - time Court, which is authorised under the Naval Prize Act 1864 and its amendments to order the confisca - tion of vessels attempting to break a naval blockade. Although the vessel was released, in subsequent inci - dents the Haifa Maritime Court ordered confiscation of the vessels, which were then sold – and with the pro - ceeds transferred to the state of Israel ( MV Marianne (2016), MV Zaytouna Olivia (2019), and MV FREEDOM and MV KAARSTIEN (2021)).

301 CHAMBERS.COM