Global Sumud Flotilla Federation bills Gaza activists - participants speak of "disgrace"
They sailed towards Gaza, ended up in prison and are now receiving mail from Bern: the 19 Swiss participants in the Global Sumud Flotilla are to pay for consular assistance after their arrest in Israel.
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- The FDFA has sent invoices for consular services to all 19 Swiss members of the Global Sumud Flotilla.
- An average of CHF 510 per person is due, for example for interventions with Israeli authorities and visits to Ketziot prison.
- Activists criticize the demands as they consider their detention to be illegal.
- The Swiss government refers to the Swiss Abroad Act. Anyone who acts negligently must pay.
For weeks, hundreds of activists from all over the world sailed towards the Gaza Strip on boats until the Israeli navy stopped the ships at the beginning of October. Special forces boarded around 40 ships belonging to the Global Sumud Flotilla and arrested over 400 people, including Swedish activist Greta Thunberg.
Footage shows masked Israeli soldiers with assault rifles stepping onto the deck while the activists stand in front of them in life jackets and with their hands raised. Among those arrested were 19 Swiss nationals.
They were taken to the Ketziot desert prison. The Swiss embassy reacted immediately, sent a team to the detainees, intervened with the authorities and accompanied the return journey and deportations. A few days later, they were all back in Switzerland.
Different detention periods, different bills
Now comes the financial follow-up: the FDFA confirmed to the Tages-Anzeiger that all 19 Swiss participants have received invoices. In the letter to the recipients, the FDFA refers to a "settlement in connection with your arrest in Israel and return to Switzerland". Two working hours, 300 francs, 30 days to pay.
The amount varies depending on the duration of the detention; on average, the fees amount to CHF 510. The department explains that the actual costs were higher. However, only a portion is charged.
Those affected find this incomprehensible. On social media, one participant from Geneva described the claim as "a disgrace". He was "illegally detained, mistreated, humiliated and dehumanized".
He was outraged that he now had to pay. Several participants had already made similar accusations shortly after their return.
Many argue that they were not traveling recklessly, but as part of a political and humanitarian action. They accuse Israel of "unlawful detention" and see themselves as victims of state abuse. From their point of view, it seems cynical to receive a bill for their own detention.
FDFA refers to the legal situation
The flotilla's sponsoring organization accuses Israel of violating international law and committing war crimes in the Gaza Strip. The "peaceful, non-violent convoy carrying food, baby food and medicine" was forcibly stopped in international waters and its participants "kidnapped".
The view across the border is causing additional displeasure: Turkey organized a free charter flight from Israel for several participants in the flotilla. Some Swiss would have liked to see a similar commitment from their own government.
The FDFA, however, soberly refers to the legal situation. The Swiss Abroad Act obliges those affected to bear the costs if they have "acted negligently".
According to the FDFA, this applies to the participants in the Global Sumud Flotilla. The department had expressly warned against setting off for the Gaza Strip in boats.
The case is part of a well-known practice
The question of when the Confederation should and should not pay for Swiss nationals abroad is a recurring topic of debate.
In 2023, Swiss mountaineers in Nepal had to pay part of the rescue costs after a risky tour. At the time, the FDFA also justified the request with "personal responsibility" and the principle that state aid should not become risk-free adventure insurance. Anyone who deliberately puts themselves in a dangerous situation must bear some of the consequences.
In the current case, the point of contention is similar, but politically more sensitive. Legally, the case is settled, but morally the debate remains open for many. Many participants regard their arrest as unlawful, but admit that they consciously took the risk. They feel their political commitment has been undermined and publicly discredited by the bills.
