From Jabir-Abdullah Amir
When emotions run high, reason often takes a backseat. This is what we’re witnessing in the uproar surrounding foreign minister Mohamad Hasan’s advice given to Malaysians detained by Israel after participating in the Global Sumud Flotilla (GSF).
Mohamad reportedly said that a legal team is advising all detainees, including Malaysians, to remain calm, cooperative and follow standard procedures.
He said if asked to sign deportation letters, they should do so peacefully as Israeli forces have not yet used force.
Some critics have accused him of surrendering to Israel or giving up the fight. Such accusations are misguided.
The minister’s statement, made during a press conference at the Sumud Nusantara Command Centre today (Oct 4), was not submission but prudence and strategy, aimed at protecting citizens in a hostile environment.
The mission was humanitarian, not military. When the flotilla was intercepted and participants were detained, the focus shifted from symbolism to survival.
In that moment, the Malaysian government’s responsibility was not to wage a moral war with no leverage, but to bring its people home safely.
Understanding the legal mechanism
Signing the deportation letter is not an admission of moral guilt. It is a legal mechanism used in past flotilla missions. Those detained are typically charged with illegal entry and encroaching on territorial waters.
Signing the deportation document amounts to acknowledging this minor administrative offence in exchange for immediate expulsion.
This is not new. The same process has been used in past missions, including by participants from other countries. It is a legal shortcut, not a confession of wrongdoing.
By signing, the detainees effectively bypass a drawn-out legal process that could keep them trapped for weeks, even months, under Israeli custody.
In the current environment, where access to lawyers is limited and trials can proceed without defence counsel, that is a serious risk. Without the signed document, they would remain under process, a phrase that in Israeli detention terms can mean indefinite limbo.
As Mohamad pointed out, this is the only mechanism that guarantees a fast, safe release. It is, quite literally, the difference between being repatriated within days or left to languish in an Israel defence forces (IDF) jail indefinitely.
Diplomacy under constraint
Malaysia has no diplomatic ties with Israel. Every channel – legal, humanitarian or political – must therefore pass through third parties. This includes the Adalah legal team, which is physically present in Israel to represent detainees, and intermediary governments such as Jordan, Turkey and Egypt.
Behind the scenes, the prime minister and foreign minister have been engaging directly with these partners, as well as with the US deputy secretary of state, to facilitate the release.
The entire machinery of quiet diplomacy is being deployed, consistent with Malaysia’s long-held foreign policy of humanitarian neutrality and non-violence.
In such circumstances, confrontation is not a strategy; it is futile.
Mohamad was absolutely right to caution that sending a military vessel, or even implying one, would be tantamount to a declaration of war. That is not bravado; it is the sober reality of international law and power dynamics.
Malaysia’s strength has always been in diplomacy, not militarism. Its voice carries moral weight precisely because it stands on the principles of non-alignment and peace, not aggression.
Protecting lives, not posturing
Some argue that Malaysia should fight for the detainees’ freedom by refusing to sign anything. But what would that achieve? Prolonged detention? Possible mistreatment? Greater risk to life?
The flotilla’s mission was an act of conscience, to draw attention to the plight of Palestinians, not to create new victims in the process.
By prioritising the immediate safety of the detainees, Malaysia is upholding the humanitarian values the mission itself sought to champion.
Signing the papers is administrative, not betrayal. It ensures Malaysians can return safely and with dignity. Arrangements have been made for their return via Amman or Istanbul once clearance is obtained.
Success is measured not by condemnation of Israel, but by protecting Malaysian lives while advocating for Palestine through legitimate platforms.
A calm, compassionate realism
In moments like these, what members of the public often perceive as softness is actually diplomatic realism. There is no room for heroics when lives are at stake. Malaysia cannot afford emotional brinkmanship in foreign policy.
Mohamad’s approach reflects a sophisticated understanding of both law and diplomacy, using the limited tools available to secure the only outcome that truly matters – freedom for Malaysians unjustly detained and continued advocacy for Gaza through safe, lawful and strategic means.
Clearing the air then means recognising that this is not surrender; it is stewardship. It is the careful, disciplined execution of Malaysia’s humanitarian duty in one of the world’s most fraught political theatres.
In the end, wisdom sometimes sounds quieter than outrage. But in diplomacy, that quietness often saves lives.
Jabir-Abdullah Amir is an advocate and solicitor. He is also a partner at Faris Abrar & Co.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.