1. Lawsuits on behalf of victims of Palestinian terrorism designed to seize "any property, including boats, utilized by any party to attempt to run the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza." The plaintiff of the first suit, Dr. Alan Bauer of Chicago, was severely injured along with his son in a terrorist attack by a Palestinian suicide bomber in Jerusalem in 2002. "The Free Gaza Movement and other American-based anti-Israel organizations have raised funds in the United States to outfit the Gaza flotilla ships. The lawsuit contends that furnishing and outfitting the ships, which are being used for hostilities against a US ally, violates American law. The plaintiff rests his claim upon the rarely used 18th-century "informant" statute (18 USC Section 962) that allows a plaintiff (called an "informer") to privately seize ships outfitted in the United States for use against a US ally" (Jerusalem Post).
2. Letters to thirty maritime insurance companies "placing [them] on notice concerning the Gaza Flotilla, and warning them that if they provide insurance…that they themselves will be legally liable for any future terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas" (Darshan-Lerner in the Jerusalem Post).
These tactics are bearing fruit. Darshan-Leitner told Poulos that Lloyds has responded to Shurat HaDin's letter by saying it will not insure any boats participating in the flotilla. A French insurance company didn't respond to the group directly, but announced that it will not insure a boat destined for the flotilla that is coming out of Marseille. Inmarsat has said that as the boats are not owned by Hamas, they are under no obligation to withhold satellite communications services; but Darshan-Leitner counters that the US Attorney General recently indicted a group that provided legal advice to the Tamil Tigers, which is a terrorist organization. If Inmarsat goes ahead, it opens itself up to the possibility of huge liability.