Maltese Government Shows No Interest In Finding Out Who Ordered Gaza Flotilla Drone Strike
The Prime Minister’s office has refused to answer direct questions about what Malta intends to do following last week’s drone strike on a Gaza-bound humanitarian vessel in international waters near its territory — and the signs point to inaction.
The Conscience, part of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, was hit just outside Malta’s territorial zone last week. Experts believe the vessel was struck by a loitering munition — possibly an Israeli-made Orbiter 1K — that disabled its systems and ignited a fire on board. All 16 people aboard escaped unharmed.
Lovin Malta sent questions to the government’s head of communications asking if Malta would request a UN investigation, seek intelligence from allies, or confront Israel diplomatically.
The only response was a message directing us to watch the Prime Minister’s address to Parliament. That address offered no new information other than technicalities about why Robert Abela’s government is still refusing a request by the vessel to enter Maltese waters. He also informed Parliament that he had a meeting with the Opposition leader Bernard Grech about the matter. No reference to the strike itself. No condemnation of the attack or explanation of Malta’s position.
Outside Parliament, Abela then told journalists it was still “too early” to determine whether the vessel had actually been attacked. He said that in such situations, speculation should be avoided, and added that he was not in a position to say whether Israel had any involvement. This comes despite military and security experts, including those quoted in the Times of Malta, describing the incident as a “calculated strike”.
He said Malta could not take responsibility for the vessel due to its deregistered status, lack of insurance, and age. The ship was previously flagged under Palau, but the registration was withdrawn on the same day of the attack.
Abela went on to say that if the vessel’s humanitarian purpose was confirmed, Malta would support its onward journey. His remarks clearly imply that the vessel may be carrying weapons or materials other than humanitarian aid — a big claim, which, while not impossible, would require serious substantiation.
If the Maltese government has received intelligence to this effect, it almost certainly did not originate locally. It would have come from allied governments such as the United States, the United Kingdom, or another European power – all of which have gone out of their way to assist Israel and provide diplomatic cover and material support to Israel.
And if the intelligence is solid enough for Malta to base its posture on, one would expect the Prime Minister to say so outright. Instead, Abela remains vague. He refuses to confirm whether a strike took place or who was behind it, but seems comfortable implying that the ship’s mission may not be what it claims. It is a contradictory stance. If he has access to credible intelligence about the ship’s contents, then he likely also knows — or has been told — who carried out the strike. The selective uncertainty raises more questions than it answers. One would hate to think the Prime Minister is being given only part of the story — and still choosing to own it. If that’s the case, then Malta’s foreign policy is being shaped by vague insinuations from allies rather than clear, accountable information.
In similar cases, countries have summoned ambassadors, filed complaints with the UN Security Council, and publicly condemned similar attacks.
This isn’t just about Palestine — it’s about Malta. A military strike on a civilian vessel, in our maritime neighbourhood, raises serious questions about national security, sovereignty, and our willingness to defend either.
At this stage, that silence can no longer be seen as cautious neutrality, it is deliberate avoidance. The question is, why?
READ NEXT: Trump's Tariff Tsunami: Why Malta And Europe Should Be Paying Attention
