Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
Dr. Rula Al-Hroub
The Associated Press, citing an unnamed regional official, reported that Saudi Arabia is cooperating with several countries — including Israel — to determine the motive behind the stabbing of a pilot by a co-pilot aboard a Flydubai flight that has become the talk of the hour.
A second anonymous regional official told the same agency that Israeli intelligence and security officials are present in Saudi Arabia to assist in the investigation, and that Israel has requested the extradition of the suspect.
The Associated Press did not disclose the name of its source — whom I strongly suspect is Israeli — and offered no Saudi confirmation, nor the names of any investigators.
As for Netanyahu, he first said Israel would monitor the investigation and “perhaps” participate in it. Then, according to the Associated Press, he claimed that the President of the UAE had agreed to Israeli participation in interrogating the suspect.
Reuters then published, citing an unnamed Israeli official, that Israel is not receiving all the information it requests from the Saudis.
On the other side, there is an official Emirati statement thanking the Saudi authorities for their cooperation and announcing the formation of an Emirati investigative team — but it made no mention of Israeli investigators. Nor has any Saudi confirmation appeared regarding the participation of Israeli investigators or their interrogation of the co-pilot.
There is also a statement attributed to the Saudi National Center for Transport Safety announcing the launch of an aviation safety investigation, coordination with relevant authorities, and the collection of evidence — without naming any Israeli investigators.
As for the news of their presence in Saudi Arabia, it still rests on an unnamed regional official quoted by the Associated Press, a report that was then recycled across other outlets.
On top of all this, Netanyahu and his team continue to exploit the incident politically and to frame it ideologically in a manner that suits their interests. In a new interview on Fox & Friends, Netanyahu moved from describing the incident as “serious” and withholding judgment on the motive to declaring: “We know he underwent radical Islamic indoctrination.” He claimed that the suspect’s background showed extremist tendencies, though he added that he had not yet reached a final conclusion and that it was too early to determine whether there was any connection to Iran or anyone else.
In the statements Reuters quoted from him, he provided no evidence that would allow verification of his claim about indoctrination, nor did he identify the source of this information.
This means the motive remains investigative[ly] unresolved. Yet Netanyahu and his team are determined, nonetheless, to instrumentalise the incident in service of their narrative.
The question: if these reports are accurate, in what capacity would Israeli investigators participate in the investigation?
The two states principally concerned with investigating this criminal incident are the UAE and Saudi Arabia. The first, because the crime occurred aboard flight FZ1073, which it officially declared carries its flag and is registered there, and because it announced that the public prosecution has already commenced a criminal investigation. It is well established that aircraft, under international law, are considered part of the territory of the state in which they are registered and whose flag they bear. The second, because the aircraft landed on its territory after the crime occurred, making its authorities concerned with investigating the suspect held in custody there, and because the offence and its repercussions extended into its territory.
The Saudi civil aviation system also obliges Saudi authorities to take measures and conduct an immediate investigation to determine whether the crime falls within the jurisdiction of its courts. If it is established that the act occurred in its airspace, or another basis for jurisdiction is realised under aviation security agreements, it may proceed with prosecution and trial.
Article 160 of the Saudi Civil Aviation Law provides, when the accused is handed over or present in the Kingdom, for the taking of legal measures — including detention for the necessary period, and an immediate investigation to determine whether the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the Saudi judiciary, followed by trial if jurisdiction is established. The text also permits extradition or deportation procedures in cases where the crime does not fall within Saudi jurisdiction, in accordance with its controls. Article 154 criminalises, among other acts, violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight if it is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft.
If the assault occurred over Saudi territory or airspace, the basis of territorial jurisdiction is added. If it occurred outside, agreements on combating crimes against the safety of aviation may provide another basis.
Therefore, the registration of the aircraft in the Emirates does not automatically transfer the suspect there. The matter is more complex than that. It should be noted that Article 57 of Federal Civil Aviation Law No. 20 of 1991 covers crimes aboard aircraft registered in the UAE, and also covers other cases, including the landing of the aircraft in the state with the perpetrator on board or present there without being handed over. Article 55 covers violence likely to endanger the aircraft and its seizure, under their respective conditions.
Israel may of course claim personal jurisdiction under its own law if a crime affecting Israelis is established, or if a relevant international convention applies. But the nationality of some passengers or the destination of the flight does not grant it the right to investigate inside Saudi Arabia, to interrogate the detainee, or to have him handed over of its own accord.
Jordan does not acquire jurisdiction merely because the aircraft passed through its airspace. The conditions of the penal code must be met, foremost among them determining the location and time of the criminal act and whether Jordan has territorial jurisdiction or not.
As for international agreements on criminal aviation security, let us consider the most important of them as follows:
• The Tokyo Convention of 1963 grants the state of registration of the aircraft jurisdiction over crimes and acts committed on board, and regulates the powers of its commander and the state of landing in receiving the person and taking preliminary measures. It does not make the aircraft “exclusive territory” of the state of registration, nor does it abolish the jurisdiction of another state under law and agreements. All four states in this incident are parties to it.
• The Montreal Convention of 1971 on aviation security addresses, among other matters, violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight if it is likely to endanger its safety. It establishes bases of jurisdiction including registration and the landing of the aircraft with the alleged offender on board, and obliges the state where the suspect is present to take measures and conduct a preliminary investigation, then to follow the path of prosecution or extradition in accordance with the conditions of the Convention. All four states are parties to it.
• As for The Hague Convention of 1970 on unlawful seizure, it requires establishing the elements of seizure or control; a scuffle inside the cockpit is not enough for it to apply automatically.
• As for the Beijing Convention of 2010, it has been in force for the UAE since 1 July 2025, and for Saudi Arabia since 1 June 2026, but it is not in force for Israel and Jordan according to the published lists of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). It expands the framework of aviation security crimes and the bases of jurisdiction among its parties.
• Likewise, the Montreal Protocol of 2014 amending the Tokyo Convention is in force for both the UAE and Jordan, while Saudi Arabia and Israel do not appear among its parties. Therefore, it is incorrect to assume the application of its expanded provisions among all four states.
As for extradition and cooperation agreements, they are as follows:
• There is the Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation of 1983, which includes Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Jordan, and covers judicial cooperation and the extradition of wanted persons among them according to conditions and procedures, including the formal request and grounds for refusal. Israel, of course, is not a party to it. There is an important detail: if a person is handed over from Saudi Arabia to the UAE under this agreement, Article 53 restricts his re-extradition to a third state without the consent of the state that surrendered him, subject to the stated exception.
• When Saudi Arabia acceded to the Beijing Convention of 2010, it registered a declaration that it did not consider its accession, within the framework of that Convention, as an obligation to cooperate with states with which it does not maintain diplomatic relations.
The result: Saudi Arabia and the UAE can each investigate on a different basis. Israel can request information, cooperation, or extradition if it establishes a legal basis, but the acceptance of the request, and the limits of access to evidence or meeting the suspect, are decisions that pass through the competent Saudi authorities so long as the person and the evidence are in their possession. Jordan enters the picture if the facts establish one of the bases that could grant it jurisdiction.
And finally…
I still do not understand why officials in Saudi Arabia and the UAE remain silent, when they are the two states concerned, while the Israelis continue to issue statement after statement from the first moment of the incident, drawing the cognitive and mental framework for followers around the world.
Dr. Rula Al-Hroub is a Jordanian writer and President of the Labour Party.
