To counter and object to administrative detention, some Palestinian prisoners go on hunger strikes demanding their release or to achieve certain goals such as improving living conditions, allowing family visits or ending solitary confinement. Palestinians often refer to hunger strikes as the ‘battle of empty stomachs’.
One of the many colonial methods practised by the Israeli occupation on Palestinian political prisoners is administrative detention. This procedure allows the Israeli military to hold Palestinian prisoners indefinitely on secret information without charging them or allowing them to stand trial.
Since 1967, the Israeli occupation has arrested more than 800,000 Palestinians with the majority of these detainees being men. Administrative detention is based on the Law of Emergency Powers adopted by the Israeli Knesset in 1979. It is renewable and is authorised by military order, not a judicial decree.
In administrative detention, a person is held without trial and without having committed an offence, on the grounds that he or she plans to break the law in the future.
In other words, administrative detention is used as a “preventative measure” and has no time limit; this ultimately leaves detainees helpless. This procedure was inherited from the British Mandate and is often used by Israel to avert future offences.
Human rights organisations across the world have condemned Israel’s practises as illegal and unjust. However, similar to all of the illegal practises committed by Israel on Palestinians, Israel does not respond to calls from the international community and continues with its colonial inhumane practises against Palestinians daily.
Administrative detention and hunger strikes as a form of protest:
To counter and object to administrative detention, some Palestinian prisoners go on hunger strikes demanding their release or to achieve certain goals such as improving living conditions, allowing family visits or ending solitary confinement. Palestinians often refer to hunger strikes as the ‘battle of empty stomachs’.
Ever since 1967, Palestinian prisoners have resorted to hunger strikes as a form of protest to win collective or individual rights. Recently, the Palestinian public has witnessed the victory of Hisham Abu Hawash, who went on hunger strike for nearly five months (one of the longest hunger strikes in Palestinian history).
Abu Hawash, a 40-year-old man from the town of Dura near Hebron, was detained on October 27th, 2020. After his arrest, an administrative detention order was issued against him for six months and was renewed several times.
For more than 140 days, Abu Hawash has been facing imprisonment with the only weapon a person has when they have no other means – his body. As a result of Abu Hawash’s resistance and steadfastness, Israel was pressured to agree to his release. Abu Hawash’s detention will not be renewed and he is due to be released on February 26th 2022.
Hisham Abu Hawash’s victory - to whom do we owe his success?
While the rest of the world sat comfortably at home, Abu Hawash was battling a hunger strike on his own.
Upon the announcement of Abu Hawash’s victory against the Israeli occupation, media outlets, journalists, Palestinian Authority (PA) members and Palestinian citizens took to social media to express their thoughts towards the victory. While many of the Palestinian public praised Abu Hawash for his perseverance, some attributed his victory to external factors.
The Palestinian main television channel, Palestine TV – owned by the Palestinian Authority – thanked president Mahmoud Abbas for his efforts in securing Abu Hawash’s release. This kind of discourse not only undermined Abu Hawash’s personal effort and struggle for release, but also suggests that the PA is the reason behind Abu Hawash’s victory.
On the other hand, Hanan Ashrawi took to Twitter to express the collective Palestinian win against the Israeli regime. Ashrawi tweeted, “He Won! We Won! […]”, considering his victory as a collective win to the Palestinian people.
Although Abu Hawash’s victory is a cause of celebration and pride to many Palestinians, in the confines of the consequences of the Oslo Accords, Ashrawi’s comments are representative of the shift from Palestinian collective resistance to individual-led resistance.
While the rest of the world sat comfortably at home, Abu Hawash was battling a hunger strike on his own.
This image is certainly reflective of the larger scene of the Palestinian public today, crippled by the depoliticised Oslo project and the economic shackles of neoliberalism. As a result of the living conditions imposed by the Oslo Accords, and the decaying of the resistance movement due to the PA enforcing its role as Israeli’s colonial policemen, the Palestinian public is in a state of misery.
Clinging to prisoners in the brutal Israeli prisons waiting for their liberation for our salvation. The Palestinian public’s role becomes restricted to voicing their support for political prisoners through virtual support.
However, it is worthy to note that solidarity from the Palestinian public and the international community can also be encouraging for prisoners – especially when they’re fighting for their lives.
Yet, even if Abu Hawash’s victory is a symbol of collective solidarity, there is no doubt that his perseverance brought about his victory and not with assistance from any external factors such as the PA’s supposed pressure on Israel.
Eliminating administrative detention: Our way forward
Although hunger strikes have proven effective in most cases, the focus moving forward should be to eliminate the unjust act that detains Palestinians without cause – administrative detention.
The end goal is not perpetual hunger striking, but to eliminate the inhumane practice of administrative detention to ensure Palestinian prisoners do not need to resort to hunger strikes as a form of protest.
Although hunger strikes are effective, in many cases, the victory of political prisoners is temporary. Many prisoners are detained after their release once again which shows Israel’s inability to comply, even with their own decisions.
It also highlights how Israel only agrees to such releases to absolve themselves of any responsibility of prisoners dying from hunger strikes.
