Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna is joined by Ben White, Mustafa Barghouti and Gregg Roman in what turns out to be probably the biggest shellacking of an Israeli spokesperson I have ever seen on a mainstream news network.

To be fair, Roman does say some absurd things, such as: “Actually I do know what I am talking about because I worked side by side with Palestinians for three years while I was a member of the Civil Administration in Ramallah (note: Israel’s occupation government in the territories–equivalent to a colonial administration. It is not based in Ramallah either, it’s located in the Jewish settlement of Beit El, which overlooks Ramallah)… if you look at the everyday Palestinian worker, what he wants to do is have independence, feed his family, and he wants to be able to have autonomy.”

This is actually one of the essential counters being made by Israel supporters in this general debate over buses and segregation: that Palestinian workers prefer this system because it expedites the process of working in Israel and makes their living conditions easier. However, this does not negate the accusation of segregation and apartheid. By having reduced average Palestinians to prioritize feeding their families over obtaining their human and legal rights, you have in no way relieved yourself from the obligation under international law to respect those rights.

There is much more to go into in this debate but it is worth watching if you have some time. If nothing else, there are few places you get to see this kind of debate happen. Pretty entertaining to say the least.

Leader of the National Religious Party (“Jewish Home”) Naftali Bennett (photo: Yotam Ronen / activestills.org)

As Israelis go to the polls to cast their ballots for the Knesset, many Palestinian citizens will not be voting in this round of elections. In a recent New York Times article, correspondent Jodi Rudoren expounds as to the many reasons why this is the case, save one. On a recent trip to the country I spoke with many Palestinian citizens of Israel who actually expressed a desire to see the further ascendancy of the Israeli Right. Their logic is based on the inadvertent consequences of right-wing control of Israeli politics. Essentially, the further movement of Israel to the right intensifies its ugliest and most undemocratic tendencies, which leads to further estrangement and isolation in international politics.

They view the rise of the openly fascist right wing as a positive development, because eventually it will work to sever the umbilical cord of support to Israel from the world. Europe, and even possibly the United States, will find it progressively more difficult to ideologically support a nation that is so unabashed in its views and against any form of peace process with the Palestinians. Israel is increasingly becoming Frankestein’s monster that even its former patrons are looking upon in disgust.

Some appreciate the brutal honesty of Israeli right-wing officials, as opposed to what they consider a more duplicitous rhetoric from Israel’s left and center parties, who only come knocking around election time. They believe the fall of the Left in Israel is due to a fundamental dishonesty inherent in their ideological position as well as crucial mistakes they have made during past periods of governance.

Essentially, the Left-Labor movement was the progenitor of the illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza to begin with, and continued to strengthen them even during the peace accords — an enterprise which marks the entire history of Israeli state building and colonization. While understanding the nature of Israel coalition politics, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres were both involved in this contradictory behavior, before, during and after Oslo. In essence, they were strengthening the enemy of their own position as a sort of insurance policy and with the political mindset that speaking out to the settlers and peaceniks simultaneously would win the support of both. All the while, however, as the settlement movement continued to grow in strength — a strength precipitated by the Left’s financial and political support — the settlers would develop their own national leadership capable of challenging the Left from their increasingly strong base. And this is what we are seeing today: outside of the traditional right wing who have always supported settlers — Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, etc. — a new national leadership is emerging in the likes of Avigdor Lieberman, Naftali Bennett and others.

Furthermore, when the peace process collapsed in 2000 after the failure of Camp David, Ehud Barak and the Israeli Left proceeded to put the entire onus of blame on the shoulders of Arafat and the Palestinians, thus making the case for the Israeli Right that there was no Palestinian peace partner. This backfired on the Israeli Left by pulling the rug out from under their entire political program and shattering their support from the Israeli center. The Israeli Right capitalized on this contradiction in the leftist position, and along with the bloody years of the Second Intifada, was able to pull the Israeli center much further to the right.

It is not that surprising then that many Palestinians I meet prefer the Israeli right wing because they do not cloak their message in liberalism, like the Left does. They do not preach one thing and do the opposite. Palestinians appreciate this honesty, even if it is directed against them. The new breed of right-wing Israeli politician is not interested in paying lip service to Europe and the United States, while at the same time working to dispossess the Palestinians. Those who say there is no honor among thieves have never heard Naftali Bennett speak.

Today many Palestinians on both sides of the Green Line are starting to view the two-state solution as either too far gone or undesirable in its implications. They believe that the Israeli Right is hastening the movement away from the two-state solution, in which one state will be the inevitable alternative — even if that is not the intention of the right-wing movement. As the Israeli right wing directs its policies against them in the short term, there is a belief that it will be better in the end. If Naftali Bennett succeeds in his plan to annex Area C for example — which comprises 60 percent of the West Bank — then there will no longer be any false pretenses about the possibility of a two-state solution. The peace process veil will be lifted and the ugly face of apartheid will be apparent for all the world to see. Will the U.S. continue to support Israel then?

International activists from the United States and Europe were denied entry into the West Bank on Sunday by Israeli border control after successfully crossing in from Jordan. Around 80 people were planning on visiting Bethlehem as part of the Welcome to Palestine campaign, which organized two previous events where activists attempted to visit Palestine through Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv (Palestine’s airports have been closed by Israel since the Second Intifada). Following the second “flytilla“ in April of this year, in which hundreds of people from all over the world participated, the “Welcome to Palestine” campaign was hoping to keep the momentum going by addressing the border with Jordan.

The campaign is part of a larger attempt to raise awareness about Israel’s policies regarding control of entry into the occupied territories. Unlike the “flytillas,” however, the activists were not entering any territory inside of Israel, but attempted to cross through the Allenby/King Hussein entry point directly into the West Bank. The border crossing is still controlled by Israel, however, along with the entire Jordan Valley.

Activists were responding to an invitation from the Governor of Bethlehem and several civil society organizations. They were traveling with over a ton of stationary that will be delivered to Palestinian children getting ready to go back to school after the summer, according to a press release.

Traveling to Palestine can be a humiliating experience for people as they are subjected to aggressive Israeli questioning and security, even when they are entering their own country.

The Welcome to Palestine campaign highlights one of the great shortfalls of the Oslo Accords, which gave Israel ultimate control over Palestinian borders (along with sea and airspace), and thus, control over who could enter and exit from occupied territory. This has had the effect of isolating the Palestinians from their large diaspora community outside the occupied territories, as well as anyone Israel is not interested in letting through.

Related:
Activists reach Israel in new ‘flytilla’ bid; dozens refused entry
Reframing non-violent resistance: An act of moral piracy
IDF, police remove Palestinian “Freedom riders” from Israeli bus
“Air Flotilla” successful in exposing Israeli blockade of West Bank
Greek Coast Guard stop US boat from setting sail for Gaza

In light of the recent events concerning Sudanese refugees in Israel and the outburst of violent demonstrations in Tel Aviv, I have decided to publish an interview I conducted with Israel’s Mark Regev on April 2 to better understand the government position in regards to the African refugees in its borders.

The interview, which was conducted for an article I was writing in Rolling Stone magazine, took place shortly after a court injunction was placed on the Israeli government’s decision to begin deporting South Sudanese refugees back to their country of origin amid a deteriorating situation between Sudan and South Sudan. The interview gives good insight into how the government perceives and treats the issue of asylum seekers.

[interview]

OR: Could you explain the government’s decision to deport the South Sudanese refugees?

MR: The policy is clear. Last year, I think in 2011, we had more illegal immigrants entering Israel than we had legal immigrants. And Israel is a small country; we are some 8 million people. And I think we have to deal with this issue. It would be irresponsible not to deal with this issue. The government has adopted a 4-tier strategy of dealing with the issue of illegal immigration.

One is of course what David sent you [he is referring to a link that was given to me by his staff], the issue of the border fence. Two, is making it much more difficult for illegal immigrants to work in Israel. Ultimately the Israeli economy is a first world economy and that serves as a magnet to people who are coming from many places, but specifically Africa. Thirdly, the prime minister has talked about a detention center to be established for illegal immigrants; to make sure their needs are taken care of, that they have housing and healthcare and other services, until…you know… humanitarian treatment.

And finally, is deportation to their countries of origin. That’s the four-tier process. Now we can’t ignore this issue, we have to deal with it. We can be flexible in the way we deal with it but we are not going to solve anything by ignoring the issue.

OR: One of your orders is saying to prevent them from work because Israel is a first world country and therefore it attracts people looking for work, so…?

MR: You got to remember what is the absurdity of the situation. Let’s say refugees… I shouldn’t say refugees, very few of them are refugees. Illegal immigrants who are coming to Israel are not coming from their country directly. They are coming through third-countries, where they are not persecuted. It’s clear they are coming here because of the economic magnet.

OR: Well according to refugees that I am using for my story and that I spoke to, they were indeed persecuted in 3^rd countries. The conditions in Egypt for example…?

MR: To be fair, Israel is the only democracy in the region. Does that mean that a hundred million people can come to Israel and declare themselves legitimate refugees?

OR: I am not sure.

MR: Well, I am asking you according to your logic, sir.

OR: Umm… no obviously not.

MR: Alright. This is a real problem we can’t ignore it.

OR: But, the South Sudanese refugees are 700 people not hundreds of millions.

MR: As the Prime Minister said, firstly we can be flexible with the implementation and secondly, we are waiting for the judicial process. Israel is a country where there is rule of law. We can’t ignore the problem and hope it will go away. We are a very small country. We are a successful democracy, and we cannot be the solution for the region and beyond, for all the ills. Those solutions have to be found in greater democratization in other countries.

OR: Do the 700 south Sudanese refugees living in Israel’s borders pose such a deep threat to the state that they should be deported?

MR: Once again there is a four-tier strategy….

OR: Right, I understand that but I am talking about these 700 refugees?

MR: We can be flexible on implementation of that four-tier strategy and of course we respect the decisions of the courts. I can’t go beyond that at this stage.

OR: Ok. And also you mentioned the detention center that is to take care of the needs of refugees?

MR: According to our legal system if someone is in your country illegally you cannot prosecute them for working illegally and you cannot prosecute employers, which is more important, if they don’t have a place where they can live because then they don’t have—according to our legal people—they don’t have the ability to live and feed themselves, to take care of themselves, to find dwellings and so forth. The idea of the detention center is so we can enforce laws against employers who are illegally employing them, because the detention center—which will have the highest international standards—will deal with the issue: will they have a place to stay, will they be provided with food and medical care and education for children, if need be.  And social services because obviously some of these people have had very traumatic experiences, and so forth. And only with the detention center can we—according to our Supreme Court and our judiciary—can we legally enforce the ban on work. That’s the only way to deal with the magnet. If people can come to Israel illegally, and make a hundred times what they can make in Africa, the magnet is not going to go away. We have to be successful in enforcing labor laws.

OR: So you do not believe the majority of these people are in fact fleeing crisis situations in their own country?

MR: According to our own investigation only a fraction of 1 percent of these people qualify as bona fide refugees and then of course they have the right to stay here indefinitely until they can go to a third country. But the overwhelming majority are illegal economic migrants.

OR: This is still contrary to their status elsewhere where 85 percent of Eritreans get refugee status and I think around 50 percent of Sudanese?.

MR: Once again, first of all these people are coming from third countries. They are not coming directly.

OR: Well the ones that are in the US are also coming from third countries, no?

MR: And they are automatically given refugee status in the United States?

OR: No, but they are at least going through a process in which I guess 85 percent of Eritreans are getting refugees status and 50 percent of Sudanese, or South Sudanese,  not a fraction of 1 percent?

MR: Our studies… in our studies… in what we have been doing only a fraction of 1 percent qualify as refugees.

OR: And those Eritreans and South Sudanese are capable of going through the RSD process?

MR: What’s the RSD process, sorry?

OR: The Refugee Status Determination process?

MR: Obviously some of them have, you should speak to the Ministry of Interior. They know more about the details of that process.

OR: Thank you very much, I appreciate your comments.

As the details on the agreement to end the collective hunger strike of thousands of Palestinian prisoners continue to unravel, it is important to begin addressing what we have learned from this whole, momentous episode.

For one thing, these Palestinians demonstrated once again that they are willing to sacrifice everything—including their lives—to challenge the injustice of the Israeli occupation. This was a tremendous act of willpower, in which people starved themselves for more than two months, in order to draw attention to their plight. And what is this plight? It is being thrown in prison for months, or even years, without charge, trial or evidence. It is about lives suddenly broken and upended without the slightest recourse to justice as we know it.

We have also learned once again about the ease with which a Palestinian can be taken from his or her home and tossed into a prison cell for no apparent reason. And when Israel is demanded to proffer evidence, it cannot, hiding behind the excuse that the evidence is secret and risks exposing certain sources. Thus, an unaccountable intelligence agency can offer secret “evidence”—that cannot be challenged by the accused—in a military court in which the judge does not question the reliability of the information. (If you want to see how this works, watch the documentary “The Law in These Parts,”  or read the report, “Without Trial” by B’Tselem.) And this is the daily reality that a people have lived in for nearly 45 years of occupation.

This should also make us realize—if we have not already—that despite the Oslo Accords and the existence of a quasi-Palestinian government, the people have absolutely no security and no protection. Whether it is from the Jewish settlers who attack Palestinian farmers and burn their crops, or from the Israeli military and security forces that arrest arbitrarily, the Palestinian Authority is powerless to do anything about it. This in turn causes average Palestinians to question what the point is in a government that cannot even protect its citizens, undermining the entire foundation of a state.

We must also remember that Israel holds all the chips. These hunger strikers have managed to pressure Israel into a level of accommodation, but only while people are focused on the issue. As soon as that attention dissipates, Israel is free to take back what it has offered. In the relationship between the occupier and the occupied, Israel is the Lord who giveth and taketh away. What will the Palestinians do? Stage another collective hunger strike only to repeat the process of give and take? The costs are simply too high to stage such a strike every time the need arises to challenge the system.

This was one of the major inadequacies of the hunger strike that was launched on April 17, as opposed to the one that preceded it. The ten individual hunger strikers, beginning with Khader Adnan on December 17, were fighting against administrative detention. This was a worthy cause because administrative detention is one aspect—and probably the most egregious—of an inhumane system of military “justice” in the occupied territories. The larger collective hunger strike that was launched afterwards challenged the conditions and treatment of the prisoners by the Israel Prison Service. This is markedly different. It is not necessarily a bad or unworthy effort, but it overshadowed the more important cause of challenging the system as a whole. By protesting the conditions inside the cells, and not the nature of the imprisonment to begin with, Israel was able to belittle the collective hunger strike as little more than prisoners demanding plasma TVs in their cells (using hyperbolic Israeli terminology), for example. Furthermore, when those simpler demands could be met by Israel, it had the effect of taking momentum away from the prisoners who were contesting administrative detention and thus weakening the nobler goal.

On a positive note, however, this was in my humble opinion just one more example in the growing trend of grassroots initiatives taken by average Palestinians who are challenging the occupation on their own. No longer leaving the official centers of power responsible for securing Palestinian rights, individuals and groups at the grassroots levels are increasingly adopting this responsibility. From BDS to the popular struggle to Khader Adnan, people are not waiting around anymore for the old political factions to act. This is the most important change happening in Palestinian politics and the hunger strikes have highlighted this.

Moreover, they have also reaffirmed the perception that the Palestinian Authority does not want to rock the boat. Very little public effort was initiated by the PA during the entirety of the hunger strike movement. When the father of hunger striker Hana Shalabi asked Mahmoud Abbas in person to help get his daughter released, the president replied: there is little I can do.

Where was the international community?

Nor does the world seem to care. In the words of UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Human Rights, Richard Falk:

Can anyone doubt that if there were more than 1300 hunger strikers in any country in the world other than Palestine, the media in the West would be obsessed with the story?  It would be featured day after day, and reported on from all angles, including the severe medical risks associated with such a lengthy refusal to take food.

The lack of media coverage and public outcry abroad only serves to deepen the impression among Palestinians that no matter what they do, how desperate and dramatic the effort, the world will ignore their pleas for help. While preaching to the Palestinians for decades on their need to adopt a non-violent platform, no act of non-violence on behalf of the Palestinians elicits a response from their preachers. When one questions the reason for near-ubiquitous disillusionment by Palestinian society, this goes a long way in answering why.

Nonetheless, the effort was good enough to pressure Israel into seeking a way out. The prospect of Palestinian civil unrest in response to the death of one or more prisoners did not sit well with Israel and it took the necessary measures to release the tension. This exposes the power of unarmed resistance—it leaves Israel with little excuse for its reprehensible behavior and policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians.

But lurking in the shadows of a Palestinian achievement was Israel’s public relations machine, spinning everything in its favor. As the international media pounced on the story only in its final hour, most news outlets, including The New York Times, were reporting that the Palestinian prisoners and political parties had agreed to give up on terrorism in exchange for Israel meeting the demands of the prisoners. Quoting only Israeli sources on the stipulation, Israel was able to spin the story into an achievement. I mean, who wouldn’t give in to the prisoners’ demands in exchange for bringing down an entire system of terror to its knees in the single swipe of a pen? What a joke.

Over 1,600 Palestinian prisoners had been on a collective hunger strike since April 17, and eight others were on individual hunger strikes for much longer. Two prisoners, Bilal Diab and Thaer Halahleh, had gone without food for 77 days, the longest hunger strikes in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was not immediately clear whether the deal met the demand of the two for immediate release, or whether they had agreed to call off their strike with the rest. Other sources had claimed that no such deal had been reached, and that reports to that effect constitute efforts by the Palestinian Authority to hijack the hunger strike.

Early Tuesday morning more information was leaked that Thaer Halahleh had agreed after midnight to end his hunger strike in exchange for either being released or charged at the end of his administrative detention term, on June 5. He will spend the remainder of his detention order in a public hospital. This is very similar to the deal struck with Khader Adnan, the first to launch his hunger strike back on December 17, 2011, and who was released on April 17 after Israel failed to bring any evidence against him. Bilal Diab will be released in August.

Sources had reported the two prisoners as very close to death. Both official Israeli and Palestinian sources revealed that they were worried that the death of a prisoner could spark widespread unrest in the occupied territories and that they were working hastily on a deal.

It is still unclear what has been agreed to at this point. The hunger strike movement—which has been popularly labeled the Battle of Empty Stomachs—is two-pronged: contesting the policy of administrative detention and also the treatment of prisoners, including excessive solitary confinement, the denial of family visits and the right to seek an education in prison.

Administrative detention remains the major issue on the table and the reason for the hunger strike in the first place after Khader Adnan, a former prisoner, went 66 days without food until Israel released him on April 17.

Diab and Halahleh were also fighting administrative detention along with several other prisoners. The policy—which has its origins in the British Mandate period—allows Israel to detain Palestinians without charge or public evidence for periods of six months that can be renewed indefinitely.

A positive outcome of the hunger strikes has been renewed international focus on the issue of administrative detention and Palestinian prisoners in general. However, despite the dramatic effort made by the prisoners, there was very little international media attention given to the issue, considering its scale and potential impact. For many Palestinians, this may represent another example of wide scale acts of non-violent resistance and civil disobedience, which are not met with international recognition–a prospect that further fuels Palestinian disillusionment.

Support has remained strong among Palestinian society during the months-long hunger strike movement that began in December 2011, but the mainstream public has not really galvanized. However, if one of the prisoners were to die, it is quite possible that Palestinian society would react more vocally. The prisoner issue is the most widely felt and supported issue within Palestinian society because nearly every family has had one or several members imprisoned since the Israeli occupation began in 1967.

Palestinian demonstrators staged a sit-in at the entrance to the United Nations offices in Ramallah Wednesday morning to protest inaction by the international body on behalf of the approximately 2,000 Palestinian prisoners now on hunger strike.

The sit-in, which was organized by the group Palestinians for Dignity, prevented UN employees from entering the offices in order to raise international awareness and bring about some type of action. In the early morning a small group of 20-30 people made up of the family members of prisoners, supporters and other activists attended the demonstration calling for protection from the UN instead of more aid.

PA security forces were deployed in the area. There were reports of threats in the beginning of the protest from security but no actual clashes have taken place.

Protests in support of the prisoners have been happening every day now for weeks, despite the hunger strikes having received very little media attention and virtually no response from governments around the world, including the United Nations. On Tuesday, another sit-in was staged in front of the Palestinian Authority presidential offices to protest inaction by the government.

Two prisoners, Thaer Halahleh and Bilal Diab, have passed the 70-day mark of their hunger strikes and could die at any time. Several others are close behind. Approximately 2,000 prisoners launched a collective hunger strike on April 17 in conjunction with the independent hunger strikes already taking place since Khader Adnan began his on December 18.

On Monday, Israel’s Supreme Court rejected appeals by Halahleh and Diab for release from their administrative detention, in which they are held without charge or trial. The court’s decision has made the deaths of the prisoners very likely and it is difficult to predict what the public response to such an outcome will be.

UPDATE:

Similar protests were reported to have taken place Wednesday at the UN offices in Jerusalem and Geneva. A small protest on the issue of hunger strikes was conducted at the gates to Tel Aviv University, as well.

Read also:
‘Empty stomachs’ hunger strike spreads across prisons 

Yesterday, I attended my first Palestinian demonstration across the Green Line, in front of Ramle Prison. Having been to many protests in the West Bank I was eager to assess the differences between the two events and how the Israeli authorities respond to each.

The day before, I had attended a demonstration in front of Ofer Prison near Ramallah. Both events were in support of the Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike in Israeli jails, and therefore, relatively parallel.

In the occupied West Bank, peaceable assembly by Palestinians is prohibited unless authorized by the Israeli military, which does not happen. Thus, any form of collective protest is dealt with harshly by the Israeli military, leaving Palestinians with no outlet for releasing public frustration or protesting for their basic rights.

On Wednesday, Palestinian demonstrators once again tried to reach Ofer prison in order to show their support for the approximately 2,000 Palestinian prisoners now on hunger strike in what has been billed the “Battle of Empty Stomachs.” Yet before the protest could even begin, the Israeli soldiers assembled on the road that leads to the prison began firing endless volleys of teargas canisters and excessive amounts of plastic-coated steel bullets.

I was nearly hit by these so-called “rubber” bullets on several occasions during the protest, even when I had moved from the front lines to a position in the back a few hundred meters from the soldiers. Some 20 Palestinians were reported injured. In the end, what could have been a peaceful demonstration and public expression of discontent devolved into riot control and stone throwing.

On Thursday in front of Ramle Prison, the scenario was much different. Peaceable assembly was permitted in the vicinity of the prison, to a small area designated by the Israeli police. There the protesters chanted slogans and displayed posters and flags for nearly an hour and a half.

When a bulk of the demonstrators tried to move beyond the metal grate fence erected for them, however, the police moved in quickly and aggressively, assaulting several of the protesters and arresting at least ten of them.

So, although people were allowed to protest, they were ultimately confined by police to a tiny space away from the public eye. As soon as the demonstrators moved outside their little box, the police pushed them back in using force—although without resorting to the type of extreme measures that are routinely used inside the occupied territories against the Palestinians with no rights. Those arrested were dealt with harshly, however, and reports from the jail said that the detainees were beaten by police far away from the watchful eye of the press cameras.

It is unmistakable that the protests are in many ways linked and reflective of how Palestinians are treated on the whole. Although those Palestinian citizens of Israel have more rights than their occupied counterparts, their voice is not appreciated and quickly silenced as soon as it attempts to speak not solely for its own sake but to influence those around them. Their rights protect them to some extent under the law but few would bat an eye if, and when, they are trampled on. Palestinians in the occupied territories are not even on the radar of Israelis and the military can deal with them as they see fit with virtual impunity. In the end, the grievances of all Palestinians are perceived as threatening and are crushed when they try to become more than just a show.

UPDATE:

It is worth noting that several of those arrested at the Ramle Prison demonstration were in fact Israeli Jews, who were not spared the treatment because of their background, but because of what they were demonstrating for. Many of them were the “anarchists” that face arrest often when they protest in the weekly village demonstrations of the West Bank. It will be interesting to hear the testimonies of those arrested to note what differences there may have been in the entire process of their arrest, detention, interrogation and release.

In the next few days, something momentous will occur. A group of Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike for over 60 days will either be released from incarceration in Israeli prison without charge or trial, or they will likely die.

And it will not end there, either. Many more have followed them down this perilous road of life, death and principle. In fact, thousands more.

Two Palestinians—Khader Adnan and Hana Shalabi—have already crossed the finish line, securing their release from prison—through deals cut with the Israeli government. Yet will Israel release any more, and in so doing, allow the military justice system, in place in the occupied territories for decades, to crumble?

Know their names. Bilal Diab. Thaer Halahleh. Hasan Safadi. Jafaar Izzedine. These men and thousands more men and women—prisoners with no rights—have usurped some of the power from their jailers and are challenging the system of imprisonment that has been used to subjugate Palestinians for nearly half a century.

Under the radar, Israeli leaders are scrambling for a way out. All types of measures have been used to break the will of hunger strikers, including excessive bouts of solitary confinement and psychological pressure aimed at weakening their resolve. The tactics have not worked. As thousands have joined the hunger strike movement it appears it has gone well beyond Israel’s ability to stop.

The future remains uncertain. Will the death of prisoners in Israel jails ignite the occupied territories or will they simply fizzle out? Although very little seems capable of mustering mainstream Palestinian society these days, the reaction to this eventuality is unpredictable. Prisoners are a decisive issue for Palestinians (read here). Moreover, as the peace process comes to an inglorious end, the status quo is increasingly fragile. The political and economic horizons for Palestinians are beginning to close once again. Times are changing.

LATE ADDITION:

One reader pointed out the connection to Bobby Sands and the IRA hunger strikes of the early 1980s. This connection was pointedly made during the 66-day hunger strike of Khader Adnan (coincidentally Sands would die of starvation on the 66th day of his own hunger strike). @RichardL also gave a link to a Guardian piece on the impact of the IRA hunger strikes, which ended in the deaths of 10 prisoners during Margaret Thatcher’s government and its impact.

The death of 10 men in the 1981 hunger strike was to prove a defining moment in the struggle between the Provisional IRA and the British government or, to be more precise, the prime minister, Margaret Thatcher.

The end of the strike after seven months was reported at the time as a victory for Thatcher’s fortitude. In fact, it proved to be the opposite. It boosted the ranks of the IRA, radicalised nationalist politics and can now be seen as the beginning of the process that led to Sinn Féin’s emergence as a vote-winning political party on either side of the disputed Irish border.

The article also discusses the English press’s coverage of the IRA hunger strikes. There is really little reason to discuss the Israeli press’s coverage of the hunger strike movement because it has been next to negligible. In the words of Haaretz columnist Akiva Eldar in an interview with me:

[Israelis] don’t give a shit. They think that they deserve it. And in the best case they should rot in a jail for the rest of their life. In the worst case they should be executed. And it is a waste of money to keep them there and to feed them.

This is the way they feel good with themselves. You see, most Israelis don’t really care about anything that is connected with Palestinians, or with ‘the other.’ They are so busy with their victimization, which they will never give up. So, prisoners are the victim of the occupation, victims of the violence, victims of the situation. But Israelis will never give up their right to be the victim. This is not only in regards to the prisoners, but to the occupation…

Yet the parallels to the IRA hunger strikes are remarkable. As the Guardian article notes:

But there was no genuine attempt to answer that question. Instead, the response was pitiless. “I will shed no tears when Sands dies,” wrote John Junor, then editor of the Sunday Express. “My only hope is that if and when he does every other IRA terrorist will go on the same sort of hunger strike in sympathy. And stay on it until they are all in wooden suits.”

As I reflect upon all this, I do it with the belief that the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is steadily moving its way down a new path. The resolution of this conflict at the official levels of state, where they have worked to no avail for at least the last 20 years, is coming to an end. The people are once again taking action into their own hands. The hunger strike movement will do nothing for the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority. But it will be a lightening rod in the hands of those who wish to continue to rally those inside Palestine and around the world to their cause.

Read also:
Palestinian Prisoners’ Day: Hundreds join hunger strike
Randa Adnan, wife of hunger striker, discusses her husband’s struggle
Palestinian Prisoners’ Day: The numbers
Khader Adnan agrees to stop hunger strike in exchange for April release

A movement of Palestinian prisoners protesting their incarceration and treatment inside Israeli prisons is continuing to reach momentous proportions. Billed the “War of Empty Stomachs,” the number of prisoners on hunger strike is now in the thousands.

On April 17, the prisoner movement split into two when between 1,200 and 1,600 prisoners launched a coordinated, open-ended hunger strike against their treatment inside Israeli prisons, including the pervasive use of solitary confinement, denied family visits and right to education. Another 2,000 joined in a limited solidarity hunger strike.

The prisoners had joined a group of hunger strikes launched independently by prisoners protesting their administrative detention—a policy by which Israel incarcerates Palestinians for periods of up to six months without evidence or trial, which can be renewed by a military judge indefinitely.

Galvanized by the hunger strike of Khader Adnan, beginning on December 18 and carried on by Hana Shalabi in February, the hunger strike movement is continuing to grow rapidly. At least seven prisoners are reaching dire health conditions, including Bilal Diab and Thaer Halahleh, who are on the 61st day of their hunger strikes. Hasan Safadi is on his 56th day, and others, including Omar Abu Shalal and Jafar Izzedine, are quickly approaching these lengths of time.

Khader Adnan’s hunger strike—which lasted 66 days, the longest in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—opened the door for other prisoners after Israel decided to release him. He was joined near the end of his hunger strike by Hana Shalabi, whose hunger strike lasted 44 days before she was deported to Gaza in a release deal.

As more prisoners continue to approach the end of the road, Israel faces an increasingly difficult position. It can either follow suit with the two aforementioned hunger strikers and release more prisoners, or Israel can let them die in prison and potentially set off large-scale protests in the occupied territories. The latter choice also carries with it increased scrutiny on the practice of administrative detention, which is permitted under international law only in the most extreme cases. There are currently over 300 Palestinian prisoners held in administrative detention by Israel; the longest has been detained for over five years. At times, the number of prisoners has numbered in the thousands.

More prisoners have already declared they will begin open-ended hunger strikes this coming week, and demonstrations have begun to spread outside the occupied territories. One is scheduled for Thursday May 3 in front of the prison hospital in Ramle, Israel.

The latest hunger strikes have lacked the media coverage received by Khader Adnan and Hana Shalabi, both in the country and internationally. However this is likely to change in the coming days as several of them reach the end of the road and Israel is once again forced to choose which path it will take.

Click here to read more on the issue of Palestinian prisoners in an article I published in The National on Friday:

The centrality of the prisoner issue in Palestinian life has virtually no parallel anywhere else in the world. It is almost enough to note that the Palestinian Authority – the semiautonomous body that has governed the Palestinian territories since 1993 – has a ministry of prisoners’ affairs and that there are numerous social clubs, organisations and even a museum devoted to this cause.

For years, prisons have substituted as universities for large swathes of the population and provided a base for grassroots political organising. The country’s most popular political figure, Marwan Barghouti, is currently serving five life sentences but is still a likely contender for president. After close to 45 years of living under military occupation, where resistance is prized and collaboration with Israel is the ultimate crime, the stigma of prison has been transformed from a basis of disrepute into a badge of honour and, indeed, a source of pride.

Put simply, for Palestinians, the prisoner issue is only a microcosm of life under occupation, where many simply substitute a larger cell for a smaller one. Until they are all freed, there will likely be no dramatic changes inside the prison walls.