Collective hunger strike surpasses Israeli manifestations of violence

Palestinian hunger strikers have achieved a milestone in their resistance efforts against Israeli colonial violence. As happened with other past hunger strikes by Palestinian prisoners such as Samer Issawi, Mohammed Allan and Muhammad Al-Qeeq, the current publicity was initiated by a selective focus upon the case of Bilal Kayed, who was served an administrative detention order on the scheduled day of his release.

However, this time there has been a reversal of the usual predictable focus, as Kayed’s protest against his administrative detention order has not detracted from the collective struggle of Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails.

Ma’an news agency has reported that over 300 Palestinian prisoners are participating in a mass hunger strike. According to the Palestinian Prisoners’ Society, 285 hunger strikers are affiliated to Hamas while another 40 are affiliated to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). In March, both the PFLP and Islamic Jihad announced a collective decision to protest the solitary confinement and administrative detention of two Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences, reiterating past statements which were not given enough prominence in the media.

What constitutes as priority in terms of immediate action and prominence has not been lost. Another five Palestinian prisoners started their hunger strike in protest against administrative detention last July. A few days ago, Palestinian journalist Omar Nazzal, who was detained in April while en route to a conference in Bosnia organised by the European Union for Journalists, also announced the commencement of his hunger strike to protest his administrative detention.

The PA also attempted to manoeuvre itself into the limelight through the hunger strikes. Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah attended a sit in organised in Bethlehem and stating that the prisoners are a priority for the PA. There was no mention of how the PA exploited the resistance embodied by Palestinian prisoners during the last round of negotiations, or how Palestinian officials come onto the scene only when the media shifts its attention for a few days from diplomacy to resistance.

Indeed, Hamdallah’s presence normalised Israeli violence. Given the role which security coordination plays in placing Palestinians under administrative detention orders and other inhumane conditions; feigning solidarity only served to reveal the discrepancies which have made it possible for Israel to abuse Palestinian prisoners. Security coordination should not only be perceived as collaboration but also as official normalisation of colonial violence. It therefore stands to reason that the prisoners’ struggle for freedom is a struggle against PA complicity with Israel.

The current mass hunger strike, however, has managed to highlight four particular aspects: the individual Palestinian prisoner’s struggle for freedom, the collective efforts of organised resistance of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails against colonial violence and domination, Palestinian solidarity with hunger strikers, as well as Israel’s efforts to surpass itself in terms of human rights violations.

Freedom for the individual prisoner is an incomplete task; an isolated effort which is in direct contradiction with the magnitude of what a successful collective hunger strike can achieve. It also fragments the struggle due to misrepresentation and selectivity – the victorious prisoner becomes a temporary icon who is later discarded. Organised resistance, on the other hand, has managed to strengthen both the individual quest for freedom as well as the collective struggle, particularly as regards placing Palestinian prisoners at the helm, rather than marginalising them, remembering them only as a convenient afterthought or an item for failed negotiations.

The collective struggle has also eliminated the usual dynamic of the activist call for support surpassing the action taken by Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike. Previously, activism unwittingly usurped attention due to campaign focus on individual prisoners rather than the protest against Israeli violations. While serving to secure the possibility of a negotiated release for some prisoners, there was always a lack of cohesion. The mass hunger strikes have contributed to focusing attention upon individual prisoners without compromising the dignity and efforts of other hunger strikers.

It is the latter which has led Israel to increase its efforts in committing further human rights violations. Ma’an has reported that the Israeli Prison Services (IPS) have imposed severe restriction upon PFLP prisoners and increased retaliatory efforts such as transfers of detainees, confiscation of personal property and cell block closures. Omar Nazzal has been threatened with solitary confinement. Journalists, in particular, have been targeted and repressed by the Israeli authorities, upon the false premise of “incitement against Israel”.

With the prisoners having disrupted the usual pattern and exposed Israel as a violent entity, the focus should expand to emphasise administrative detention as one of the many characteristics of colonial Israel. It is easy to dismiss Israel’s responsibility once the target of freedom has been reached, however it should be remembered that Israel’s existence compromises the garnered freedom. Activism can play a defining role in shaping the struggle for the international community as a protest against Israel and its colonial violence. If this connection is not made, administrative detention will continue to oppress Palestinians involved in resistance and also provide Israel with a perfect excuse to evade accountability and responsibility.

While international law primarily serves the purpose of manipulation, there is a contrast that should be at the helm of any protest against Israel. International law has not abolished the practice of administrative detention but it is clear about the legitimacy of resistance against colonialism.

The international community’s silence in this regard is both predictable and nauseating. In addition to normalising Israeli violence through active support given to Israel in the form of military aid, trade deals and investment, the international community can revel in its sanctimonious attitude due to the ambiguity surrounding the legality of administrative detention. This allows Israel to reinvent the parameters of what constitutes an exceptional circumstance without the responsibility of acknowledging and defining itself as a colonial entity. Given the international community’s penchant for quoting international law for mere convenience, the Palestinian hunger strikers and supporters can challenge the dynamics of the international community by upholding the legal right to resist against Israel, as opposed to resisting manifestations of Israeli violence.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.