How hunger strikers "tied the hands of the occupation": a view from Israeli prison
9 June 2012
Palestinians have achieved three consecutive victories in the last few months. In October 2011, there was the release of
prisoners (the
exchange deal involving the kidnapped Israeli soldier).
Then there was a series of individual
hunger strikes, which lasted for unparalleled periods of time. These began with
Khader Adnan, who went on hunger strike to protest against the Israeli policy of administrative detention.
Adnan’s action spurred an open-ended hunger strike by prisoners,
started by more than a thousand prisoners on 17 April. It ended on 14
May, with more than 2,000 prisoners taking part. The strike began a new
page in the history of the Palestinian struggle for liberation, written
by the prisoners along with their Arab and international supporters.
The agreement signed on 14 May 2012 between the authorities in charge
of the strike and Israel — with Egyptian and international mediation
and guarantees — confirmed that the prisoner movement not only scored a
major achievement, but realized a clear victory. We can now speak of two
periods, the before and after, with the watershed moment being the
hunger strike of 2012.
Clear aims, coordination and preparation
From the beginning, the strike had several strong points. The most
important of these was the clarity of its aims — key goals achievable
through struggle and determination. These goals fused with the
significant and highly conscious coordination between the prisoners on
strike and those leading it inside the prisons, and between the latter
and the wider political authorities outside.
Strong points became clear. There was no detailed involvement with
everyday demands and issues. Thereby, a situation was avoided where
larger aims would become entangled with specific demands. This tied the
hands of the occupation, which could not manipulate these aims.
A huge role was also played by the strong, clear approach to the
media taken by the leadership of the strike, while Israel failed in its
attempts to broadcast a contrary view. There was also an accurate
reading of Palestinian, Arab and international realities. A central goal
was determined through prior planning — the possibility of reviving the
Palestinian popular movement and making the most of the significant
Egyptian role as a principal party to support the strike and guarantee
the achievement of its goals. This risk proved worthwhile as was evident
in the Egyptian sponsorship of the agreement to end the strike.
Another significant achievement was the clear preparation and the
impressive readiness of the international solidarity movements to launch
their campaigns all over the world, particularly in Europe and America,
to support the prisoners in their fight for freedom. They declared 17
April as
Palestinian Prisoners’ Day.
This resulted in international public pressure in favor of the
Palestinians’ right to confront the collusion of their government with
the Israeli occupiers. These movements adopted a clear discourse on the
humanitarian and political rights demanded by the prisoners. They also
proved the importance of cumulative efforts to internationalize the
cause of the prisoners and the cause of Palestine.
The strike adopted an approach which has blown the policy of
“postponement” — imposed by Israel with official American and European
support — out of the water. This is what happened in
Oslo,
where crucial components of the Palestinian issue were postponed to fit
the policy of dictation and domination over the Palestinian leadership.
One of the issues postponed under that formula was the release of
prisoners, but this too was brought back to the top of the official
Palestinian agenda by the strike. The strikers refused to accept that
the prisoners were pawns under the mercy of the occupation.
The strike also succeeded in neutralizing the negative effect of
Israeli public opinion by not addressing it at all. This is because if
it had moved, it would have gone against the just demands of the
prisoners. It is a colonialist public opinion, extremely hostile to
Palestinian rights, and therefore cannot support its own victims.
Only one victorious side
There is a difference between achieving specific matters within a
wider set of demands and achieving all the goals of a decisive act of
struggle. There is also a difference between a clear victory and a case
in which each side thinks they’ve won. The outcome of the strike, as
expressed in the agreement, is clear — there is only one victorious
side, the prisoners.
This was the first time that negotiations were carried out directly
with those involved in the case. It is also the first time a decision
has been made by the occupier — the General Security Service (Shabak or
Shin Bet)
— not the Israeli Prison Service, which in the scale of Israeli
oppression is just a subcontractor of the Shabak and the security
services.
The strike neutralized the
Israeli Prison Service
and the longer it went on the more direct the dealings with the
principal player, the Shabak, became. This is because of the strength of
the strike and its solid basis. It forced the Israeli apparatus to
reveal itself, because it limited its ability to manipulate and
maneuver.
But the most important issue here is the success of the strike in
removing the strategic oppression tools the Shabak has used for decades,
particularly the laws of
administrative detention and
solitary confinement in prisons. In this way, the rules of a deeply rooted, coercive game were broken.
As a result of its strength, the strike also revealed the hostility
and criminality of the Israeli judicial system, which since its
conception has been an instrument to whitewash the racist colonialist
project, the Israeli state’s crimes. It gave them legitimacy, justifying
administrative procedures, the British mandate’s emergency laws, and
continuous solitary confinement, all under the guise of security. And
here we saw the Shabak forced to back down over some of them, confirming
that the Israeli judicial system played and still plays the role of
“palace guards” for the ruling security apparatus.
As for the popular international movement, which turned into official
efforts, the Arab role, particularly the Egyptian, and the carrying out
of multi-sided negotiations (the prisoners, Israel,
Egypt
and international pressure) — all these created a new atmosphere, an
equation more akin to real negotiations than simply an occupying country
dealing with its victims. The strike also confirmed that Israel’s power
is not absolute, that its strength and sway can crumble in the face of
targeted Palestinian efforts.
Dissolving divisions and boundaries
It is true that the strike was not comprehensive. It was
Hamas who took the decision to launch it, along with
Islamic Jihad, and with the support of the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Members of the
Palestine Liberation Organization/
Fatah
took part in it. Those who initiated the strike kept their word when
they guaranteed that all factions were represented in the authoritative
body and leadership of the strike, each according to their role and
numbers.
Although the strike included no more than a third of the prisoners,
with Hamas being the most heavily represented, this in no way weakens
its legitimacy. There might have been an argument prior to the strike
about declaring it officially, but the moment it began, it became the
prisoners’ strike. It became the responsibility of those prisoners
taking part in it, and even those who were not, to make it succeed,
support it, and share responsibility for it.
The strike proved that when our people or the prisoners’ movement
engage in large-scale battles with the occupying oppressive state, the
whole nation gets involved.
It is worth confirming that support for the Palestinian cause and
Palestinian rights in their entirety is above political factions,
rendering such divisions marginal and the people united. When the
struggle of our people in
Galilee, the Triangle, the
Naqab desert and the coast meets with that in
Jerusalem,
Gaza, the
West Bank and those in exile, all boundaries between our people dissolve.
Mobilizing every corner of the homeland
Reconciliation is not the goal of the Palestinian people, it is the
responsibility of the political factions involved. The goals of the
Palestinian people are
return,
freedom, liberating the homeland and the people, and
self-determination. What is more important than reconciliation is the
unity of the struggle and its integration on the basis of the
fundamentals of Palestinian rights, not on curtailing them.
This is where the strike succeeded in mobilizing an unprecedented
Palestinian movement in every corner of the homeland. With the support
of the international movement, this turned the equation on its head in
the last stages of the strike, when the prisoners became the ones
holding the occupiers and the prisons under siege.
The Palestinian popular movement was followed by an important and
effective movement. The initiative launched by the prisoners’ affairs
ministry, the freed prisoners, the leadership of the
Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization is a promising model for overcoming factional divisions.
It is now clear that coordination is possible, roles can be
complementary, even if the divisions continue. It is clear that the
unity of the goal and the people over the prisoners’ struggle is the
basis. This is an integrated working model which is capable of achieving
victories.
In his last speech in February 1965, Malcolm X said: “The only thing
power respects is power.” This is one of the most important lessons of
the strike. How do we create this power through determination and
justice, and how do we use it well as prisoners and as a people? We must
not forget that the most important goal of the prisoners, and the
people, is freedom, and that requires more power. The hunger strike in
2012 is a victory on the road to freedom.
Ameer Makhoul is a Palestinian civil society leader and political prisoner at Gilboa Prison.
