Today is Day 70 [or is it Day 69?] of a historic hunger strike by two Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, Bilal Diab and Thaer Halahleh.
The two men are protesting the Israeli military orders of Administrative Detention under which they have been seized and kept prisoner without their [or their lawyers] knowing the details of any evidence that Israeli secret services may have against them. In such a situation, no defense is possible.
Even the exact details of the charges or accusations are not known, just the generic reason always given in cases of Administrative Detention, which is: “posing a threat to security in the area”
There is apparently no record of anyone surviving a hunger strike longer than 75 days.
These two men appeared in Israel’s Supreme Court in Jerusalem last Thursday [3 May] for a hearing on their appeal of the Administrative Detention orders. One of them, Bilal Diab, fainted and could not speak. Here is a photo of Bilal Diab inside the Supreme Court chambers:
Photo taken by @thameenaHusary and viewed on Twitter via @Occupy2gether here.
Today, the Israeli Supreme Court declined giving any decision on their appeal, reportedly declining to be involved.
The BBC reported this afternoon that: “In his decision, Judge Elyakim Rubinstein expressed concern over their deteriorating condition, and referred the military authorities to a legal clause which could allow their release on medical grounds, AFP reported. The clause relates to those ‘whose illness is limiting his days, or for whom remaining in prison would seriously endanger his life due to his illness’. Judge Rubinstein said that although the practice of administrative detention caused him ‘great discontent’, it was ‘necessary when the material regarding the petitioner is intelligence material, the exposure of which would harm its conveyor or the methods in which it was obtained’. Such detainees’ cases could be examined by ‘a jurist acceptable to the detainees, who would receive the sufficient security approval… [and] who could examine the material on their behalf’, he added”. This report is published here.
The BBC reported the length of Diab and Halahleh’s hunger strike as 68 days. There seems to be some discrepancy, with two of the most involved organizations differeing slightly: Physicians for Human Rights-Israel [PHR-Israel] seems to consider this Day 69, and Addameer counts today as Day 70. The two men started their hunger strike at the end of February, with February 29th as their first full day without food.
Meanwhile, PHR-Israel has submitted appeals for court orders to allow independent physicians to see Diab and Halahleh and another Palestinian on extended hunger strike in Israeli jails.
Diab and Halahleh are both reported to be members of Islamic Jihad.
In recent days, they have gone on and off liquid infusions with vitamin and mineral supplements. [Halahleh said he was held down by force while needles were inserted into his arm.] According to a report by CNN, published here, Amany Daify, a project coordinator for Physicians for Human Rights, said that “There is no documented history of any person who survived without food or supplements beyond 75 days”.
There are over 4,000 Palestinian prisoners now in Israeli jails, and over half of them are reportedly now on hunger strike, in part in sympathy with the protest against Administrative Detention, and also for other reasons, including the repeal of punitive measures put into place last year to retaliate for the continued detention of captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, who was seized in a cross-border raid and kept in Gaza for some 5 years without any visits.
UPDATE: Haaretz later published a fuller account of the Supreme Court decision, reporting that the judges said “the state should consider allowing that information to be passed on to those who qualify to certain criteria. ‘It’s possible that there’s room to revisit – and this is said with much caution and with no “bottom line” – notions that have come up in the past, [referring to] the possibility of giving access to the material to a jurist acceptable to the detainees, and who could be a former top civil jurist or judge’ … The justices added that such a step could ‘bring the discussion closer to the detainees’ rights, without harming security … However, we’re aware that the broader consequences aren’t in our full awareness and are not setting anything in stone’.” The decision also noted that “Administrative detention is an aberration in the judicial field, and thus, no one can deny, must be used as little as possible, even if we don’t remember that it’s used in the world at large, and mainly because we do not forget that Israel regularly fights terror and those who seek to harm it from many directions … The state should not have to apologize for securing its own safety”. Speaking of the recent wave of hunger strikes among Palestinian detainees, the justices wrote in their ruling that ‘hungers strikes cannot serve as a element in a decision on the very validity of administrative detentions, since that would be confusing the issue’.” The prisoners’ attorney, Jawad Boulus, told Haaretz that “one can see that the justices are convinced that administrative detentions are a severe act”, and he added that “the justice’s conclusion should have been their just and honest release, and not to leave the issues vague and by recommending to release them at the end of their administrative detention”.
The court’s ruling came after last week, Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch was said to indicate that Israel should reduce its use of administrative detention against Palestinian suspects.