The life-and-death dilemma of prisoners
All cliches contain a grain of truth, but the one asserting that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” also encapsulates the excruciating difficulty in ending wars of liberation.
A hunger strike declared by more than 1,600 Palestinian inmates last week has turned the spotlight on one of the most sensitive issues between Israel and the Palestinians: The conditions in which more than 6,500 Palestinian prisoners languishing in Israeli jails are held. But protests by political prisoners, whether they committed an act of terror or not, is never solely about living conditions but equally about politics.
The hunger strike began on Palestinian Prisoners Day. That day, in a New York Times (NYT) opinion piece smuggled out of his Israeli prison cell, charismatic Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti outlined the strikers’ manifesto. His involvement is a reminder that this new episode is not only about living conditions in Israeli prisons. It is about the conflict as a whole, and the succession to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Occupied people who are deprived of their freedoms will always hold those who die, or are incarcerated for the cause of liberation, in the highest esteem. Acts of violence, especially when the victims are innocent people, cannot be condoned, yet living under occupation is bound to lead to resistance, including armed resistance.
In this asymmetric conflict, the Israeli security forces and courts possess the power to deprive almost whoever they want of freedom, in many cases irrespective of due legal process. Prisoners are entitled to be treated humanely, even if they have committed a gruesome act of violence. All prison sentences contain an element of punishment, but neglecting rehabilitation and, in the case of political prisoners, dialogue is immoral and counterproductive.
The vast majority of the prisoners’ demands are not unreasonable, including visitation rights and improvement in medical treatment and recreation activities. Israel’s security forces may have some legitimate concerns that certain concessions could carry security risks, but with goodwill and common sense those issues can and should be resolved.
The hunger strike is also an expression of despair at the lack of political horizons, without which a largescale prisoner release is unlikely in the foreseeable future. Moreover, as the Abbas era approaches its conclusion, it is an opportune time for Barghouti — who was sentenced for five counts of murder when he was commander of the Tanzim militant movement — to demonstrate his leadership credentials.
Only the end of the occupation, and a just political solution that sees the release of political prisoners, will guarantee the long-term wellbeing of both Israelis and Palestinians.
Yossi Mekelberg
In his NYT piece, he calls his trial a “political show trial,” but makes no effort to contest the reasons for his conviction. This helps him gain street credibility as standing up to the Israeli occupier and as a victim of rough justice. No other Palestinian leader with ambitions to replace Abbas can boast this kind of resume.
For Israel’s government, the combination of his history, leadership qualities and — as far as we know — readiness for compromise makes him invaluable if it is interested in a peace agreement and reconciliation with the Palestinians.
Unsurprisingly, Barghouti, in a rare engagement with the world, mentions Nelson Mandela, whom he fashions himself after. There is still a way for him to become the Palestinian Mandela, but it is also up to Israel to create the conditions and space for him to do so.
So far, Israel’s response to the hunger strike is way too obvious. It spouts the same old rhetoric of not caving into the demands of terrorists. In the words of the ever-over-simplistic populist Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan, this is a mutiny staged by “terrorists and incarcerated murderers who are getting what they deserve.”
Not far behind was Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, not a distinguished scholar of history, who compared the situation with former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s refusal to negotiate with IRA prisoners on hunger strike, 10 of whom starved to death.
A closer look at this analogy would reveal to Lieberman that in the end, the British government made ample concessions to the Irish republican prisoners, and this largely contributed to the rebirth of the IRA’s political wing Sinn Fein.
Maybe the words of Bobby Sands, who became a symbol of the IRA inmate hunger strike, should ring in the ears of Israel’s leadership: “They won’t break me because the desire for freedom, and the freedom of the Irish people, is in my heart.”
The same is applicable to the Palestinian prisoners. Letting the hunger-strikers die, or force-feeding them, will not change the basic tenets of this conflict. Only the end of the occupation, and a just political solution that sees the release of political prisoners, will guarantee the long-term wellbeing of both Israelis and Palestinians.
• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media.
