News of the death of Sheikh Khader Adnan, after 86 days on a hunger strike protesting his administrative detention, has shocked the entire Palestinian population. His passing is being marked with nationwide strikes, protests, and a renewed determination for resistance.

The logic of a hunger strike is firmly founded in the theory and philosophy of nonviolence. It is an important tactic in a moral and spiritual battle, where an activist asserts the truth, legitimacy, and moral righteousness of one’s case, not by attacking one’s tormentors, but by voluntarily taking upon oneself the punishment and suffering. It is an eloquent and impressive assertion that draws widespread attention to a particular issue. It challenges one and all (including one’s enemies) to support one’s claims and, in the case of one’s enemies, to change their course of action. It represents a sort of “moral jiu jitsu” whereby the weaker party allows the full strength of their powerful opponent to fall on them, and rather than resist their opponent head-on, to let the weight of the opponent cause them to fall.

In this case, the injustice against which Sheikh Khader Adnan was protesting is that of administrative detention. Why should he have been jailed, without charges or trial? If Israel is accusing him of anything, they have all the machinery of an unjust military court system to try and convict him. Yet, they could not do that, because they had no proof that he had done anything wrong. Instead, they arrogantly and repeatedly jailed him for extended periods of “administrative detention.” This is an evil tool that represents the utter arrogance and unrestrained power that the Israelis hold over Palestinians, and which they have been using with increasing frequency. Any Palestinian, certainly anyone politically or socially active, is subject to the use or threat of this unjust measure. Currently more than 1,000 Palestinians are detained under administrative detention, without charge or trial. Merely a determination by the commander, or whoever he has delegated this power, that a certain individual should be kept in detention—for up to six months, renewable indefinitely. This device has been used during interrogations. After a prisoner refuses to “confess,” he is  simply told that he can just be held indefinitely under administrative detention. Other prisoners who have served their sentence in full are often not released but continue to be incarcerated under administrative detention. The power over Palestinian lives that this device grants to Israeli authorities must be intoxicating, as it is almost unlimited.

To be sure, in typical Israeli fashion, a pseudo-legal procedure does exist, allowing one “to object” to their administrative detention before an Objections Committee. Anyone, however, who attempts to make such an objection will quickly realize it is a sham. This committee hears arguments and evidence in secret and in the absence of both the detainee making the objection as well as his or her attorney. It routinely rejects the objections it receives and “confirms” the decision of the military commanders. The whole process can be seen as a cross between a charade and a kangaroo court.

Khader, who had attempted the “objections” route, realized that going on a hunger strike as a nonviolent tactic was the only route open to him. He had become quite a warrior in this nonviolent battle. He fought several bouts, with lengthy hunger strikes five separate times. In 2012, he went on a hunger strike for 66 days; in 2015 for 56 days; in 2018 for 59 days; and in 2021 for 25 days, before his last strike. At one time, after a lengthy hunger strike, the Israeli authorities relented and promised not to renew his administrative detention so long as he suspended his hunger strike. He did so, and the army released him following the end of his period of detention. He was allowed to go to a Palestinian hospital, where he stayed long enough to gather his strength. Then, they reneged on their promise and issued a new administrative detention order.

When a prisoner goes on hunger strike, he does not wish to die but to live as a free person. He is  reclaiming his agency and humanity, willing to pay a heavy price for his  beliefs. When Khader’s health declined, he refused to accept medical attention in an Israeli jail until they agreed to a visit by an independent doctor, with a promise not to share his medical information with his jailors. The Israeli authorities refused and sent him back to his prison cell, where he was later found dead.

In his famous, “Man’s Search for Meaning,” psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, who was an inmate of the Nazi concentration camps, wrote that your oppressors can sometimes hold total power over you, but the one thing they cannot control, and which is totally within your power, is how you react to that oppression. Israelis can use all the power at their disposal, but they cannot control how one reacts. Khader Adnan chose to react nonviolently using the tactic of a hunger strike.

In a final, pathetic attempt to assert their power in this matter, the Israel authorities refused to release his body to his family for a decent burial. And, against his express wishes not to have an autopsy, they sent his body to the pathology institute of Abu Kabir.

The least we can do, as we mourn the death of this hero, is to work for an end to the brutal practice of administrative detention he died protesting. The battle after all is a moral and spiritual battle. Israel and its friends should be put to shame and pressured into ending this immoral practice. Even in South Africa under apartheid, such a practice was not permitted. We may not be able in the near future to end all injustice, or resolve all outstanding issues, but at the very least, we should work to end the inhuman practice of indefinite imprisonment without charges or trial.

Jonathan Kuttab

Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s decision on Jerusalem realigns Australia’s policy towards the Middle East to a position every prime minister until Scott Morrison and every US president until Donald Trump had studiously observed, at least publicly.
There were several reasons that generation after generation of Australian, American, European and Asian leaders accepted the status of Jerusalem should not be unilaterally decided by Israel – the main one being that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there are two sides.
And these two sides were both guaranteed new countries by the international community, through the United Nations. But on certain conditions.
Having lived for six years in Jerusalem – which I regard as the most interesting and mesmerising city in the world — I have heard every possible argument about what status it should have in any resolution to the conflict.
To give the ultimate prize – Jerusalem – to one side was seen by most countries as reducing the chance of a permanent peace agreement. One can imagine Israel’s reaction were the UN to have voted that East Jerusalem was the capital of Palestine.
Israel may well have said that the status of Jerusalem should not be decided until any final agreement.
Why a decision in Canberra is courting controversy 14,000km away
Jerusalem may be about 14,000 kilometres away from Canberra, but its “status” as the capital of Israel continues to court controversy. Here’s why.
Alternatively, by acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel most countries realised it would become harder to convince Israel to agree to end its occupation and form a Palestinian state, as was outlined by the UN in 1947. Which is why Australia did not do so until Scott Morrison and Dave Sharma, the former member for the seat of Wentworth in Sydney’s eastern suburbs, proposed the change.
There has been a noisy and angry response from Israel and some of its Australian supporters, to Penny Wong’s announcement. This is no surprise given the emotions Jerusalem evokes among Australia’s Jewish community.
According to the latest census, there are just under 100,000 Jews in Australia. This figure is generally believed to be under-reported with the actual number closer to 120,000. While many of the older members of the community support Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank, there is a younger generation who support a Palestinian state.
The New Israel Fund (NIF) of Australia, for example, is a centrist group which argues Israel can be “both the Jewish homeland and a democracy for all its citizens”. Its Executive Director Liam Getreu responded to Wong’s Jerusalem announcement on social media: “Great to have some mature, thoughtful policy and framing on Israel-Palestine.”
An NIF statement said: “The Australian Government is working as a balanced partner in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by forging policies which are more in line with our like-minded allies and partners around the world and support the advancement of a peaceful resolution… there is no way forward without realising the right to self-determination for both peoples.”
Leaking the decision before Cabinet formally agreed to it was messy.
But some of the arguments against the way the decision was handled were thin – one suggested it should not have been announced during an Israeli election campaign. Israel faces elections with great frequency. The current campaign will be the fifth in three years.
But what of the substance of the decision?
Firstly, the original decision of Donald Trump and Scott Morrison put their countries at odds with most countries around the world.
Wong and Anthony Albanese have restored Australia to a position held by the vast majority of members of the United Nations. The UN insists Jerusalem cannot be regarded as the capital of Israel until final negotiations.
In fact, the UN has specifically stipulated that any changes to the status of Jerusalem – until any final status agreement – are “null and void.”
I’ve had many discussions on these issues with some of those outraged by this week’s decision. Many of them scoff at the UN and international law.
One possible outcome considered by the UN is that under a permanent peace agreement West Jerusalem would be the capital of Israel, and East Jerusalem the capital of a future Palestinian state.
It was, of course, the United Nations which created Israel. Australia was in fact one of the leaders in the “partition plan” to divide what had been known as the British Mandate.
The daily impact of occupation
One thing I hadn’t fully understood before living in Jerusalem was the form this on-going conflict takes: Israel has a military occupation over the West Bank.
This means that more than 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank wake up each morning under military rule that they don’t want. While the Palestinian Authority has some jurisdiction over roads and schools, the ultimate authority over the people is the Israel Defence Force
The Israeli army can – and does – enter any Palestinian home at any time that it so chooses. Four Corners showed how how many Palestinian children from the age of 12 are taken away at night and denied the right to have a parent or lawyer present during interrogation. Often their parents do not know where they are for several weeks until they hear that a court date has been set for their child’s trial.
Yehuda Shaul is a former Israeli army commander in Hebron who founded the group Breaking the Silence which is working towards ending the occupation. He says storming into homes at night is designed to keep the Palestinian community on edge, never knowing when the army may enter their village or home.
More than 1000 former and current Israeli combat soldiers have now given testimony to Breaking the Silence about human rights abuses that either they themselves committed or witnessed.
The Israeli army’s official position is that homes are raided for security reasons.
The fact is that Israel continues, after 55 years, to enforce an occupation over the Palestinians in the West Bank – one of the longest occupations in history.
Having visited the West Bank many times, I came to see the daily reality of occupation.
Since 1967 when the occupation began more than 770,000 Palestinians – including children – have been detained and many prosecuted in Israel’s military court. I sat in this court and watched as children as young as 12 were brought in – often shackled in groups of four – and put on trial. Their judge was an Israeli soldier.
What struck me was that child after child pleaded guilty to the charges which were usually throwing stones at Israeli soldiers or settlers.
When I asked my Israeli army minder why the guilty rate was so high – they told me 99 per cent of the children pleaded guilty – he explained the children knew if they pleaded guilty they got the minimum sentence – three months in prison – under a plea deal.
The 1 per cent who contested the charges usually ended up remaining in jail for much longer until their trial was scheduled. They risked ending up serving eight or nine months, sometimes in an adult prison where they had little if any protection.
Over five decades Israel has set up two different laws which govern the same area.
The 600,000 or so Israeli settlers who have moved into the West Bank live under Israeli civilian law. The 3 million Palestinians in the area live under Israeli military law.
Israel has set up a permit system under which there are 101 permits which cover Palestinians. There are no permits required for Jewish residents.
The permits for the Palestinians includes those required to travel to the next town, a permit to go to work, a permit to attend a funeral, a permit to live in your own home.
Often the lives of Palestinians become tied up in a complicated bureaucratic maze as they attempt to renew these permits every six months.
Jerusalem remains complex
Before the status of Jerusalem is finalised, many things need to be decided.
Many commentators and lobbyists who have expressed outrage over Wong’s decision are ignoring the complexities of Jerusalem.
Most people who visit Jerusalem probably don’t realise that a large percentage of the Palestinians they walk past or buy souvenirs from in the Old City cannot vote in Israel’s national elections. An Israeli shopkeeper next door can vote, but the Palestinian cannot.
These Palestinians are known as “Jerusalemites” – there are 476,949 of them, according to a 2021 census accepted by both Palestinians and Israelis.
Jerusalemites were living in Jerusalem upon the formation of Israel but have never become Israeli citizens. They are waiting until the status of Jerusalem is decided – their rationale is that they don’t want to become Israeli citizens if that part of the city – East Jerusalem – becomes the capital of a state of Palestine. They are Palestinian and would rather be Palestinians than Israelis.
That is just one of the issues – a significant one affecting almost half-a-million people — that needs to be worked out before any final status of Jerusalem is decided.
It is that sort of layer of complexity which, one suspects, Scott Morrison did not consider when he decided to change Australia’s decades-old policy on Jerusalem.
In fact, despite angry noises from the Israeli government and some of its supporters in Australia, Jerusalem was singled out from day one for special status.
The website of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that on November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted on resolution 181 to adopt a plan to partition what was then called the British Mandate into two states – one Jewish and one Arab.
The website states – correctly — that under this plan the Jerusalem-Bethlehem region would be “an enclave under international administration.” There it is on Israel’s own official website – under the agreement on which Israel was established Jerusalem was to be “an enclave under international administration,” not the capital.
Jerusalem was given special status for several reasons.
These included that the three monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – all laid claim to Jerusalem having a special status.
“General Assembly Resolution 181 remains relevant even today,” says the website. “The resolution called for the establishment of two states for two peoples – Jewish and Arab – between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, each fulfilling the national aspirations of its respective populations. The formula remains Israel’s position with regards to peace negotiations. Then as now, a Palestinian state an only be established through compromise and mutual recognition.”
Beneath the angry words in reaction to this week’s announcement, Penny Wong’s position is consistent with Resolution 181 and the stated position on the official Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website – that any Palestinian state can only be established through compromise and mutual recognition.
And central to any such compromise is what happens to Jerusalem. Equally crucial is for Israel to agree to end its occupation of the West Bank and the Palestinian side to formally acknowledge the right of Israel to exist.
On the latter point, for any resolution the Palestinian leadership needs to convince the militant and political group Hamas, which controls Gaza, to abandon its opposition to Israel and its unforgivable policy to fire rockets into Israel – which are indiscriminate and hit civilian targets. Surely a war crime.
The incentive to negotiate peace must be protected
One of the reasons that the Trump and Morrison decision on Jerusalem provoked strong reactions was because it removed from the table one of the key points for possible negotiation.
Why would Israel negotiate when there’s nothing to be gained?
Israel already has have relative peace in the West Bank – the IDF is able to lock down the West Bank at short notice – and Israel has gained the land that the 600,000 settlers have taken.
One of the few things that would entice Israel back to the negotiating table is for the international community to recognise West Jerusalem as its capital. One of the few things that would entice the Palestinians back to the negotiating table is for the international community to recognise East Jerusalem as its capital.
So why forfeit the one thing that both sides want?
Many Middle East analysts argue that if the military occupation is ever to end then the status of Jerusalem is crucial.
What Trump and Morrison did was hand to Israel the thing they wanted more than anything – acknowledgment of Jerusalem as capital – without a single concession.
By doing this they damaged opportunities for a two-state solution and were, in effect, increasing the chances that these 3 million people and their children live under a permanent occupation.
The reality is that Israel needs incentives to agree to any change to the status quo.
As each year goes by, more Israeli settlers are moving into the West Bank taking over more land. Often the land where they establish a settlement is private Palestinian land.
Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
There is a strong reason why that this was put into the Geneva Convention. After World War 2 it was considered, correctly, that military occupations were temporary.
Israel often argues that it needs to occupy the West Bank for security reasons. This argument is challenged by a simple question: if the West Bank is dangerous why has Israel actively encouraged through tax and other incentives hundreds of thousands of its citizens to move into the West Bank and build schools, hospitals and homes?
Many people on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides tell me that a two-state solution is no longer viable. In fact some Palestinians were upset that in a recent book — Dateline Jerusalem – I argued for a two-state solution.
“That horse has bolted,” one said to me. “We are now going for a bi-national state.”
The view of many Palestinians is that given the Palestinian population is growing faster than the Jewish population eventually the demographics will be undeniable.
Yet many analysts as well as Israelis and Palestinians continue to believe a two-state solution is the only long-term solution for peace.
That’s why Scott Morrison’s decision to change policy was wrong – it changed a policy that had enjoyed bi-partisan support since 1947.
Australia had been a leader in supporting the 1947 UN resolution and yet here was an Australian Prime Minister joining Donald Trump in retreating from what analysts view as a crucial foundation for a lasting peace.
John Lyons is the ABC’s Global Affairs Editor and author of two books about Jerusalem, Balcony Over Jerusalem and Dateline Jerusalem. He was based in Jerusalem as The Australian newspaper’s Middle East Correspondent for six years.

Israel is holding nearly 800 Palestinians without trial or charge, the highest number since 2008, an Israeli rights group said Sunday.