A Study on the Policy of Solitary Confinement in Israeli Prisons
Wednesday, August 2, 2023
Prepared by Prisoner Shadi Al-Sharfa, for the Handala Center for Prisoners and Released Prisoners
Humans inherently thrive in social environments, and isolating an individual from their social surroundings—particularly when that individual is a prisoner—amounts to an attempt to strip them of their humanity. The Israeli security apparatus has long employed the policy of solitary confinement against Palestinian prisoners, making it one of the oldest and most entrenched practices in the occupation's incarceration system. Hundreds of Palestinian detainees have suffered under this policy for varying periods, some for decades. This has prompted the Palestinian prisoners’ movement to prioritize resisting this policy, achieving notable success over time.
The Israeli Prison Service's (IPS) policy on solitary confinement stipulates:
"The placement of a prisoner in solitary confinement is a preventive measure, not a punitive one, and the prisoner’s rights remain equivalent to those of other prisoners under the conditions of solitary confinement."
This provision, codified by Israeli law with the approval of the Knesset in 1971, presents a stark contrast to the reality within prisons. In practice, the IPS employs solitary confinement primarily as a tool for punishment and retribution.
Decades of observing this policy reveal a systematic use of solitary confinement as a punitive measure, especially targeting political prisoners. It involves denying prisoners their most basic human rights, subjecting them to harsher conditions than other inmates, and imposing an environment of psychological torment. This includes isolating them from any social interaction, which in some cases amounts to torture or even intentional killing, as evidenced by the case of martyr Ibrahim Al-Ra’i in the late 1980s.
Solitary confinement dehumanizes the prisoner, representing an affront to their dignity and identity. Such measures are inherently inhumane, regardless of the pretexts provided by security authorities. Preventing a prisoner from interacting with others or participating in social life constitutes a form of torture in and of itself.
The authority to recommend solitary confinement lies with two entities:
Approval for solitary confinement extending beyond six months requires a judicial decision from administrative courts. Prisoners appear before a judge, and the Shin Bet or IPS, or both, submit reports—often classified—recommending confinement for three, six, or twelve months. Courts typically accept these recommendations, as they serve merely as formalities within a legal framework heavily influenced by security agencies. Ending solitary confinement generally requires hunger strikes and collective efforts by the prisoners’ movement, which does not rely on the Israeli judiciary, seen as complicit in the policy.
Solitary confinement, a longstanding tactic of the occupation, takes several forms, including individual and group isolation, depending on the circumstances and recommendations of the detaining authority. The most severe form is individual isolation, aimed at breaking the prisoner’s spirit and will.
This involves placing a prisoner alone or with one other inmate for a renewable period ranging from one month to a year. Central prisons across Israel, including Ramla, Shikma (Ashkelon), Nafha, Ramon, Eshel, and others, contain solitary confinement sections. Cells typically accommodate up to two prisoners, while sections house four to eight prisoners.
Prisoners subjected to solitary confinement include:
The Shin Bet often submits classified information to courts, inaccessible to defense lawyers, justifying prolonged solitary confinement under dubious or fabricated pretexts.
The IPS and security agencies isolate key figures within the prisoners’ movement due to their leadership roles and influence. These individuals face extended solitary confinement under harsh conditions. Notable examples include:
Solitary confinement often serves as retaliation against influential or prominent prisoners. Examples include:
Arab prisoners, especially those from Lebanese or Syrian resistance movements, face harsh isolation conditions. Examples include Mustafa Dirani and Abdul Karim Obeid (members of Hezbollah), who endured prolonged isolation until their release in a 2004 prisoner exchange.
Israeli security agencies strictly prevent any interaction between Jewish political prisoners and Palestinian prisoners. Jewish prisoners are often placed in separate sections, as in the case of Mordechai Vanunu, who leaked nuclear information to The Guardian and spent his entire 18-year sentence in solitary confinement, mostly in Shikma Prison in Ashkelon. Similar treatment was given to Klim Berko, accused of biological espionage, and Vanunu, a former Mossad operative and businessman who fell out with the Mossad and conducted trade deals with Iran. Additionally, a Circassian spy and an Israeli soldier accused of espionage (later acquitted) endured harsh isolation. All these individuals lived in severe solitary conditions, isolated from the outside world and other prisoners.
Foreigners who fought alongside Palestinian resistance also faced solitary confinement. One notable case is Kozo Okamoto, a Japanese operative who carried out an attack at Lod Airport in 1972 on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Okamoto endured inhumane and brutal conditions in solitary confinement at Ramla Prison, suffering from severe psychological issues due to isolation. Despite this, Israeli security services denied him relief. He was released in a 1985 prisoner exchange that freed 1,150 Palestinian and Arab prisoners in return for three Israeli soldiers captured during the Lebanon war.
Another prominent case of prolonged solitary confinement involved Adolf Eichmann, the German Nazi leader accused of orchestrating the Holocaust. He was held in isolation until his execution following a court ruling. More recently, a few foreign prisoners accused of collaborating with Hezbollah or Iran for espionage purposes remain isolated.
Israeli security agencies have long denied the existence of secret solitary confinement facilities. However, historical accounts and testimonies from released prisoners confirm otherwise. Some prisoners reported being held in secret underground locations or near coastal areas, possibly in Haifa. Israeli media has also disclosed such facilities, notably Facility 471, managed by military intelligence (Aman). These sites include interrogation and torture chambers alongside solitary confinement cells.
Secret solitary confinement can be categorized as follows:
Certain prisoners are isolated for their protection. These include:
Many prisoners with severe mental illnesses are placed in isolation because they pose risks to other inmates and guards or cannot integrate into regular sections. However, instead of receiving psychological care, these prisoners are heavily sedated with psychotropic medications, often exacerbating their conditions.
Detainees may be held in solitary confinement for over three months during interrogation. They only interact with interrogators, enduring psychological and physical torture. Extensions are approved through judicial rulings, often based on requests from the Shin Bet. In some cases, detainees may only see their defense lawyers weeks after their detention.
Group solitary confinement involves isolating several prisoners in specific sections while allowing limited interaction among themselves. This can occur under varying conditions, as detailed below:
After the Oslo Accords, the Israeli government excluded members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad from prisoner releases. These prisoners were initially isolated in a section at Hadarim Prison in the late 1990s but were later integrated with prisoners from other factions.
In the 1970s, Jerusalemite and Israeli-Palestinian prisoners were isolated at Ramla Prison but were later merged with others. In 1999, a section at Shata Prison was dedicated to prisoners with Israeli citizenship, including Jerusalemites and Golan Heights detainees, as part of a strategy to exclude them from political prisoner releases.
After Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007, Israeli authorities exploited the division to segregate Hamas prisoners from others. Some prisons complied, while others resisted. Currently, most Hamas prisoners remain in designated sections.
Administrative detainees are occasionally isolated individually or in groups. However, due to a lack of sufficient facilities, they are often housed alongside other prisoners in Megiddo, Ofer, and Negev prisons.
The living conditions of isolated prisoners depend on the type of confinement (individual or group) and the political climate. Generally, solitary prisoners are confined to small cells, allowed one hour of daily outdoor exercise, often alone and in shackles. They are denied privileges like access to fresh food and often endure invasive surveillance, including cameras in bathrooms. Family visits and communication with the outside world are heavily restricted under the pretext of "security concerns."
Prisoners are frequently moved between isolation facilities to prevent stability and build pressure. Abuse by guards is common, with documented cases of physical assaults and even assassinations of high-profile prisoners, such as Ibrahim Al-Ra’i, a military leader killed in the late 1980s.
Some prisoners were released from solitary confinement by Israeli security agencies after several months, while a few others were released by court orders after exhausting the maximum allowable period of isolation, provided there was no objection from the security agencies. However, the vast majority of isolated prisoners were released through the pressure exerted by other political prisoners, either through persistent demands or open hunger strikes. The Palestinian prisoners' movement has conducted numerous hunger strikes that successfully ended the isolation of many prisoners. This readiness of the prisoners' movement to wage hunger strikes for the release of isolated prisoners reflects a profound awareness of the severity and danger of solitary confinement, the necessity of its termination, and the disregard of international human rights organizations for these crimes.
Here are some notable hunger strikes that have successfully ended solitary confinement throughout the history of the prisoners' movement:
1970 Strike in Central Prisons (Ashkelon):
This strike demanded better living conditions and the end of isolation. It addressed the poor conditions faced by all prisoners.
1980 Strike:
Focused on improving the conditions of isolated prisoners in Nafha Prison, where the collective cells housed 80 prisoners. The strike succeeded in ending isolation and improving the specific conditions in Nafha. It saw participation from 400 prisoners in Beersheba, 400 in Ashkelon, 50 in Ramla, and about 100 in Kfar Yona, totaling approximately 1,000 prisoners.
1984 Strike in Central Prisons:
This strike improved the general conditions of prisoners and contributed to ending isolation for several detainees.
1992 "Knights of Freedom" Strike:
This strike in central prisons successfully ended the isolation of all 33 isolated prisoners at the time and significantly improved the general conditions for all prisoners.
March 27, 1987 Strike:
Protested the abolition of prisoner representation and mistreatment. Lasting 20 days, it resulted in the dismissal of the prison director and achieved various gains.
1995 Strike:
Initially a political strike that turned into one with broader demands, it succeeded in releasing four isolated prisoners.
2000 Strike:
This strike managed to end the isolation of all prisoners held in solitary confinement at the time.
2012 Strike:
Successfully freed 21 of the 23 isolated prisoners, with the remaining two (Awad Al-Saeedi and Dirar Al-Sisi) later released. Among those freed were prominent leaders such as Ahmed Sa’adat, Secretary-General of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and Ahed Abu Ghoulmeh.
Without the support of the broader prisoners' movement and its repeated strikes, isolated prisoners would likely have remained in solitary confinement until the end of their sentences. Experience has shown that courts are complicit with security agencies in issues of isolation, as they are in all other matters. These achievements highlight the critical role of collective efforts and resistance in overcoming the oppressive policies of solitary confinement.