How should the government handle the Palestine Action hunger strikers?

A third Palestine Action prisoner on hunger strike has now ended their protest. Qesser Zuhrah, one of the first to take part in the action, which began on 2 November, has decided not to continue, leaving five of the original eight still refusing to eat either completely or intermittently.

Amy Gardiner-Gibson (also known as Amu Gib), Heba Muraisi, Teuta Hoxha and Kamran Ahmad have reportedly been refusing food for between 42 and 49 days; because of diabetes, Lewie Chiaramello has only been eating every other day. Gib and Zuhrah are in hospital. All are aged between 20 and 31, and all are due to stand trial in 2026 or 2027.

On Tuesday, climate activist Greta Thunberg was arrested in central London at a demonstration in support of Palestine Action. In a video shared by Prisoners for Palestine, the 22-year-old can be seen holding a sign: “I support the Palestine Action prisoners. I oppose genocide.” The group targeted the offices of Aspen Insurance, saying it provides services to Israel-linked defence firm Elbit Systems.

Demands include immediate bail; a fair trial (they say authorities must release “unredacted correspondence about activists between British and Israeli officials and arms dealers”); unbanning Palestine Action; and the closure of UK factories “that are supplying arms to Israel”. They also claim that prison officers have been denying them mail, calls and books.

The closure of private businesses, a change in the government’s stance, and a vote in parliament lifting the ban on Palestine Action are particularly difficult to achieve, because they are matters of policy. Palestine Action was proscribed as a terrorist organisation and banned by the government last July. To reverse that now, simply because of a prisoner protest, would be a considerable blow to the authority of the government. Closing defence factories would probably be even more difficult.

In any case, granting bail is not up to David Lammy; the judiciary is supposed to be independent.

Guidelines operated by HM Prisons and the NHS suggest that doctors should supervise decisions taken about the medical treatment of hunger strikers. Force-feeding or using a drip isn’t a readily available option under the guidance, as it requires consent, but perhaps it could be if the prisoners lacked the mental capacity to make a decision.

The group’s lawyers have asked for talks with Lammy, which he has refused. They have warned him that they will ask the High Court for a judicial review if he continues to refuse. The Ministry of Justice says Lammy “has responded to and will continue to respond to correspondence on this issue, and is being kept informed of the situation”.

It is possible, and relatively soon, depending on how the authorities decide to care for them. The hunger strikers’ lawyers say: “We are concerned that, should this situation be allowed to continue without resolution, there is the real and increasingly likely potential that young British citizens will die in prison, having never even been convicted of an offence.”

The consequences of martyrdom can be grievous indeed, including the kind of wider violence that the proscription of Palestine Action was supposed to stop.

It is difficult for him to reverse counterterrorism policy or end all arms sales to Israel. The last time there was a major campaign involving hunger strikes was when IRA prisoners demanded political status in the 1970s and 80s. This episode included the death in 1981 of republican hero Bobby Sands, who had by then also been elected an MP in his absence at a by-election; his case led to a huge upsurge in violence.

Those strikes ended when the families intervened and requested the authorities to save the prisoners’ lives, while the British government made symbolic concessions to their “special status”.

Another precedent Lammy could look to is that of the suffragettes who were starving themselves to death in the early 20th century in order to secure votes for women. Force-feeding them through a tube was a deeply humiliating tactic that shocked the public.

In response, the then Liberal government passed the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act 1913, allowing the home secretary to temporarily release any prisoner morbidly weakened by hunger strike; it meant the government could not be blamed if the prisoner died at home, but the prisoner could be re-arrested and returned to jail if they recovered.

This was likened to the way that a cat will allow its prey to “escape” before catching it again, and the law became known as the “Cat and Mouse Act”. However, this solution incentivises all kinds of prisoners to starve themselves to freedom in the hope of evading subsequent recapture. It’s probably not what Keir Starmer and Lammy went into politics to do.