Are these Palestinians really hunger striking?

[Derec]

So supposedly several Palestinian terrorists are on a supposed hunger strike, and six of them already striking anywhere between one and three months.
Palestinian prisoners hunger strike as tensions rise in Israeli prisons

But is this a real hunger strike? And by that I mean really zero calorie intake. This is the leaked photo of one of the hunger strikers (Muqdad Qawasmeh) who hasn't supposedly eaten anything for over 80 days.


He doesn't look like somebody who has not eaten anything for almost three months. The ribs are not sticking out nearly as much as you'd expect, and the face is not sunken in. I've seen skinnier looking people just walking around! I suspect he has been getting some nourishment over the recent months, either by sneaking Tortit bars or pizzas, but probably something more prosaic like a glucose IV drip.

Also, so many Palestinians are "hunger striking" for long periods of time (for example Ghadanfar Abu Atwan was released in June after 65 days of supposed hunger strike) without any of them dying when death becomes a real risk after about month and a half. Bobby Sands, a 70s/80s IRA terrorist died after 66 days of hunger strike for example. Statistically, some of these alleged strikers should have died if it was a real hunger strike.

 

[none]

So supposedly several Palestinian terrorists are on a supposed hunger strike, and six of them already striking anywhere between one and three months.
Palestinian prisoners hunger strike as tensions rise in Israeli prisons

But is this a real hunger strike? And by that I mean really zero calorie intake. This is the leaked photo of one of the hunger strikers (Muqdad Qawasmeh) who hasn't supposedly eaten anything for over 80 days.
View attachment 35671

He doesn't look like somebody who has not eaten anything for almost three months. The ribs are not sticking out nearly as much as you'd expect, and the face is not sunken in. I suspect he has been getting some nourishment over the recent months, either by sneaking Tortit bars or pizzas, but probably something more prosaic like a glucose IV drip.

Also, so many Palestinians are "hunger striking" for long periods of time (for example Ghadanfar Abu Atwan was released in June after 65 days of supposed hunger strike) without any of them dying when death becomes a real risk after about month and a half. Bobby Sands, a 70s/80s IRA terrorist died after 66 days of hunger strike for example. Statistically, some of these alleged strikers should have died if it was a real hunger strike.

Well he is northern Semitic afterall...

 

[Jayjay]

If the purpose of a hunger strike is to protest, it makes sense to try to stay alive as long as possible. After all, you can't protest if you're dead. It's not about proving who can last the longest without food.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the purpose of a hunger strike is to protest, it makes sense to try to stay alive as long as possible. After all, you can't protest if you're dead. It's not about proving who can last the longest without food.

But at that point is ceases to be a hunger strike.

 

[laughing dog]

Two observations.
There are different definitions of hunger strike. One is no food at all. Another allows for intervienous feeding.

More importantly, this hunger strike (or fasting strike if you like) really has no point. It will not shame the gov't of Israel or its rabid supporters to be more accommodating. And, most of the world is either not paying attention or they don't care. Without this OP, I would not known about it at all.

 

[Derec]

Well he is northern Semitic afterall...

Huh?

 

[Derec]

If the purpose of a hunger strike is to protest, it makes sense to try to stay alive as long as possible. After all, you can't protest if you're dead. It's not about proving who can last the longest without food.

I can follow that reasoning but the danger is that such a prolonged action may lead to fatigue among activists and the media. And Israeli prison authorities are not going to do anything until and unless there is imminent danger, which means they are prolonging their suffering for nothing.

Also, if you are cheating on a hunger strike isn't that then nothing but a crappy diet? Lose 30 kg in 90 days using the Fasfous Diet ...

 

[Derec]

Two observations.
There are different definitions of hunger strike. One is no food at all. Another allows for intervienous feeding.

Never heard of that second definition, but I'll take your word for it.

More importantly, this hunger strike (or fasting strike if you like) really has no point. It will not shame the gov't of Israel or its rabid supporters to be more accommodating.

Well, Israel has released hunger striking administrative detainees before, so they must be hoping for the same outcome. That's the six administrative detainees though. One of the terrorists who escaped from prison a month or so ago (and was recaptured not too long after) just started his "hunger strike" to protest increased restrictions on him after his escape attempt. Hey, prison breaks have consequences! And now some of his Islamic Jihad brethren want to join him. Should be interesting.

And, most of the world is either not paying attention or they don't care. Without this OP, I would not known about it at all.

You are welcome I guess.

 

[Derec]

Two week update. One of the strikers, Miqdad, is finally starting to look like he is starving.


He is not the one doing the strike the longest though. Kayed Fasfous has him beat by a week, but he is not in as bad straits, because he was swole before the "hunger strike" and thus has more protein for his body to break down for amino acids.

Things seem to be getting critical at least for Miqdad, and he may be force fed. Force feeding is legal under Israeli law but frowned upon by the international community. One also has to be careful when force-feeding (or even when giving food after a hunger strike) because of the  refeeding syndrome.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Two observations.
There are different definitions of hunger strike. One is no food at all. Another allows for intervienous feeding.

More importantly, this hunger strike (or fasting strike if you like) really has no point. It will not shame the gov't of Israel or its rabid supporters to be more accommodating. And, most of the world is either not paying attention or they don't care. Without this OP, I would not known about it at all.

That all seems true.

A hunger strike is determined to be a hunger strike because the persons doing the strike are refusing to eat. If there happens to be a government forcing them to be intravenously fed nutrients, it doesn't negate that they are hunger striking, but it does prolong the strike and make it less effective. At some point, probably months into it, it would be very dangerous for the strikers.

As far as how this is all publicized, I agree, as I only heard about this from the op, too. I'm not sure what the point of it is, if only some right-wing email groups are learning about it and they're learning it is a hoax.

 

[Politesse]

So supposedly several Palestinian terrorists are on a supposed hunger strike, and six of them already striking anywhere between one and three months.
Palestinian prisoners hunger strike as tensions rise in Israeli prisons

But is this a real hunger strike? And by that I mean really zero calorie intake. This is the leaked photo of one of the hunger strikers (Muqdad Qawasmeh) who hasn't supposedly eaten anything for over 80 days.
View attachment 35671

He doesn't look like somebody who has not eaten anything for almost three months. The ribs are not sticking out nearly as much as you'd expect, and the face is not sunken in. I've seen skinnier looking people just walking around! I suspect he has been getting some nourishment over the recent months, either by sneaking Tortit bars or pizzas, but probably something more prosaic like a glucose IV drip.

Also, so many Palestinians are "hunger striking" for long periods of time (for example Ghadanfar Abu Atwan was released in June after 65 days of supposed hunger strike) without any of them dying when death becomes a real risk after about month and a half. Bobby Sands, a 70s/80s IRA terrorist died after 66 days of hunger strike for example. Statistically, some of these alleged strikers should have died if it was a real hunger strike.

I hope, someday, that you have the instructive experience of being treated as you treat others. Just for a little while.

 

[Derec]

I hope, someday, that you have the instructive experience of being treated as you treat others. Just for a little while.

How am I treating others? Note: I did not make these six starve themselves.

 

[Derec]

A hunger strike is determined to be a hunger strike because the persons doing the strike are refusing to eat.

And, I would say, refuses to take anything with a caloric value to be a true hunger strike.

If there happens to be a government forcing them to be intravenously fed nutrients, it doesn't negate that they are hunger striking, but it does prolong the strike and make it less effective.

I agree that being force-fed would not negate it being a hunger strike. But voluntarily taking sugar-water is cheating in my opinion and that's what Palestinian hunger strikers are doing, which is why they can last 100 days or more. Now, an all-sugar diet is not sustainable as it lacks protein, so the body will still break down muscle for amino acids, but at least it does not have to break down muscle for energy as well, so the wasting process is significantly slowed down.

At some point, probably months into it, it would be very dangerous for the strikers.

Force feeding (which is not done with these hunger strikers currently, but might in near future to avoid them dying) can be sustainable if done properly.

As far as how this is all publicized, I agree, as I only heard about this from the op, too. I'm not sure what the point of it is, if only some right-wing email groups are learning about it and they're learning it is a hoax.

What "right-wing email groups"? I found about it from pro-Palestinian media. Gotta keep current on the enemies, after all.
As far as it being "hoax", it is not exactly. But they are still cheating with sugar ...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A hunger strike is determined to be a hunger strike because the persons doing the strike are refusing to eat.

And, I would say, refuses to take anything with a caloric value to be a true hunger strike.

A hunger strike would be a strike that is making one hungry, depriving the body and creating a sacrifice. A caloric strike would be one depriving of calories, but it wouldn't still have to be all calories. You are applying a special stringency that is unnecessary to the definition. For example, see Merriam Webster:
": refusal (as by a prisoner) to eat enough to sustain life"

So, as an example of this definition, if a person is eating 12 crackers every morning and nothing else during the day by intent, then their behavior can be characterized as a refusal and their diet can be characterized as inadequate, thus meeting this definition. Obviously, there is some other component here as well, such as a political nature of the motivations. Otherwise, we'd call anorexics hunger strikers, too.

If there happens to be a government forcing them to be intravenously fed nutrients, it doesn't negate that they are hunger striking, but it does prolong the strike and make it less effective.

I agree that being force-fed would not negate it being a hunger strike. But voluntarily taking sugar-water is cheating in my opinion and that's what Palestinian hunger strikers are doing, which is why they can last 100 days or more. Now, an all-sugar diet is not sustainable as it lacks protein, so the body will still break down muscle for amino acids, but at least it does not have to break down muscle for energy as well, so the wasting process is significantly slowed down.

Yet, it is still a refusal for political reasons and it is still inadequate which makes it a hunger strike.

Look, Derec, we all understand that these aren't nice people and they are not trustworthy and moreover that you have disdain for Muslims, but that doesn't mean you have to engage in semantic quibbling over things that just don't matter. What matters is really the nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict and how to resolve it, rather than whether you want to call this a hunger strike or slow death by sugar water.

By analogy this is like having a discussion about the Anglo-Irish conflicts in which the IRA in 1978 smeared feces all over prison walls and you're sitting there saying, "Nope, that's not feces smearing. You have to smear the WHOLE shit on the wall for it to be feces smearing. If you're just smearing some of it, then that's not true feces smearing. Plus, it's not as effective and takes longer if you don't use the whole shit."

I mean, what the fuck, Derec.

At some point, probably months into it, it would be very dangerous for the strikers.

Force feeding (which is not done with these hunger strikers currently, but might in near future to avoid them dying) can be sustainable if done properly.

As far as how this is all publicized, I agree, as I only heard about this from the op, too. I'm not sure what the point of it is, if only some right-wing email groups are learning about it and they're learning it is a hoax.

What "right-wing email groups"? I found about it from pro-Palestinian media. Gotta keep current on the enemies, after all.
As far as it being "hoax", it is not exactly. But they are still cheating with sugar ...

It really isn't good for your mind to get excited about the semantics involved in this.