Attorney Omar Khamaisi
Invoking the suffering of prisoners cannot be limited to recalling numbers and facts; it must extend to deconstructing the legal and political structures that produce and reproduce this suffering. At the core of these structures stands administrative detention as one of the most severe and dangerous tools—not only because it deprives individuals of their liberty, but because it does so outside the framework of justice, in the name of the law itself.
Palestinian Prisoners’ Day, marked on April 17, comes amid an unprecedented rise in the number of detainees and violations against them. By early April 2026, the number of prisoners had exceeded 9,600, including children, women, and administrative detainees held without trial. The number of administrative detainees alone reached approximately 3,532—the highest proportion among all categories. Meanwhile, detention conditions continue to deteriorate to levels lacking the most basic standards of life, with ongoing practices of starvation, medical neglect, isolation, and abuse, resulting in the deaths of around 323 prisoners since 1967, including more than 100 since October 2023.
Administrative detention has long been tied to the Israeli political–security context since 1967 and has been used almost exclusively against Palestinians in the occupied territories. However, recent developments signal its extension to Palestinian citizens within the 1948 territories, revealing the erosion of what had been presented as “guarantees” of citizenship.
This shift unfolds within a broader context in which policies of control are intensified and reconfigured through legal instruments that lend them an appearance of legitimacy. By definition, administrative detention allows for the incarceration of individuals without charge and without trial, based on “secret files” that neither the detainee nor their legal counsel can access. This transforms judicial proceedings into a mere formality, lacking even the minimum standards of justice, and effectively empties the concept of the “rule of law” of its substance.
In light of this, administrative detention no longer appears as a temporary measure used in emergencies, but rather as a systematic tool increasingly employed to regulate and control Palestinian society. Data indicates an unprecedented escalation in its use, particularly after October 7, 2023, where it has expanded beyond alleged “acts” to include “intentions” or “thoughts” that may be interpreted as security threats.
In practice, this process often begins with a short-term arrest based on specific suspicions. When authorities fail to gather sufficient evidence to file charges, they resort to administrative detention, which is issued by order of the Minister of Defense and subsequently approved by the courts at an almost absolute rate. It thus becomes a de facto substitute for the normal criminal process, rather than an exceptional measure.
The figures confirm this trajectory. From the beginning of 2020 until May 21, 2025, 560 administrative detention cases were brought before district courts against citizens and residents (from within Israel and occupied Jerusalem). During this period, at least 175 appeals were submitted to the Supreme Court, the overwhelming majority of which were rejected. Since the outbreak of the war on Gaza, this trend has accelerated significantly, with 297 cases processed in a short time—an indication of the unprecedented expansion of this tool. At the time of writing, the number of administrative detainees among Palestinian citizens is estimated at around 100.
The danger of this transformation lies in the redefinition of “threat,” such that the scope expands to criminalize expression, online activity, or even communication on social media platforms. The digital sphere thus becomes a source of suspicion upon which decisions to deprive individuals of their liberty are based.
More troubling still is that this trajectory entrenches a clear legal duality: these measures are applied almost exclusively against Palestinians, while explicit incitement within Jewish society—sometimes reaching open calls for violence and killing—is often overlooked and not met with comparable measures. This duality does not merely reflect a flaw in application; it reveals a legal structure governed by a discriminatory logic, in which Palestinians are kept under constant suspicion. The presumption of innocence is replaced by a presumption of suspicion, and identity takes precedence over evidence.
Procedurally, administrative detention orders are issued for periods of up to six months, renewable indefinitely. In practice, this turns them into open-ended detention that can extend for years without charge. Given the limited scope for appeal and the rejection of most petitions, the judiciary becomes part of this system rather than a mechanism of oversight.
This reality evokes features of the military rule imposed on Palestinians within Israel until 1966, albeit with different tools and designations. The continued reliance on emergency laws to justify detention without trial reflects continuity in approach more than a break from it.
The implications of administrative detention do not stop at the deprivation of personal liberty; they extend to a range of repressive measures that begin once a detainee is classified under a “security file,” including restrictions on visits, limitations on the entry of basic necessities, and obstruction of legal counsel. While such conditions existed in previous years, current indicators point to a dangerous escalation in severity and violations.
Ultimately, the expansion of administrative detention within the Palestinian interior carries serious implications, as it shifts this measure from the realm of exception to that of norm, amid the declining role of the judiciary as a supervisory authority. At its core, this trajectory reflects a failure of the legal system, where the criminal process based on evidence is replaced by exceptional measures that legitimize the deprivation of liberty without accountability.
This is not merely a procedural issue; it reveals a structure of power that treats Palestinians as a permanent subject of suspicion, thereby justifying the expansion of control mechanisms at the expense of fundamental rights. Accordingly, limiting this policy requires restoring the primacy of fair trial guarantees, imposing real constraints on the use of administrative detention, strengthening independent judicial oversight, and activating mechanisms of legal accountability. The protection of the right to liberty remains a fundamental criterion for any system that claims to uphold the rule of law.
