José Manuel Aznar works as a legal consultant in Spain. He holds an LL.M in International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights from the Geneva Academy.
On Wednesday 20, August 2025, the Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir shared through his telegram channel a video portraying himself in front of a poster showing the destruction of the Gaza Strip, with the following caption: ‘The Israel Prison Service placed photos of destroyed Gaza in the terrorists’ wings — so they understand that you don’t mess with the people of Israel!’. The pictures appear to have been hanged in an Israeli prison hall, which Palestinian prisoners are forced to see every day on their way to their daily courtyard time (see media reports here, here, and here, and the video with subtitles here).
As of August 2025, the Palestinian Prison Society reported a total of 10.800 imprisoned Palestinians, amongst which women and children are found (see, briefing in Arabic). These numbers are echoed by data provided by the IPS and published by Hamoked, an Israeli human rights NGO.
This is not the first time that Palestinian detainees have been showed images of the Gaza Strip. In the ceasefire achieved during the first months of 2025, Palestinian prisoners to be released in exchange for Israeli hostages were showed a video depicting the scale of destruction of Gaza before their release (see, here, here and here).
The goal of this blogpost is to focus on the legality of an apparently inconsequential measure, aiming to showcase that even actions that are not of a physical nature, but which are intended to have a psychological effect are at odds with applicable rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL).
The legality of the measures under International Humanitarian Law.
The classification of the ongoing armed conflict in the territory of Israel and Palestine has sparked ardent debate (see, for example, here, here and here). However, for the purpose of this blogpost, it is not necessary to entertain such a difficult issue, since it is (almost) undisputed that Israel is occupying the entirety or parts of Palestinian territories (ICJ Palestine AO, §§87, 94). As such, Israel is bound by the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV), to which it is a party, and the corresponding customary IHL (CIHL) obligations (ICJ Palestine AO, §96).
Under said convention (and arguably under CIHL), Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons enjoy the status of protected person (Art. 4 GC IV) and as such benefit from the rights of outlined in Part II and Part III of the GC IV and the corresponding rights under CIHL.
Some may cast doubt about the inclusion in the “protected persons” category of members of a Palestinian armed group, or so-called “unlawful combatants” (which under Israeli are defined in broad terms, including persons with only political ties, see here for a critical approach). However, there is no legal basis for the exclusion of such individuals from the protections of GC IV (Pictet, 51). In fact, the category of “unlawful combatant” does not find any legal support (A/HRC/6/17/Add.4). Instead under IHL, a person under the power of a party to the conflict to which is not a national must either be given the status of a prisoner of war, member of medical personnel, or civilian, thus entitled to the status of protected person (Sassòli, 8.116, ICTY Delalić, 271).
Consequently, under IHL, imprisoned Palestinians, whether convicted or pending trial, or interned for security reasons must be respected, and at all times be humanely treated, protected from ill-treatment, torture and acts of violence. (Arts. 27, 32, and 37(1) GC IV, Rules 87, 90). These provisions do not only address a prisoner’s physical well-being, but also protect the prisoner’s mental integrity against any act of wanton violence (see the Commentary of Art. 13 GC III, with identical wording, §1618-9, IACtHR Loayza Tamayo case, §57).
Before getting into the analysis, it is important to note that no derogation from the aforementioned rights is permissible (Art. 5(2) GC IV) and it is hard to conceive how the measures discussed could be justified for Israel’s security, since it appears that their primary purpose is to increase Palestinian’s mental suffering and coerce them to abandon their support for armed resistance (or even their pretentions of self-determination).
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) ruled that forcing individuals to witness the mistreatment inflicted on relatives (ICTY Kvočka, §149), or sexual attacks on a female acquaintance (ICTY Furundžija, §267), amounted to torture for the forced observer. One might argue that there is a qualitative difference between the acts described and the ones being analysed, although one must not forget the broader context in which the measures have been adopted. The UN, multiple human rights organizations and news outlets have qualified the systematic abuse against Palestinian detainees, attacks against their physical and mental health, as well as dire inhuman conditions of detention, including severely limited access to food and medicine, as torture (see, among many, the OHCHR, B’Tselem, Addameer, Save the Children, CNN, NYTimes). Within this context, the display of Gaza’s destruction adds another layer to the misery of Palestinian detainees, against the prohibition of torture.
Nevertheless, forcefully making Palestinians witness the ruination of the Gaza Strip, in and of itself, is hardly reconcilable with the prohibition of humiliating and degrading treatment, and the broader prohibition against acts of violence.
One must be mindful that most of Palestinian detainees were detained before the outbreak of hostilities on October 7th, 2023, or shortly thereafter. Given the limited access to information (and even to legal counsel and access to court, see A/78/502, §§19-21), they are largely unaware of the destructive scale of the war and the extent of damage caused, as well as the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones.
Several mental health problems have been associated with the loss of the family house during peacetime. Arguably, similar effects will occur if prisoners are made aware of their loss during the course of the war. More broadly, witnessing the destruction of what once was a vibrant and lively neighbourhood or city can cause deep emotional distress and lasting psychological harm, severely affecting Palestinians with ties to Gaza.
This psychological burden is further compounded by the loss of family links and the lack of access to information about their loved ones: the images of one’s house reduced to rubble is accompanied by the anguish of uncertainty as to their relatives’ fate. Taken together, these measures arguably amount to a violation of the dignity of Palestinian prisoners.
Even if the set-up had been adopted as a disciplinary measure and, in arguendo, all procedural requirements were followed, it would still be hard to reconcile with the prohibition to impose disciplinary measures involving moral victimization (Art. 100 GC IV).
Furthermore, the measure analysed is at odds with the prohibition of collective punishment (Art. 33 GC IV, Rule 103), as it appears to be directed to all Palestinian prisoners without distinction and regardless whether they had participated in any kind of hostile act against Israel.
The legality of the measures under International Human Rights Law.
Briefly, forcing Palestinian prisoners to witness the destruction of Gaza also runs against Israel’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which it is a party.
It must be recalled that IHRL does not cease to apply during armed conflict (Wall Advisory opinion, §106, HRCttee GC 31, §11). Furthermore, Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons are undoubtedly within Israel’s jurisdiction and therefore all under the scope of the ICCPR. Questions of extraterritorial application of human rights, often contested by Israel, do not arise in this case, since the individuals concerned are located within Israeli territory. Moreover, any suggestion that Palestinians under Israeli power would be excluded from the protection of the ICCPR given their different race or origin would constitute a prohibited discrimination under Art. 26 of the Covenant.
For the reasons explained above, the measures are incompatible with the prohibition of causing torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Art. 7 ICCPR) and the obligation to treat prisoners with humanity and with respect to their dignity (Art. 10 ICCPR). Forcing detained Palestinians to witness the destruction of their land, and even of their homes, and to live with uncertainty about the deaths of their relatives and friends, subjects them to an additional layer of suffering not inherent to detention itself (whose legal basis is, in some cases, itself debatable). This reasoning has been consistently applied by the European Court of Human Rights when determining violations of Art. 3 of the European Convention (e.g. here, §227-8; here, §99).
Concluding Thoughts
Forcing Palestinian detainees, whether they are civilians or members of an armed group, to witness daily the rubble of the Gaza Strip is, in and of itself, incompatible with Israel’s obligations under IHL and IHRL. The violation is only aggravated when viewed in the broader context in which it has been adopted. The fulfilment of IHL obligations is not reciprocal. No matter the gravity of the violations committed by the other party to the conflict (if any), every individual, without distinction, remains entitled to human treatment.
Israeli authorities should take down the posters and avoid reproducing similar measures in other prisons. In the end, it is only by upholding the inherent dignity of every person and reaffirming our shared humanity that we may hope to end the seemingly endless cycle of violence and hatred.
