There are several ways to describe someone held against their will, each with its own implications. The word “prisoner” suggests someone detained on suspicion of crimes or captured during times of war. “Hostage,” on the other hand, signifies a civilian held against their will.
Since the start of Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, corporate media outlets in the U.S. typically describe Israeli captives as “hostages,” even if they are soldiers, and Palestinian captives as “prisoners,” even if they are children.
American news outlets on Monday referred to Alexander as “the last living American hostage” in Hamas custody. Anchors and analysts alike made little to no mention of his service with the IDF, instead grouping him with civilians who were also taken by Hamas.
For Omar Baddar, a Palestinian American political analyst who was previously with the Institute for Middle East Understanding, the news coverage of Alexander is a perfect example of “anti-Palestinian bias” within media. Many outlets failed to mention crucial context, Baddar said, such as “his active membership in a foreign military at the time of his capture, and more precisely the Israeli occupation army that was enforcing the illegal blockade on Gaza” even before October 7.
Hamas’s negotiating tactics make the term hostage applicable, even for soldiers.
The real question is whether Palestinians held by Israel should be called hostages. I would argue yes but they aren’t as open about the threats to them and their use as pawns in negotiations.
You would argue that children kidnapped by Israel should be called prisoners and active duty soldiers guarding a concentration camp should be called hostages?
No? Maybe you should read again.
Hostages are defined by their usage as pawns by their captors. Whether they are soldiers, children, or guinea pigs has little relevance to that.
Also, I would add that imprisoning people is almost always wrong, so the distinction between hostage and prisoner isn’t as morally significant as mainstream society believes.
It has a lot of relevance to it because it is what defines whether they are hostages or PoW’s.
A hostage is when someone is taken captive without valid reason. Which is what Israel does.
That’s absolutely not what the word hostage means. A hostage is a prisoner used as a bargaining chip. The validity of the action has no bearing on it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hostage
We’re arguing against emotions, not reason. Hostages and prisoners aren’t exclusive groups. Both are fucked up.
Hamas captures these people because they are soldiers. Working in the division which is responsible for the starvation of Gaza. That is an entirely different reason.
In virtually every conflict soldiers are captured and traded for soldiers of the other party or other diplomatic goals. Using this term for soldiers would make it so every PoW becomes a hostage and the term loses all meaning.
Next thing you know people are getting “kidnapped from tanks”
It’s entirely possible to use POWs as hostages. They aren’t mutually exclusive categories. One has to look at the statements and behavior of the actors involved to assess their motivations. Is it merely to reduce enemy fighting forces or are they also used as leverage? Hamas’s actions and statements make it clear in this case that they are hostages.
Of course, Hamas also took non-combatants hostage so I don’t see why you are willing to die on this hill, it’s incontrovertible that they do take hostages.
Which is why the non combatants can reasonably called hostages. But not the armed IDF soldiers.
Israel is kidnapping Palestinians to surpress them and steal their houses. They are they peak of taking hostages.
Did you read the definition above? None of this is relevant. At this point I can only assume this is an issue of willful ignorance.
Hamas’s actions have not been notably different towards civilians and soldiers they hold captive. Both are treated as hostages. There is really nothing further to discuss, and I already mentioned my view on Israeli hostages above as well.