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.
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.