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.
You cannot read Western coverage of Palestine without learning about Ermon and Chomsky’s “five filters of media”. It’s like a decoder ring.
This is of course by design. The media wants the average Joe to think “Palestinian bad, Isreali good”.
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.
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”
All hostages are prisoners, but not all prisoners are hostages. The distinction is with a hostage, the implication is that they will be used to trade for something where with a prisoner that’s not there
Ukraine and Russia are both trading PoW’s so you would say they are taking hostages instead of prisoners?
What is world?
