How Western Media Covered the Palestinian “Prisoners” and Israeli “Hostages” Exchange Deal

Western media once again reveals its perceived double standards in covering the Palestinian issue, evident in its handling of the prisoner exchange agreement between Hamas and the Israeli occupation.

Notably absent from most reports are detailed statistics about Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, while the number of Israeli hostages in Gaza is specified with precision, along with their dual nationalities (in addition to their Israeli citizenship). Western media consistently distinguishes between Palestinian prisoners, labeling them “inmates” or “prisoners,” despite many being women, children, or civilians. In contrast, Israeli captives in Gaza are widely referred to as “hostages.”

Western outlets go to great lengths to provide detailed information about Israeli hostages, including extensive interviews with their families and close coverage of their health and emotional conditions. However, the same media often reduces Palestinian detainees to mere statistics, prompting accusations of dehumanizing Palestinians by treating them as numbers.

On Sunday, three Israeli female captives were released in Gaza in exchange for 90 Palestinian prisoners, including women and minors under the age of 19. Hamas is expected to release four more Israeli women on Saturday, in return for 200 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom have long sentences or life imprisonment.

During the first phase of the agreement, spanning 42 days, a total of 33 Israeli captives are expected to be freed in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. The ratio of released prisoners will depend on the status of each Israeli captive: 50 Palestinian prisoners for every military captive and 30 for each civilian captive, potentially bringing the number of freed Palestinian prisoners to over 1,900.

Media Focus and Reactions

The Jewish Chronicle in Britain notably criticized a British MP for referring to Palestinian prisoners as “hostages,” aligning them with the Western media’s terminology for Israeli captives in Gaza. The newspaper highlighted that Labour Party leader Keir Starmer did not take any stance against party MP Imran Iqbal Mohammed, who used the term during a parliamentary session. Mohammed stated, “Let us pray for the remaining hostages on both sides to be released as quickly as possible,” a comment that seemingly displeased the newspaper.

In another example, the Daily Telegraph focused on the atmosphere surrounding the release of Israeli women captives in Gaza. It detailed how Hamas presented the women prior to their release, distributing souvenir bags and certificates marking their liberation. The newspaper also published an opinion piece attacking the celebratory scenes in Gaza following the release, describing armed individuals in the streets chanting victory slogans and alleging that Hamas would use the ceasefire as propaganda.

The same newspaper criticized “Hamas supporters” gathering to welcome freed Palestinian prisoners in the West Bank.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail published stories about Israeli hostages, including Emily Damarai, who holds British citizenship. However, its headline on Palestinian prisoners read, “Palestinian Hamas prisoners guilty of heinous crimes to be freed in a ceasefire deal between Israel and Gaza for hostages.” The report described some of the freed Palestinian prisoners as being involved in attacks that caused Israeli fatalities.

CNN and Selective Reporting

CNN’s online coverage featured the headline: “Everyone is crying: Israelis rejoice as 3 hostages return after more than 470 days in Gaza.” The outlet included photos of each Israeli woman reuniting with their families in Tel Aviv, alongside detailed reports on their health checks and emotional reunions. However, CNN’s coverage of Palestinian prisoners was limited to a single report about families in the West Bank awaiting their loved ones’ release.

CNN also created a dedicated page tracking Israeli captives released or found deceased in Gaza since October 2023. This page includes biographies and photos of the captives, underscoring the disparity in the depth of reporting between Israeli and Palestinian prisoners.

BBC’s Dual Approach

The BBC not only published detailed information about the released Israeli women but also provided a comprehensive report on the 30 captives expected to be freed during the first phase of the deal. It included names and backgrounds of these individuals.

The BBC also covered the release of Palestinian detainee Bushra al-Tawil in the West Bank, a former prisoner who had previously been freed in the 2011 Gilad Shalit exchange deal before being rearrested by Israel.

Washington Post and New York Times Coverage

The Washington Post published a report highlighting details about the three Israeli women freed from Gaza, accompanied by photos. It mentioned plans for “the release of 30 additional hostages in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian detainees” as part of the ceasefire agreement. While it briefly referenced Palestinian minors among the freed prisoners, the focus remained on high-profile individuals such as Khalida Jarrar, a prominent member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Similarly, the New York Times noted the release of three Israeli women “in exchange for approximately 90 Palestinian prisoners, most of whom are women.” The newspaper’s coverage of Palestinian prisoners in the West Bank included some interviews with families awaiting their loved ones’ release but largely centered on the Israelis’ experiences.

The Guardian’s Focus

The Guardian showed special interest in Emily Damarai, the Israeli-British citizen. It also published reports on celebrations in the West Bank following the release of Palestinian female prisoners. It included names of several detainees and spoke with their families, highlighting individual stories such as that of 17-year-old freed prisoner Qasim Jaafreh.

The Independent’s Varied Headlines

The Independent adopted a mixed approach, with some articles focusing on “Israeli hostages” while others highlighted Palestinian prisoners’ complaints of torture and mistreatment in Israeli jails. One headline specifically drew attention to the allegations of abuse faced by released Palestinian detainees.

A Pattern of Bias?

Across major Western outlets, the disparity in coverage remains evident. Israeli captives are portrayed as individuals with detailed backstories and emotional narratives, while Palestinian prisoners are frequently reduced to numbers, overshadowing the human aspect of their suffering and experiences. This contrast highlights the persistent challenge of achieving balanced media representation in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.