Bargaining with Lives: The Rights of Hostages and Detainees in the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Introduction 

The current Israel-Palestine rift has brought to the forefront yet another humanitarian concern, the rights of hostages and detainees. More than 15 months after the attacks that triggered the war in Gaza and sent tremors across the world, a ceasefire agreement has finally been concluded. Under the first six-week stage of the deal, 33 Israeli hostages and 1,900 Palestinian prisoners are to be emancipated, out of which 19 hostages and about a thousand prisoners have been freed so far. However, while political and military strategies dominate news and conversations, the human cost of these practices remains a rather unsettling and troubling reality. 

The images of Israeli hostages released by Hamas in Gaza, after much controversial public parading, reveal acute ill-treatment demanding attention on the concerning conditions they were subjected to. Equally dismaying is the state of Palestinians released from detention, many of whom have endured starvation, beatings, and sexual violence. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has faced consistent restriction in accessing them, which has raised concerns about their treatment in Israeli custody.  

A History of Prisoner Swaps: The Precedent of Unequal Exchanges

Israel’s approach to such exchanges is not just influenced by contemporary security concerns but is also rooted in Jewish tradition. The age-old concept of Pidyon Shvuyim or redemption of fellow Jewish captives, is a fundamental principle in Halacha, emphasising the fulfilment of the duty at almost any cost. Historically, Israel’s policy has been guided by this ethos, apparent in high-profile exchanges such as the 2011 Shalit deal, where 1,027 Palestinian prisoners were released in return for Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) Corporal Gilad Shalit.

While many Israelis view these exchanges as moral obligations reflecting the state’s commitment to protect its citizens, the same has sparked serious debate. The critics argue that this encourages militant groups to take hostages for leverage purposes. This dilemma has once again resurfaced with the recent crisis as the government navigates continual mediation with Hamas. For Palestinians, mass arrests and indefinite detention, often under the pretext of security threats,  has become a longstanding reality. The perception that lives are being treated as bargaining chips has further fuelled global resentment.

International Law’s Position

Pursuant to Article 8 of the ICC or Rome Statute, the taking of hostages is a war crime in both international and non-international conflicts. It has also been criminalised under the 1979 International Convention on the Taking of Hostages and is prohibited at “any time and in any place whatsoever” under the Geneva Conventions, considering it as a grave breach of the Convention. These violations of international humanitarian law further undermine the absolute prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Experts argue that parading hostages as trophies of war, in a propaganda spectacle, clearly violates this rule. Such hostage-taking as puppets for a political end not only negates the humanity of the victim but is also psychologically agonising for their dear ones.

“Everyone has the right to life” is proclaimed in article 3 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well. The principle of “protect life” assumes that each life is of immeasurable value, however, the very conduct of prisoner exchange clashes with this notion by placing a price tag on each life. The law, while existent, is toothless and often ineffective in conflict zones. Though well-defined, it holds little weight when pitted against political interests under the guise of security, where geopolitical considerations dictate accountability rather than universal principles. Meanwhile, reports of abuse, ranging from forced disappearances to outright torture, add another layer of urgency to the call for accountability.

If international law is to have any meaning, it must transcend its role as a mere rhetorical instrument and serve as a genuine check on the dehumanisation perpetuated by both sides of the conflict. Human rights experts have urged both sides to allow immediate and unfettered access to detainees by the International Committee of the Red Cross, ensure medical care, and facilitate communication with families. The crisis calls for independent investigations into reports of mistreatment and comprehensive political solutions in line with international law.

Conclusion

While ceasefires have led to the partial release of hostages and prisoners, being a politically charged issue stemming from deep-rooted hostilities, the cycle of violence continues. With the calls for action often falling on deaf ears, the global community must push for a framework that prioritises humane treatment of persons and stands up for accountability for violations, such that the genesis of the concern is addressed, and not just with bandage solutions. Until then, hostages and prisoners will remain puppets in a larger geopolitical struggle, their rights subordinated to the machinations of war.

The contemporary reality of those affected in the Israel-Palestine conflict shows the devastating human cost of war. Without sustained global pressure, a path towards peace and justice remains a lost dream.