The state of captives of Hamas vs those of Israel/Russia

[Karmadhi]

Hello everyone

In the light of the captives being released from both sides, I wanted to discuss a bit about something I have noticed and also a lot of people are talking about

That is the state of the captives that Hamas is releasing compared to the state of Palestinian captives that Israel is releasing

It seems to me from the footage I have seen that the live captives that Hamas is releasing, including those of previous exchanges are in much better shape overall (no signs of physical abuse which remains in the body after torture)

Now you can argue "they are smiling and waving because Hamas told them so". Sure, I am not talking about that. I am talking about the physical state of their bodies which you cannot hide.

They seem pretty well fed, good hair and beard and seem pretty ok overall

I think there was 1 exception, the guy who was in a picture digging his own grave that was released some months ago. That was a pretty good case of someone who has been starved and abused. But it is 1 case.

Meanwhile the Palestinian  ones, many of them have lost a ton of weight, have either shaved head or very messy hair/beard and some looked downright scared and traumatized

Not to mention many have a lot of bruises and wounds from beatings and torture.

A case I read was that one was told "your whole family died in Gaza" even though it was not true as a means to torture him and when he was released and met them he was shocked in disbelief.  Others legit look traumized for life and their physical state is horrible (tons of weight lost or a lot of bruises). There were cases where they had to had limbs amputations from being chained for too long.

It is quite similar to the awful state of Ukranian POWs that Russia releases in prisoner exchanges that look like they have been starved, abused and beaten.

It is 1 way, I have not seen Russian POWs that Ukraine releases be in such a state. They get treated way better (I think).

Same logic here.

Now, I am not here to justify taking captives in the first place

Both Israel and Hamas have taken captives illegally and that is awful to do, regardless of how they are treated

I am not here saying Hamas is not bad for taking captives. 

I am happy they are being released.

But I just wanted to pinpoint this thing a lot of people have talked about recently (and in previous releases for that matter)

Since Israel is according to people "Western liberal democracy", I think they are not supposed to torture and misstreat people in jails even if they have committed crimes. I am not even talking about people who have been arbitrary imprisoned like doctors in Gaza for eg. But I am sure in USA for example or Europe they do not torture people accussed of terrorism or school shooters in jails

What do you guys think?

Is there something deeper here that we are not noticing?

Edited Wednesday at 08:55 AM by Karmadhi

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Karmadhi said:

Is there something deeper here that we are not noticing?

The value any participant of a conflict puts on the human life in question.

• To Hamas these are the most valuable people in their world currently.
• To the Israelis, they are a problem to wipe out and part of their fear and terror campaign.
• To Russia, they used to be something to inspire fear and terror; now they are a bargaining chip, as their manpower is low, for trades. So there is a noticeable change.
• To Ukraine they use them to appear more benevolent and to trade back for their own people, also sometimes to gain soldiers, partisans, or allies inside Russia.

I don't doubt personal morality comes into individual reasoning, and perhaps culturally ingrained morality can play a tempering factor, but this is the cold truth of war, that a soldier follows orders, and what those orders say decides the ultimate fate of a prisoner of war.

[Karmadhi]

44 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

• To Hamas these are the most valuable people in their world currently.
•  

I mean technically they can abuse them and beat them and they would still be equally valuable as long as they are alive and functioning. So I do not get the argument here

44 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

• To the Israelis, they are a problem to wipe out and part of their fear and terror campaign.
•  

But that is not how a democracy is supposed to act. A democracy like the UK where you live do not torture people like that even if they are suspected of terrorism. This is not democratic behavior. Not to mention it is endless cases, not a few incidents but systemic policy.

44 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

• To Russia, they used to be something to inspire fear and terror; now they are a bargaining chip, as their manpower is low, for trades. So there is a noticeable change.
•  

To be fair I have not seen Russia treat them any better with time. They always look awful state to me the Ukranian POWs. It is very inhumane what Russia does to them.

44 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

• To Ukraine they use them to appear more benevolent and to trade back for their own people, also sometimes to gain soldiers, partisans, or allies inside Russia.

 

Makes sense.

 

44 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

I don't doubt personal morality comes into individual reasoning, and perhaps culturally ingrained morality can play a tempering factor, but this is the cold truth of war, that a soldier follows orders, and what those orders say decides the ultimate fate of a prisoner of war.

I agree but western style democracies are supposed to act differently not law of jungle. Otherwise, why do we see them as more "humane" forms of governance. 

Edited Wednesday at 11:10 AM by Karmadhi

[BlueOak]

@Karmadhi
 

48 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

I mean, technically they can abuse them and beat them and they would still be equally valuable as long as they are alive and functioning. So I do not get the argument here.

I doubt this is true at all; the outrage would lead to further violence.
But even if it was, why on earth risk it?
 

48 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

But that is not how a democracy is supposed to act. A democracy like the UK where you live do not torture people like that even if they are suspected of terrorism. This is not democratic behavior. Not to mention it is endless cases, not a few incidents but systemic policy.

It's because you've assigned moral codes to democracies that don't inherently exist, because we have the luxury of living in relative safety and comfort. If the democracy were a warzone it would all vanish.
 

48 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

To be fair I have not seen Russia treat them any better with time. They always look awful state to me the Ukranian POWs. It is very inhumane what Russia does to them.

I am not saying they are treated well, but they are kept alive and in a condition they can walk and talk. Which is a step up from what was happening initially.
 

48 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

I agree but western style democracies are supposed to act differently not law of jungle. Otherwise, why do we see them as more "humane" forms of governance. 

Because we have the luxury of living in relative safety and comfort. It's one we've earned through education, development, hard work, internal peace and social development/unity. But nevertheless, we are able to live with an ethical code, mostly enforced by law, that is more difficult or impossible to enforce in the more lawless, or war-torn regions of the world.

It is also the difference between an individualist and collectivist ethos that you might find in Eastern developed nations.
Individualism is not a curse as some believe, but a way to ensure that the individual is as important as any collective ethos, thus putting a higher value on any individual's life.

Edited Wednesday at 11:57 AM by BlueOak

[LordFall]

4 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

But that is not how a democracy is supposed to act. A democracy like the UK where you live do not torture people like that even if they are suspected of terrorism. This is not democratic behavior. Not to mention it is endless cases, not a few incidents but systemic policy.

How exactly do you think these noble democracies get to become a better than thou status? The UK has done plenty of war crimes and so has the United states. It's a luxury belief to be able to think that you're in a great country that's more noble than the other ones. 

[Karmadhi]

4 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I doubt this is true at all; the outrage would lead to further violence.
But even if it was, why on earth risk it?

Most Israelis said they were being tortured and starved and everything. They already had that idea in their mind. The state of the hostages just made those claims seem false.

4 hours ago, BlueOak said:

It's because you've assigned moral codes to democracies that don't inherently exist, because we have the luxury of living in relative safety and comfort. If the democracy were a warzone it would all vanish.

Then why people consider it worse when a democracy is attacked? Like people like Piers Morgan say "Ukraine a democratic country". 

 

4 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I am not saying they are treated well, but they are kept alive and in a condition they can walk and talk. Which is a step up from what was happening initially.

Ok

4 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Because we have the luxury of living in relative safety and comfort. It's one we've earned through education, development, hard work, internal peace and social development/unity. But nevertheless, we are able to live with an ethical code, mostly enforced by law, that is more difficult or impossible to enforce in the more lawless, or war-torn regions of the world.

How hard is it not to torture and beat up prisoners?

41 minutes ago, LordFall said:

The UK has done plenty of war crimes and so has the United states. It's a luxury belief to be able to think that you're in a great country that's more noble than the other ones. 

There have been many terrorist attacks in the UK. Did they torture and starve the suspects for these attacks?

 

[BlueOak]

4 hours ago, Karmadhi said:

Then why people consider it worse when a democracy is attacked? Like people like Piers Morgan say "Ukraine a democratic country". 

How hard is it not to torture and beat up prisoners?

There have been many terrorist attacks in the UK. Did they torture and starve the suspects for these attacks?

Because it appeals to people who like democracies and governments that want to live side by side with countries less likely to go to war with them, they are easier to work with and less threatening to other democracies.

Democracies generally are more peaceful toward other democracies. So we tend to defend them. Especially those on our border, we tend to have better relations, healthier trade and social or cultural connections.

How hard is it not to beat up prisoners? In a war? When you've had your brother blown up in front of you, and seen death day after day for years on end, living in a place that gets bombed regularly, or worse, is already ruined. War can turn men into animals, dehumanising the enemy and leaving you in a constant fear/survival state, its only the officer corps, discipline, and training that keep many in check.

The UK officially doesn't use torture as a method of gathering information.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5898423/
On their own soil.

Torture, unless taken to an intolerable extreme, is a very poor way of gathering reliable information. I think its abhorrent, and was disgusted when America opened up those camps, I still am. But that's the moral part of me, the pragmatic part of me realises this goes on the world over now. 9/11 and the resulting terror attacks and wars changed a lot about our societies. This is why Teal calls it the beginning of WW3, or rather suggests that people will in the future.

Edited Wednesday at 09:33 PM by BlueOak

[Karmadhi]

On 10/15/2025 at 11:32 PM, BlueOak said:

How hard is it not to beat up prisoners? In a war? When you've had your brother blown up in front of you, and seen death day after day for years on end, living in a place that gets bombed regularly, or worse, is already ruined. War can turn men into animals, dehumanising the enemy and leaving you in a constant fear/survival state, its only the officer corps, discipline, and training that keep many in check.

The UK officially doesn't use torture as a method of gathering information.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5898423/
On their own soil.

Torture, unless taken to an intolerable extreme, is a very poor way of gathering reliable information. I think its abhorrent, and was disgusted when America opened up those camps, I still am. But that's the moral part of me, the pragmatic part of me realises this goes on the world over now. 9/11 and the resulting terror attacks and wars changed a lot about our societies. This is why Teal calls it the beginning of WW3, or rather suggests that people will in the future.

Israel has always used torture and ill treatment, ever since it has been a state. I have read tons of examples even before the 2023 conflict

It is a state policy in Israel (although not admitted or codified) and it happens within Israel territories

And it happens in the thousnads of cases

Tell me, has UK tortured thousands of terrorist suspects within British soil?

Did it do it to IRA members which were the equivalent of Hamas or Fatah for the UK

If yes, was it in the thousands of cases, including childreen and common? Not a few isolated incidnets which happen everywhere. Did people loose limbs from these tortures?

That is the equivalence of what we are talking here

Edited Friday at 11:51 PM by Karmadhi

[zazen]

Being a democracy doesn’t automatically confer the moral development people think it does - this is simply conflation. The US was a democracy when slavery was a thing. It’s a political system of organising society - not a moral barometer. Western propaganda has people dick ride democracy as a justification for empires actions against “different” systems that require liberating - only the oligarchs pockets in these so called democracies get liberated.

Bae be like

 

[Nivsch]

@zazen You can't measure moral development by a single topic, important as it may be, especially when it is your fresh trauma topic.

Edited Saturday at 11:51 AM by Nivsch

[Breakingthewall]

Morality takes a backseat when you live in a state of war; what prevails is what works.

In cases of open war, it's a good idea to treat prisoners well, as this makes them more likely to surrender. But in wars against terrorism, things are different. The US has Guantanamo , in Germany, terrorists committed mass suicide. If you're a Polisario fighter and you're captured by Morocco, you'll have a bad time. And if you're a Kurdish guerrilla and you're captured by the Turks, it's even worse, if you are a Chechen terrorist and you are going to be captured by Russians, better commit suicide

Edited Saturday at 12:01 PM by Breakingthewall

[zazen]

6 hours ago, Nivsch said:

@zazen You can't measure moral development by a single topic, important as it may be, especially when it is your fresh trauma topic.

That’s what I said - people just assume moral development by a single topic / metric - which is that their political system of governance is democratic.

It’s like thinking because tribal communities in the jungle democratically vote on who the next elder is or who gets to eat the first bite of the hunt - that this means they are morally developed because they let everyone vote on things.

Meanwhile they do ritual sacrifice like the Aztecs to get the rain god to give them good crops for next year lol

Edited Saturday at 12:32 PM by zazen