Let's put the media you and i consume on the side and objectively look at how officials refer to Palestinians vs israelis. The kind of unfair language that is used by elected officials or even obama, a former president.

The "families vs. people" contrast is particularly telling (recent obama tweet about hostage exchange) because it humanizes and individualizes Israeli suffering while depersonalizing Palestinian experience. When Obama spoke of Israeli families waiting for their loved ones to return, he created emotional proximity and invited empathy for specific human relationships, parents, children, spouses. But describing Palestinians as simply "people" keeps them at a distance, as an abstract collective rather than individuals with the same web of family bonds and personal grief. This isn't a small stylistic choice; it fundamentally shapes how audiences connect emotionally to each narrative.

Also the "hostages vs. prisoners" language carries even more weight. The term "hostages" clearly implies innocent civilians taken illegally in an act of violence or coercion. "Prisoners" suggests legitimate detention, some kind of legal process, perhaps even criminality on their part. This framing persists even when many of the Palestinians released were held under administrative detention without charges or trial which by any neutral definition makes them hostages too. Israel has detained thousands of Palestinians, including hundreds of children, often without specific accusations. When minors are taken from their homes in night raids and held indefinitely, calling them "prisoners" rather than hostages is a political choice that obscures the reality of their detention.

This pattern appears across official rhetoric in other ways as well. You'll often hear that Israeli forces "respond" or "defend themselves" while Palestinians "attack" or "provoke," even when describing similar military actions.

When an Israeli airstrike kills civilians, officials might say it "targeted militants" with unfortunate collateral damage(very generous if they ever do that too) , but when Palestinians kill Israeli civilians, there's rarely such contextualizing language. Israeli civilian deaths are frequently named, their stories told, their families interviewed. Palestinian casualties, even when they outnumber Israeli deaths by factors of ten or more, are often reduced to statistics: "health officials say 500 people were killed."

Even the language around settlements reflects these disparities. Supporters of Israeli policy call them "neighborhoods" or "communities," evoking normal suburban life. Critics call them "illegal settlements" or "colonies," emphasizing their violation of international law. When a U.S. official shifts between these terms depending on their audience, it reveals how much political calculation goes into supposedly neutral description. The physical reality on the ground doesn't change, but the moral weight of the language shifts dramatically.

Perhaps most importantly, you'll hear officials repeatedly state that "Israel has a right to defend itself" which is true under international law. But this phrase appears so frequently and prominently in official statements that it drowns out equally valid points: that Palestinians also have rights under international law, that occupation itself is a form of violence, that self-defense has legal limits even for states. The constant repetition of one framing without the other creates an implicit hierarchy of whose rights matter most.

Not accidental word choices. Political figures at presidents/prime ministers level have communications teams that carefully craft every public statement. When such disparities appear consistently, they reveal underlying assumptions about whose suffering counts more, whose actions require justification, and whose humanity we're invited to recognize fully.

Let's put the media you and i consume on the side and objectively look at how officials refer to Palestinians vs israelis. The kind of unfair language that is used by elected officials or even obama, a former president.

The "families vs. people" contrast is particularly telling (recent obama tweet about hostage exchange) because it humanizes and individualizes Israeli suffering while depersonalizing Palestinian experience. When Obama spoke of Israeli families waiting for their loved ones to return, he created emotional proximity and invited empathy for specific human relationships, parents, children, spouses. But describing Palestinians as simply "people" keeps them at a distance, as an abstract collective rather than individuals with the same web of family bonds and personal grief. This isn't a small stylistic choice; it fundamentally shapes how audiences connect emotionally to each narrative.

Also the "hostages vs. prisoners" language carries even more weight. The term "hostages" clearly implies innocent civilians taken illegally in an act of violence or coercion. "Prisoners" suggests legitimate detention, some kind of legal process, perhaps even criminality on their part. This framing persists even when many of the Palestinians released were held under administrative detention without charges or trial which by any neutral definition makes them hostages too. Israel has detained thousands of Palestinians, including hundreds of children, often without specific accusations. When minors are taken from their homes in night raids and held indefinitely, calling them "prisoners" rather than hostages is a political choice that obscures the reality of their detention.

This pattern appears across official rhetoric in other ways as well. You'll often hear that Israeli forces "respond" or "defend themselves" while Palestinians "attack" or "provoke," even when describing similar military actions.

When an Israeli airstrike kills civilians, officials might say it "targeted militants" with unfortunate collateral damage(very generous if they ever do that too) , but when Palestinians kill Israeli civilians, there's rarely such contextualizing language. Israeli civilian deaths are frequently named, their stories told, their families interviewed. Palestinian casualties, even when they outnumber Israeli deaths by factors of ten or more, are often reduced to statistics: "health officials say 500 people were killed."

Even the language around settlements reflects these disparities. Supporters of Israeli policy call them "neighborhoods" or "communities," evoking normal suburban life. Critics call them "illegal settlements" or "colonies," emphasizing their violation of international law. When a U.S. official shifts between these terms depending on their audience, it reveals how much political calculation goes into supposedly neutral description. The physical reality on the ground doesn't change, but the moral weight of the language shifts dramatically.

Perhaps most importantly, you'll hear officials repeatedly state that "Israel has a right to defend itself" which is true under international law. But this phrase appears so frequently and prominently in official statements that it drowns out equally valid points: that Palestinians also have rights under international law, that occupation itself is a form of violence, that self-defense has legal limits even for states. The constant repetition of one framing without the other creates an implicit hierarchy of whose rights matter most.

Not accidental word choices. Political figures at presidents/prime ministers level have communications teams that carefully craft every public statement. When such disparities appear consistently, they reveal underlying assumptions about whose suffering counts more, whose actions require justification, and whose humanity we're invited to recognize fully.