Hot Issues: Geostrategic Studies Team
The official statement issued by the Prison Administration of the Autonomous Democratic Administration of North and East Syria regarding the transfer of a number of juveniles to Al-Qattan Prison in Raqqa triggered a wide media campaign that went far beyond legitimate scrutiny and crossed clearly into the realm of systematic disinformation. The statement itself, drafted in calm and legal institutional language, was neither an admission of violations nor an attempt at justification, but a clarification of a security-related measure taken months earlier under complex conditions imposed by the ongoing fight against ISIS. It clearly stated that those concerned were juveniles, not political detainees or civilians, that some were involved in criminal cases based on formal complaints filed by citizens, and that others were direct victims of forced recruitment and exploitation by ISIS. This context places the issue firmly within a framework of protection and rehabilitation rather than repression or punishment.
The statement further emphasized that the transfer to Al-Qattan Prison was not an exceptional or sudden decision, but a temporary measure dictated by security circumstances, while confirming that the juveniles were subject to special treatment in line with international standards. Rehabilitation programs focusing on psychological and social reintegration were provided with the explicit aim of enabling their safe return to society after the completion of their detention periods. These essential facts, however, were either ignored or deliberately distorted by several Arab media outlets, which treated the statement not as a legal document but as raw material to reconstruct a pre-existing political narrative targeting the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Autonomous Administration.
In this context, the practices of media disinformation became unmistakably clear. Legal terminology was deliberately inverted, juveniles were reframed as “detained children,” rehabilitation measures were portrayed as punitive incarceration, and the central role of ISIS in recruiting and exploiting minors was systematically erased. This method, most evident in the coverage of Al Jazeera, relied on selective humanitarian rhetoric designed to provoke emotional reactions while withholding the full security and legal context. Anonymous sources and generic images unrelated to the actual events were frequently used to manufacture a moral shock that served political agendas rather than the rights of children.
Al Arabiya and Al Hadath adopted a different tone but arrived at similar conclusions. Their coverage framed the juvenile detention issue within a broader narrative of instability and chaos in eastern Syria, portraying the Autonomous Administration as an incapable governing authority. This approach deliberately ignored the reality that North and East Syria has remained one of the most stable areas in the country compared to territories controlled by the Syrian regime or armed factions. Presented in a polished and ostensibly neutral news format, this form of disinformation is particularly dangerous because it implants doubt and reinforces long-standing stereotypes that depict Kurds as a security problem rather than as a central force in combating terrorism.
Most revealing, however, has been the noticeable shift in Saudi-affiliated media discourse regarding Kurds in Syria. After years of relative caution, Al Arabiya and Al Hadath have moved toward a more hostile stance against the Autonomous Administration while simultaneously adopting a more tolerant, and at times openly accommodating, approach toward Ahmad al-Sharaa’s project in Damascus. This shift reflects a broader regional realignment in which political interests and normalization agendas take precedence over concerns about extremism or human rights. While the Autonomous Administration is subjected to aggressive media campaigns over legally grounded juvenile protection measures, Ahmad al-Sharaa is increasingly presented as a potential stabilizing partner, despite his well-documented extremist background and previous ties to jihadist organizations.
This stark contradiction exposes the true nature of the media campaign. It is not driven by concern for children, international law, or human rights, but by the instrumentalization of humanitarian discourse to undermine a Kurdish-led political experiment that operates outside the traditional power structures of Damascus and political Islam. Despite its challenges and limitations, the Autonomous Administration has developed an alternative model for managing one of the most sensitive post-ISIS issues, namely juveniles affected by radicalization and forced recruitment. At the same time, media legitimacy is being extended to actors who directly engaged in the recruitment, execution, and militarization of children.
Ultimately, this case demonstrates that the conflict is not over a single prison or a single statement, but over narratives, legitimacy, and the future political order in Syria. In this struggle, legal truth becomes a liability for agenda-driven media, while disinformation becomes a political tool used to rehabilitate extremist figures at the expense of a nascent democratic project that has paid an immense price in the fight against terrorism.
The statement further emphasized that the transfer to Al-Qattan Prison was not an exceptional or sudden decision, but a temporary measure dictated by security circumstances, while confirming that the juveniles were subject to special treatment in line with international standards. Rehabilitation programs focusing on psychological and social reintegration were provided with the explicit aim of enabling their safe return to society after the completion of their detention periods. These essential facts, however, were either ignored or deliberately distorted by several Arab media outlets, which treated the statement not as a legal document but as raw material to reconstruct a pre-existing political narrative targeting the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Autonomous Administration.
In this context, the practices of media disinformation became unmistakably clear. Legal terminology was deliberately inverted, juveniles were reframed as “detained children,” rehabilitation measures were portrayed as punitive incarceration, and the central role of ISIS in recruiting and exploiting minors was systematically erased. This method, most evident in the coverage of Al Jazeera, relied on selective humanitarian rhetoric designed to provoke emotional reactions while withholding the full security and legal context. Anonymous sources and generic images unrelated to the actual events were frequently used to manufacture a moral shock that served political agendas rather than the rights of children.
Al Arabiya and Al Hadath adopted a different tone but arrived at similar conclusions. Their coverage framed the juvenile detention issue within a broader narrative of instability and chaos in eastern Syria, portraying the Autonomous Administration as an incapable governing authority. This approach deliberately ignored the reality that North and East Syria has remained one of the most stable areas in the country compared to territories controlled by the Syrian regime or armed factions. Presented in a polished and ostensibly neutral news format, this form of disinformation is particularly dangerous because it implants doubt and reinforces long-standing stereotypes that depict Kurds as a security problem rather than as a central force in combating terrorism.
Most revealing, however, has been the noticeable shift in Saudi-affiliated media discourse regarding Kurds in Syria. After years of relative caution, Al Arabiya and Al Hadath have moved toward a more hostile stance against the Autonomous Administration while simultaneously adopting a more tolerant, and at times openly accommodating, approach toward Ahmad al-Sharaa’s project in Damascus. This shift reflects a broader regional realignment in which political interests and normalization agendas take precedence over concerns about extremism or human rights. While the Autonomous Administration is subjected to aggressive media campaigns over legally grounded juvenile protection measures, Ahmad al-Sharaa is increasingly presented as a potential stabilizing partner, despite his well-documented extremist background and previous ties to jihadist organizations.
This stark contradiction exposes the true nature of the media campaign. It is not driven by concern for children, international law, or human rights, but by the instrumentalization of humanitarian discourse to undermine a Kurdish-led political experiment that operates outside the traditional power structures of Damascus and political Islam. Despite its challenges and limitations, the Autonomous Administration has developed an alternative model for managing one of the most sensitive post-ISIS issues, namely juveniles affected by radicalization and forced recruitment. At the same time, media legitimacy is being extended to actors who directly engaged in the recruitment, execution, and militarization of children.
Ultimately, this case demonstrates that the conflict is not over a single prison or a single statement, but over narratives, legitimacy, and the future political order in Syria. In this struggle, legal truth becomes a liability for agenda-driven media, while disinformation becomes a political tool used to rehabilitate extremist figures at the expense of a nascent democratic project that has paid an immense price in the fight against terrorism.
