Interesting how people keep leveraging the stockholm syndrome charge against the most clear cut and obvious cases of short term hostage taking for material concessions.
Obviously the original case was a bank robbery where the robbers took hostages to exchange for an escape route, but now we have Hamas taking hostages to exchange for supplies, temporary ceasefires, imprisoned Palestinians etc. When you take hostages like that you know that as far as you are concerned these people will be returning to their homes. You dont really have a reason to want anything from them except just basic calm and cooperation.
So in a situation like that you're most likely to just treat them as normally as circumstances allow, and if the holdup on an exchange is happening because "their" side is stalling or trying to "cut the knot" of the hostage situation then in this isolated space its obvious to the hostages whos the threat and whos trying to resolve the situation.
These specifics can change when you start changing the circumstances, such as if the hostages are taken also for interrogation of information, or you dont have a clear material goal in mind as the hostages are being taken, then the relationships and treatments will change, but in these pretty simple situations its just eminently understandable how basic human camraderie can create a positive relationship between hostage and hostage taker.
Edit: And of course as an opposite to this, Israel does not take hostages for the purposes of extracting concessions from Palestinians, they imprison Palestinians for the sake of imprisoning and disempowering Palestinians, whatever function they can have as hostages later is secondary, the cruelty is primary.
Zionists already are.