Ynet News (English), on Gaza, 25 October 2026

9.1out of 10Severe

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.4 findings

The IDF announced Sunday that it had killed two terrorists in separate airstrikes in the Gaza Strip last week, accusing them of transferring millions of shekels from Iran and Turkey to Hamas' military wing throughout the war. According to the military, the funds were used to help the terrorist organization rebuild its military capabilities and prepare attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians. , Alaa Ibrahim Nimer Arshi, , was killed in an airstrike in the Gaza City area.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article never says that these killings took place under the US-brokered ceasefire that took hold in October 2025. It speaks only of 'the war', so a reader believes the strikes are routine wartime action. In fact Israel is killing people in Gaza during a declared ceasefire, on its own claim that they violated it. Ynet's own earlier report and same-day coverage both mention the ceasefire.

How we know

The second, Karam Riyad Hassan Abu Butaihan, , was killed in the Nuseirat area in central Gaza. According to the IDF, both men played a role in channeling funds to Hamas throughout the war, including money originating from Iran and Turkey. The military said the financial transfers had recently supported Hamas' efforts to restore its military infrastructure and advance attacks against Israeli forces and civilians.

In a separate operation last week, the IDF and Shin Bet security agency carried out an airstrike in central Gaza, . The facility contained Kalashnikov rifles, a launcher and rockets, according to the military. The announcement follows an IDF statement last week confirming the deaths of two additional terrorists in separate strikes.

One was Akram Bassam Shaaban Yassin, a senior member of Hamas' General Security apparatus in the Gaza Strip. The other was Tamer Mohammed Ibrahim al-Sabbagh, whom the military identified as a member of the terrorist cell responsible for abducting and murdering German-Israeli citizen Shani Louk during the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel.

Read the original article on ynetnews.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (4)

Ynet turns the Israeli military's accusations into fact. The headline and several body sentences call the dead men terrorists and state their alleged roles in its own voice, though the only source is an IOF statement. The article also never says these killings took place during the ceasefire declared in October 2025, so a reader takes them for routine wartime strikes.

  1. Labels people on one side's word

    Severe

    “The first terrorist”

    Why this matters
    Ynet calls Alaa Ibrahim Nimer Arshi a terrorist in its own voice.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes it as fact that the man killed in the Gaza City strike was a terrorist.
    The context
    The only basis the article gives is the IOF's announcement. No independent source, family or Palestinian account is offered.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “a Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist”

    Why this matters
    Ynet labels Karam Riyad Hassan Abu Butaihan a terrorist and gives his affiliation in its own voice, with no attribution in the sentence.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes his affiliation and his guilt as verified facts about the man killed in Nuseirat.
    The context
    The affiliation and the label come only from the IOF statement, which the article attributes in the very next sentence. Nothing independent supports them.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “Additional terrorists killed in Gaza strikes”

    Why this matters
    This subheading labels two more people killed in Israeli strikes as terrorists, in Ynet's voice.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes everyone Israel has killed in these strikes has been shown to be a terrorist.
    The context
    The basis is an IOF statement alone. The article itself calls this 'an IDF statement' and relies on what 'the military identified'.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“whom the military identified as a member”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    The Israeli army said it had killed two men in separate airstrikes in Gaza. It described Alaa Ibrahim Nimer Arshi as a Hamas cell commander and Karam Riyad Hassan Abu Butaihan as a member of Islamic Jihad. Neither claim could be independently verified.

  2. Headline goes beyond the article

    Serious

    “IDF kills two terrorists who funneled millions from Iran and Turkey to Hamas”

    Why this matters
    The headline states as fact that the two men funnelled millions from Iran and Turkey to Hamas. It drops the attribution that the body gives.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes it is established that the two dead men financed Hamas.
    The context
    The body presents this only as the military's accusation. Every detail about the money comes from an IOF announcement, and the article gives no independent basis for it.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“accusing them of transferring millions of shekels from Iran and Turkey to Hamas' military wing”
    • Elsewhere in the article“According to the IDF, both men played a role in channeling funds”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Israeli army says it killed two men in Gaza it accuses of moving funds from Iran and Turkey to Hamas

  3. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “a cell commander in Hamas' military wing”

    Why this matters
    Ynet states the dead man's rank in Hamas as plain fact, with no attribution.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes Arshi's role as a Hamas commander is established.
    The context
    This is the IOF's description. Other outlets attribute it: 'The military identified the men as'.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “who helped transfer money to Hamas”

    Why this matters
    Ynet asserts in its own voice that Abu Butaihan helped transfer money to Hamas, which is the accusation used to justify killing him.
    The impression it gives
    A reader treats the justification for the strike as proven.
    The context
    The article itself attributes the funding role to the military in the next sentence. Here it states the same claim unattributed.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“According to the IDF, both men played a role in channeling funds to Hamas”

    Show it in the article

    “destroying a weapons depot used by Hamas to store military equipment”

    Why this matters
    Ynet states as fact that the building struck was a Hamas weapons depot.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the target's use has been verified.
    The context
    The contents are attributed to the military in the next sentence. The description of the site comes from the same IOF source.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“according to the military”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    The military said Arshi was a cell commander in Hamas' military wing and that Abu Butaihan helped transfer money to Hamas.

  4. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article never says that these killings took place under the US-brokered ceasefire that took hold in October 2025. It speaks only of 'the war', so a reader believes the strikes are routine wartime action. In fact Israel is killing people in Gaza during a declared ceasefire, on its own claim that they violated it. Ynet's own earlier report and same-day coverage both mention the ceasefire.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Ynet News (English)

Everything we scored from Ynet News (English)