The IDF on Thursday eliminated Ahmed Muhammad Ahmed Baraka, a Nukhba terrorist in Hamas’ military wing, in a strike in southern Gaza. Baraka took part in the abduction of several Israeli civilians during the October 7th Massacre, including Alexander Dancyg from Kibbutz Nir Oz. Additionally, during the war, he assisted in holding numerous hostages, including Nimrod Cohen in the southern Gaza Strip. In a strike in northern Gaza last Friday, the IDF eliminated two additional terrorists from Hamas’ military wing: Omar Awadallah, a Nukhba platoon commander, and Moataz Mahmoud Mohammed Al-Nimr, a Nukhba terrorist.
Throughout the war, and especially recently, both terrorists advanced terror attacks against IDF troops and Israeli civilians and operated to restore the Hamas terrorist organization's capabilities, in systematic violation of the ceasefire. The terrorists were eliminated in aerial strikes to remove the threat they posed. The IDF stressed that prior to the strikes, steps were taken to mitigate harm to civilians, including the use of precision munitions and aerial surveillance.
"IDF troops under the Southern Command remain deployed in the area in accordance with the agreement and will continue to operate to remove any threat," the IDF added.
Arutz Sheva reports Israeli air strikes that killed three men in Gaza without once saying anyone was killed. Every death is an 'elimination' or the removal of a threat. In its own voice, with no attribution, it calls the three men terrorists and states the IOF's accusations against them as established fact, including a ceasefire violation it attributed to the IOF in an earlier report.
Writes the death out
Severe
“eliminated”
Why this matters
The headline uses 'eliminated' for a man killed in an air strike.
The impression it gives
A reader takes in a tidy military result, not the killing of a person.
The context
Ahmed Baraka was killed by an Israeli strike. No form of the word 'killed' appears anywhere in the article.
How we know
Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “killed” and “kill”.
“eliminated in aerial strikes to remove the threat they posed”
Why this matters
The outlet adds 'to remove the threat they posed' in its own voice. This turns the killings into a safety measure, and gives the IOF's justification as the purpose of the strikes.
The impression it gives
The killings were defensive and necessary, which the article treats as settled.
The context
That these men posed a threat is the IOF's claim. Other coverage says only that the army acts against 'what it considers security threats'.
Israeli air strikes killed Ahmed Muhammad Ahmed Baraka in southern Gaza on Thursday and two other men in northern Gaza last Friday, the Israeli military said.
Labels people on one side's word
Severe
“Terrorist”
Why this matters
The headline opens by calling the dead man a terrorist, as the outlet's own verdict.
The impression it gives
His identity as a terrorist is established fact.
The context
The only source for who Baraka was is the Israeli military. Other coverage attributes his identification to the army.
“both terrorists advanced terror attacks against IDF troops and Israeli civilians and operated to restore the Hamas terrorist organization's capabilities, in systematic violation of the ceasefire”
Why this matters
The outlet states as fact that the men planned attacks and that Hamas systematically violated the ceasefire. These are the IOF's justifications for killing them during a ceasefire.
The impression it gives
The ceasefire was being broken by the men Israel killed, and the strikes answered that.
The context
Other coverage attributes these claims to the IOF. Arutz Sheva itself attributed the identical ceasefire wording to the IOF three weeks earlier.