The Jerusalem Post, on West Bank, 25 October 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

IDF pushing for Hebron attack to be classified as clash between soldiers, terrorists, not terror

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.5 findings

The IDF is making an effort to characterize Friday's incident in Hebron as an encounter between combat troops and two terrorists, rather than a terrorist attack, in an attempt to avoid professional criticism over the advance preparations of the Judea Regional Brigade, operating under the 98th Division.At the same time, however, the military says the troops' response prevented a larger attack. The IDF and Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) are still investigating the incident to determine what terrorist network assisted the attackers.

At the time of writing, the assessment is that the attack was carried out by a Hamas cell that received assistance from the organization's headquarters in Turkey.This was not the work of a lone attacker, but rather an organized terrorist network that received assistance from additional operatives in obtaining a handgun, an M4 rifle, ammunition, and training. , conducted reconnaissance, and developed operational plans that enabled them to hold off IDF forces for more than 20 minutes.

During that time, the military was unable to deploy an attack drone or an aerial surveillance system to eliminate them.Nevertheless, the IDF has noted that the bravery of the soldiers must be acknowledged. The regional defense officer, who found himself caught up in the incident, and the deputy battalion commander .There is no doubt that this terrorist network operated under the noses of IDF and Shin Bet intelligence officials, despite a general warning that Hamas intended to carry out attacks in the area ahead of the elections scheduled for this coming Tuesday.Shin Bet, IDF arrest suspects for possible knowledge, support of terror attackOver the past 24 hours, IDF and Shin Bet forces have arrested several Palestinians suspected of assisting the terrorists, or at least knowing that they were preparing to carry out an attack.

The suspects were transferred to the Shin Bet for questioning, and further arrests are expected.IDF Central Command chief Maj. Gen. Avi Bluth emphasized that the military acted as a protective barrier, shielding the civilian population from terrorism, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz spoke of offensive operations.At a time when tensions in the West Bank are escalating, and the IDF has deployed an additional divisional headquarters, the 98th Division, to improve command and control capabilities in violent hotspots and areas facing an immediate terrorist threat, the question must be asked: What has the IDF actually done so far?IDF demolishes illegal structures in HebronThe IDF demolished illegal structures in the Hebron area earlier in the morning, .

Troops searched 200 buildings in Hebron without finding weapons, ammunition, or terrorist infrastructure. According to the defense minister, approximately 2,000 residents were evacuated. while IDF forces searched the area.A new and effective approach is needed to address terrorist hotspots in a city such as Hebron, which presents different challenges from the refugee camps in Jenin, Tulkarm, and Nablus.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article never mentions the closure imposed on Hebron and nearby Palestinian towns. Nor does it say that soldiers ordered Palestinians in Farsh al-Hawa out of their homes ahead of demolitions, or that the Palestinian Authority and B'Tselem called the measures collective punishment. Without this, a reader believes the army's response was limited, protective and unrelated to punishing Hebron's Palestinians.

How we know

Such an approach is necessary not only to prevent copycat attacks and attacks inspired by this incident, but also to dismantle organized terrorist networks.

. The threat of further terrorist attacks continues to loom.

Read the original article on jpost.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (5)

The Jerusalem Post states in its own voice that the removal of 2,000 Hebron Palestinians was meant to protect them and that the Hebron demolitions had nothing to do with the attack. Its own earlier report, and Finance Minister Smotrich's public words quoted by another outlet, say otherwise. It also calls the two dead attackers terrorists throughout without naming them, and ties them to their wider clan through one released prisoner.

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “It is clear that these residents will return to their homes shortly and that the evacuation was intended to protect them from potential clashes”

    Why this matters
    In its own voice, and with "It is clear", the outlet states that the removal was for the residents' own protection and will be brief.
    The impression it gives
    The army moved people for their safety and no one is being punished.
    The context
    The outlet's own earlier report found the army gave little explanation and that the operation "seemed to be motivated by public" pressure. The Palestinian Authority called the removals collective punishment. Nothing in the article supports the claim of protection.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  2. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “demolitions that had already been planned and were unrelated to the terrorist attack”

    Why this matters
    The outlet tells the reader, with no attribution, that the Hebron demolitions had nothing to do with the attack.
    The impression it gives
    The demolitions were routine enforcement, not a reprisal.
    The context
    Finance Minister Smotrich said publicly that he ordered the demolitions to exact a price for the attack. The outlet's own earlier report said the military was extremely vague about why buildings were destroyed.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  3. Labels people on one side's word

    Minor

    “The terrorists studied the terrain”

    Why this matters
    The outlet calls the two Palestinian men "terrorists" in its own voice and never gives their names.
    The impression it gives
    The label is a neutral fact, and the men have no identity beyond it.
    The context
    The label is the army's, used in its joint statement with Shin Bet. Other outlets named the men as Hamouda al-Jaaba and Firas al-Jaaba, both 27, from Hebron. The article names neither.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “actively engaged the terrorists and killed them”

    Why this matters
    Here the label sits on the men at the moment soldiers killed them, so the killing reads as self-evidently justified by the army's term.
    The impression it gives
    The dead men are fully described by the army's label.
    The context
    The men opened fire on soldiers at a military checkpoint at an exit to Hebron. That is what other outlets reported. The outlet replaces that description with the army's label throughout.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  4. Judges a whole people on a few

    Minor

    “The terrorists came from a very large clan in Hebron, one of whose members was released as part of the Gilad Schalit prisoner exchange deal”

    Why this matters
    The outlet links a whole Hebron clan to terrorism through two attackers and one former prisoner. It does so straight after calling for a new approach to "terrorist hotspots".
    The impression it gives
    The clan as a whole is a terror threat, which justifies action against all its members.
    The context
    The outlet's own earlier report found that army sources had no specific information linking the 2,000 removed clan members to any offence. The only stated reason was family ties.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  5. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article never mentions the closure imposed on Hebron and nearby Palestinian towns. Nor does it say that soldiers ordered Palestinians in Farsh al-Hawa out of their homes ahead of demolitions, or that the Palestinian Authority and B'Tselem called the measures collective punishment. Without this, a reader believes the army's response was limited, protective and unrelated to punishing Hebron's Palestinians.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Jerusalem Post

  1. 25 OctIDF seriously injures, fails to detain Palestinian accused of attempted ramming attack - report3.0
  2. 25 OctIDF seals off homes of terrorists who committed fatal Hebron attack ahead of intended demolition7.3
  3. 25 OctHospital delays, curfews as Israeli peace groups condemn displacements of Palestinians in Hebron7.3
  4. 25 OctThree Hebron residents arrested for online incitement to terrorism, support for Hamas6.0
  5. 25 OctIDF evacuates Israeli rioters after fire breaks out near Palestinian West Bank town6.0

Everything we scored from The Jerusalem Post