IDF forces on Tuesday morning demolished a monument in the Samaria village of Madama that had for decades glorified terrorists who murdered Jews. During the operation, additional monuments were demolished in nearby villages, following demands by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and MK Tzvi Succot to remove memorials honoring terrorists throughout Judea and Samaria. Earlier, Smotrich and Succot, who chairs the Knesset Subcommittee on Judea and Samaria, submitted a document to the IDF identifying dozens of such monuments in Palestinian Arab villages.
Succot welcomed the operation, describing it as the result of his battle to end the public commemoration of terrorists. "After decades, the monument commemorating terrorists in the village of Madama has been demolished. This is an important achievement in our fight against the commemoration of terrorism and the transformation of those who murder Jews into heroes," he said. "It is unacceptable for those who harmed Jews and IDF soldiers to be commemorated and regarded as heroes by the next generation."
Succot concluded, "I commend the IDF for the operation and call for the continued removal of every monument commemorating terrorists throughout Judea and Samaria. We will not allow the commemoration of terrorism to become part of our public space."
Arutz Sheva reports the demolition of Palestinian memorials by Israeli occupation forces in the language of the settler movement: it places Madama in "Samaria" and never once says the land is occupied. In its own voice it calls the people commemorated "terrorists who murdered Jews", a verdict that comes from the two politicians who demanded the demolitions, and it names none of them. Only MK Tzvi Succot is quoted, and the Palestinian villagers whose monuments were torn down are never heard.
Uses the occupation's words
Serious
“in Samaria”
Why this matters
The headline places the demolitions "in Samaria", the Israeli state and settler name for the northern occupied West Bank.
The impression it gives
A reader believes the demolitions took place inside a region that belongs to Israel, where Israeli forces act as ordinary local authorities.
The context
The villages are in the occupied West Bank. The ICJ has found Israel's occupation there unlawful. Arutz Sheva never uses the words occupied or West Bank anywhere in the article.
How we know
On the recordThe International Court of Justice's July 2024 advisory opinion found Israel's occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem unlawful.icj-cij.org (opens in a new tab)
In its own voice the outlet calls Madama "the Samaria village", giving a Palestinian village a place name drawn from the occupation's vocabulary.
The impression it gives
A reader believes Madama is a village within Israeli territory and that IOF demolishing structures there is routine domestic enforcement.
The context
Madama is a Palestinian village in the occupied West Bank, under an occupation the ICJ ruled unlawful. The article never tells the reader this, so the demolition reads as lawful local action and not as an occupying force destroying Palestinian property.
How we know
On the recordThe International Court of Justice's July 2024 advisory opinion found Israel's occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem unlawful.icj-cij.org (opens in a new tab)
Outside any quotation, the outlet uses "Judea and Samaria" for the whole occupied West Bank when it describes where Smotrich and Succot want memorials removed.
The impression it gives
A reader believes the campaign covers Israeli land, and that the minister's demand applies to territory Israel lawfully governs.
The context
"Judea and Samaria" is the Israeli government's name for the occupied West Bank. The ICJ has found both the occupation and the settlements there illegal. The outlet adopts the term in its own reporting voice, not only in Succot's quoted words.
How we know
On the recordThe International Court of Justice's July 2024 advisory opinion found Israel's occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem unlawful.icj-cij.org (opens in a new tab)
On the recordThe International Court of Justice's July 2024 advisory opinion found Israel's settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem illegal under international law.icj-cij.org (opens in a new tab)
Israeli occupation forces on Tuesday demolished a memorial in the Palestinian village of Madama in the occupied West Bank, and further memorials in nearby villages, after demands from Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and MK Tzvi Succot.
States one side's claim as fact
Serious
“glorified terrorists who murdered Jews”
Why this matters
In its own voice the outlet states that the Madama monument "glorified terrorists who murdered Jews". It names no one commemorated and gives no act, date or source.
The impression it gives
A reader believes it is established fact that everyone honoured by the monument was a terrorist who murdered Jews, and that the demolition simply removed a tribute to murderers.
The context
This is the description used by Succot and Smotrich, the two politicians who demanded the demolitions. Succot's own words make the same charge in S6. The article never identifies who the memorial honoured or what they did, so the reader cannot test the claim. It is written as fact, not attributed.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“the transformation of those who murder Jews into heroes”
Elsewhere in the article“submitted a document to the IDF identifying dozens of such monuments”
The headline repeats the charge with no attribution, telling the reader before the article begins what the monuments were and who they honoured.
The impression it gives
A reader takes it as settled that the memorials honoured terrorists, and reads IOF's destruction of Palestinian memorials as plainly justified.
The context
The body offers no names and no evidence about any monument. The label rests on a list drawn up by Smotrich and Succot and handed to the army, as S3 reports. The headline turns their description into the outlet's own finding.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“Smotrich and Succot, who chairs the Knesset Subcommittee on Judea and Samaria, submitted a document”
Elsewhere in the article“his battle to end the public commemoration of terrorists”
From this sentence to the end, five of the article's nine sentences give Succot's praise and demands, and he has the last word.
The impression it gives
A reader hears only the politician who sought the demolitions and never learns how the people of Madama or the other villages saw the destruction of their memorials.
The context
Other coverage of the same day drew on Palestinian accounts of the demolitions in several named villages. Arutz Sheva quotes no Palestinian resident or villager at all.