Two terrorists involved in transferring millions of shekels to Hamas’s military wing were killed in Israeli airstrikes in Gaza last week, the IDF said. The military identified the men as Alaa Ibrahim Nimer Arshi, a Hamas cell commander killed in Gaza City on Wednesday, and Karam Riyad Hassan Abu Butaihan, an Islamic Jihad terrorist killed near Nuseirat on Tuesday. Both helped move funds from Iran and Turkey to Hamas throughout the war.
The military said the money had recently been used to rebuild Hamas’s armed capabilities and prepare attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians. The IDF described those activities as systematic violations of the ceasefire and said the strikes were intended to remove the threat posed by the two men. Separately, an Israeli airstrike destroyed a Hamas weapons depot in central Gaza on Thursday in a joint operation with the Shin Bet, the military said.
The facility was used to store Kalashnikov rifles, a launcher and rockets. New reports say Israel gave the US intelligence that Hamas is preparing for war The IDF said it used precision munitions and aerial surveillance to reduce the risk to civilians, and issued advance warnings before striking the weapons depot. Its statement did not provide information on civilian casualties. Israeli forces remain deployed in Gaza under the ceasefire agreement, the military said, adding that operations would continue against threats and attempts by armed groups to rebuild their military capabilities.
Suggested articles Hamas threatened another October 7-style attack in message to Israel - report | i24NEWS A UNRWA teacher denounces antisemitic indoctrination in Gaza schools | i24NEWS IDF strike kills Hamas terrorist linked to Shani Louk’s abduction | i24NEWS
i24NEWS reports two Palestinians killed in Israeli strikes as "terrorists" and gives no source other than the Israeli military. In one sentence it states the military's justification for the killings, that both men moved funds to Hamas, as plain fact in its own voice. No Palestinian source, relative or independent check appears anywhere in the piece.
States one side's claim as fact
Serious
“Both helped move funds from Iran and Turkey to Hamas throughout the war.”
Why this matters
i24NEWS drops the attribution it uses elsewhere and states, in its own voice, that both men "helped move funds from Iran and Turkey to Hamas".
The impression it gives
That the two men's role in financing Hamas is an established fact, and so that killing them was justified.
The context
The only source for this charge is the Israeli military's own statement about men it had just killed. The surrounding sentences attribute every other claim to the military. The article offers no evidence, no independent check and no response from anyone in Gaza.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“The military identified the men as”
Elsewhere in the article“The military said the money had recently been used”
“Two terrorists involved in transferring millions of shekels”
Why this matters
i24NEWS opens its report by naming the two men killed in Israeli airstrikes as "Two terrorists", making the label the subject of the sentence.
The impression it gives
That the dead men were terrorists as a matter of fact, before the reader reaches the attribution at the end of the sentence.
The context
The label comes only from the Israeli military, the party that killed them. The article names the military as the sole source of the identification and gives no independent basis for it.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“The military identified the men as”
Elsewhere in the article“Its statement did not provide information”
“killed two terrorists linked to Hamas funding network”
Why this matters
The headline repeats the military's label "two terrorists" for the dead and adds the funding link as their identity.
The impression it gives
Readers scanning headlines learn only that terrorists were killed. They do not learn that two named Palestinians were killed by Israeli airstrikes during a ceasefire.
The context
The body rests the label and the funding charge entirely on an IOF statement. It gives no independent source on who the men were.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“The military identified the men as”
“The facility was used to store Kalashnikov rifles, a launcher and rockets.”
Why this matters
i24NEWS states in its own voice what the struck building contained.
The impression it gives
That the building was confirmed to be a weapons store.
The context
The previous sentence makes clear the account of the strike comes from the military and the Shin Bet. The contents are their claim, and the article gives no independent check.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“in a joint operation with the Shin Bet, the military said”