Ynet News (English), on Gaza, 30 October 2026

8.7out of 10Severe

Report: Israel

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.3 findings

Israeli intelligence officers have reportedly been calling and warning them that they must leave their families before being targeted in airstrikes or risk having their relatives killed alongside them, according to an investigation published Thursday by the London-based pan-Arab newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat.

The newspaper reported that at least five such incidents have occurred over the past three months, citing Palestinian field sources familiar with the cases. The accounts, which could not be independently verified, suggest Israeli forces have used advance telephone warnings to isolate suspected terrorists before carrying out targeted killings.

The latest reported incident occurred Wednesday afternoon in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, where a Palestinian man identified as Muhammad al-Bayouk was killed in an Israeli drone strike after allegedly receiving a telephone call from an officer of the Shin Bet, Israel's domestic security agency.

According to Asharq Al-Awsat, the officer presented al-Bayouk with a choice: remain with his family and risk their deaths in an airstrike or go alone to the roof of a building at a shelter for displaced Palestinians, where he would be targeted.

Al-Bayouk reportedly chose to leave his relatives and climbed onto the roof of a room inside the shelter, where he was struck by a small missile fired from an Israeli drone.

Several members of the al-Bayouk family declined to comment when approached by the newspaper. Others confirmed the account, including a cousin who was present at the scene.

The relative said another family member, al-Bayouk's aunt, was seriously injured while attempting to stop him from leaving after receiving the alleged warning call.

The report did not establish al-Bayouk's organizational affiliation or describe the intelligence underlying Israel's decision to target him.

At least five reported cases in three months

Palestinian field sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that similar incidents have occurred repeatedly in recent months, although they cautioned that some claims circulating locally had exaggerated their frequency.

One source said initial rumors suggested the practice was widespread, but subsequent security reviews identified at least five cases over the preceding three months.

According to the source, individuals receiving such calls from Israeli intelligence officers felt compelled to comply with the instructions because they feared their families would otherwise be killed.

The source accused Israel of using the threat of harm to relatives to pressure targeted individuals into exposing themselves to military strikes.

He also drew parallels with allegations that Israeli interrogators had threatened Palestinian detainees with harm to their relatives if they refused to provide intelligence.

In some cases, the source alleged, detainees were shown photographs of dead family members as a means of psychological pressure.

Those allegations were not independently substantiated in the report.

The source said all the documented telephone-warning cases involved individuals with connections to terrorist activity.

By contrast, he claimed, Israel has continued to target senior commanders and prominent field operatives through larger strikes involving multiple missiles and attack drones, including attacks that have caused civilian casualties.

Palestinian sources reject suggestion of a more restrained approach

Sources interviewed by Asharq Al-Awsat rejected the suggestion that advance warnings reflected a broader effort by Israel to protect Palestinian civilians.

They argued that the practice should not be interpreted as evidence that Israeli forces had adopted a more humanitarian approach or were attempting to improve Israel's international image.

The sources pointed to continued Israeli strikes that they said had killed civilians, including women and children.

Nevertheless, the newspaper suggested that the reported use of smaller precision weapons and could reflect an Israeli effort to reduce civilian casualties amid sustained international criticism.

The report also cited a September article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz describing an understanding between Washington and Jerusalem over the use of force in Gaza.

According to that account, the Trump administration has generally refrained from intervening in Israeli military operations except in exceptional circumstances, while President Donald Trump has not demanded that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu broadly restrain Israeli forces in the territory.

The Haaretz report said American attention had focused particularly on civilian casualties, which had declined relatively as Israeli forces increasingly used drones armed with smaller bombs and missiles to target Hamas operatives.

A Palestinian field source disputed that assessment, telling Asharq Al-Awsat that civilians continued to be killed in strikes targeting terrorists and in what he described as indiscriminate shelling.

The source cited a strike Wednesday in southern Khan Younis that reportedly killed civilians, government employees and representatives of merchants.

According to the account, the strike hit a facility operated by government ministries responsible for monitoring the movement of goods entering the Gaza Strip.

The report did not provide an independently verified casualty toll for that incident.

Additional strikes reported across Gaza

The Asharq Al-Awsat report also described several Israeli military operations across the Gaza Strip .

Two Palestinians were reportedly killed in an Israeli strike targeting a vehicle in the Maghazi refugee camp in central Gaza.

Another Palestinian sustained moderate injuries in a separate strike in the Safatawi area, west of the Jabaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza.

The Palestinian Shehab News Agency reported that two bodies and several wounded people were brought to Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital following the Maghazi strike.

The agency characterized the attack as part of what it described as continuing Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement.

Elsewhere, several Palestinians were reportedly wounded by gunfire and artillery shelling in different parts of the territory.

In eastern Gaza City, a helicopter fired a missile early Wednesday at an unoccupied apartment on Yafa Street that had previously been struck, according to the report. No injuries were reported in that incident.

Shehab also reported additional Israeli military activity across the Gaza Strip, including gunfire directed toward tents housing displaced Palestinians, artillery strikes, a drone attack on a residential apartment, bulldozing operations and gunfire from naval vessels.

The casualty reports and circumstances of the individual incidents could not be independently verified.

The report did not include an IDF or Shin Bet response to the allegations.

Read the original article on ynetnews.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (3)

Ynet calls the people Israel targets "terrorists" in its own headline and opening sentence, though its own report admits the source never established the dead man's affiliation. The headline also turns a reported threat to kill a man's relatives into a "choice" about "dying". Elsewhere the article names Israel as the actor in each strike and attributes its claims with care.

  1. Labels people on one side's word

    Severe

    “Gaza terrorists”

    Why this matters
    The headline calls the people targeted by these calls "Gaza terrorists" in Ynet's own voice, with no attribution and no qualifier.
    The impression it gives
    The man killed in Khan Younis and the others called were established fighters, so their killing was the killing of terrorists.
    The context
    Ynet's own body says the report did not establish al-Bayouk's affiliation or the intelligence behind targeting him. Elsewhere it calls them only "suspected terrorists". The label rests on nothing the article can show.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“The report did not establish al-Bayouk's organizational affiliation”
    • Elsewhere in the article“isolate suspected terrorists before carrying out targeted killings”

    Show it in the article

    “Palestinian terrorists in the Gaza Strip”

    Why this matters
    The opening sentence repeats the label as plain fact. It drops even the "suspected" that Ynet itself uses two sentences later.
    The impression it gives
    Everyone who received these calls was a known terrorist, so the threats to their families were aimed at legitimate targets.
    The context
    The article gives no evidence about who any of the people called were. It says plainly that al-Bayouk's affiliation was not established.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“describe the intelligence underlying Israel's decision to target him”

    Show it in the article

    “attempts to separate terrorists from their families”

    Why this matters
    Ynet puts its own word "terrorists" into a paraphrase of the newspaper's suggestion, which makes the label sound settled.
    The impression it gives
    The people separated from their families and then killed were terrorists, which explains why the practice could be read as humane.
    The context
    Nothing in the article establishes who these individuals were. The one named victim's affiliation was not established.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“The report did not establish al-Bayouk's organizational affiliation”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Report: Israel calls Gaza men it targets and threatens to kill their families unless they leave them. Israeli intelligence officers have reportedly called Palestinians in Gaza whom Israel intends to kill, an Arabic newspaper reported, though the affiliation of the one named victim was not established.

  2. Writes the death out

    Serious

    “gives Gaza terrorists choice between dying alone or with family”

    Why this matters
    The headline says Israel "gives" a "choice" about "dying". This turns a reported threat to kill a man's relatives into an offer, and his family's death into something that would simply happen to them.
    The impression it gives
    Israel offered targets an option, and any death of their relatives would be the result of the target's own choice.
    The context
    The body reports a threat: leave your family or Israel will kill them alongside you. Israel is the one who would do the killing in both cases.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“risk having their relatives killed alongside them”
    • Elsewhere in the article“feared their families would otherwise be killed”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Report: Israeli officers threaten to kill Gaza targets' families unless they leave them before strikes.

  3. Turns reported strikes into accusations

    Minor

    “amid continuing accusations of ceasefire violations”

    Why this matters
    Ynet describes the Israeli strikes it is about to list as taking place "amid continuing accusations of ceasefire violations".
    The impression it gives
    Whether Israel is breaking the ceasefire is only a matter of claims made against it.
    The context
    In the next sentences Ynet itself reports Israeli strikes killing two Palestinians and wounding others during the ceasefire.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Two Palestinians were reportedly killed in an Israeli strike”

    Show it in the article

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Ynet News (English)

  1. 29 Oct‘Genocide’ and ‘apartheid’: Harvard's hometown backs divestment from IDF suppliers3.0
  2. 29 OctFormer Biden officials who quit over Gaza urge 2028 Democrats to reject his Israel policy0.0
  3. 28 OctIDF kills Hamas commandos involved in Alexander Dancyg's October 7 kidnapping8.8
  4. 26 Oct'It's costing us a lot of money to drop bombs on Gaza': US Senate ad blasts Israel aid0.0
  5. 25 OctIsrael names former chief military prosecutor to lead October 7 massacre trials6.0

Everything we scored from Ynet News (English)