Five terrorists affiliated with the Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organizations were arrested last week during an operation by the Paratroopers Reconnaissance Unit in the village of Qabatiya, in the Menashe Brigade's area of operations. During the operation in Qabatiya, which concluded last Tuesday, the reconnaissance soldiers arrested five terrorists, including three affiliated with Hamas and two affiliated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Meanwhile, soldiers from Battalion 202 of the Paratroopers Brigade completed a separate counterterrorism operation in the Binyamin sector. In the operation, soldiers from Battalion 202 operated at numerous locations throughout the area. During the operation, the forces raided more than 50 locations and conducted searches for weapons. In addition to the searches, the soldiers questioned suspects affiliated with the Hamas terrorist organization as part of the counterterrorism operation in the area.
Arutz Sheva calls five people detained in an Israeli occupation forces raid on Qabatiya "terrorists" in its own voice, in the headline and twice more, without attributing the label or the alleged affiliations to anyone. It places the raids in army districts such as "the Binyamin sector" and never says they happened in the occupied West Bank. Its headline promises bodycam footage that the body never mentions.
Labels people on one side's word
Serious
“Five terrorists arrested”
Why this matters
The headline calls the five people detained "terrorists" as plain fact, in the outlet's own voice.
The impression it gives
The five detainees are established terrorists, as if a court or an investigation had already shown it.
The context
These people have only been arrested. The article gives no charge, no evidence and no source for the label. The only basis is the occupation forces' operational account, and the article never even attributes that to the army.
“Five terrorists affiliated with the Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organizations were arrested”
Why this matters
The opening sentence repeats the label and adds group affiliations as settled fact, with no "the army said" or "allegedly".
The impression it gives
It is confirmed that each detainee belongs to Hamas or Islamic Jihad and is a terrorist.
The context
The affiliations are the occupation forces' claim about people who have just been detained. The article cites no statement, charge sheet or other source, so a detention is passed off as a proven verdict.
How we know
Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “claimed”.
“the reconnaissance soldiers arrested five terrorists, including three affiliated with Hamas and two affiliated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad”
Why this matters
The second sentence gives a precise split of three and two, again in the outlet's voice.
The impression it gives
The breakdown of affiliations is independently established detail.
The context
The precise numbers make the label look verified. They still rest on nothing more than the unattributed occupation forces' account of an arrest raid, and no detainee or lawyer is heard.
How we know
Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “lawyer”.
Israeli occupation forces said they detained five Palestinians in a raid on Qabatiya in the occupied West Bank, alleging that three were affiliated with Hamas and two with Islamic Jihad. No charges were reported.
Uses the occupation's words
Serious
“counterterrorism operation in the Binyamin sector”
Why this matters
The outlet uses the army's own term "counterterrorism operation" and its district name "Binyamin sector" for raids on Palestinian communities.
The impression it gives
This is a routine security action in an Israeli administrative area, not a military raid in occupied territory.
The context
The article itself says the forces "raided more than 50 locations". These are raids by occupation forces in the occupied West Bank, an occupation the ICJ has found unlawful. The article never uses the words occupied or West Bank.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“the forces raided more than 50 locations”
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)
The outlet locates a Palestinian town by an Israeli army brigade's area rather than by where it is.
The impression it gives
Qabatiya sits in Israeli military jurisdiction as a matter of course.
The context
Qabatiya is a Palestinian community under occupation. The ICJ has found that occupation unlawful. Naming it only by an army brigade's area puts the occupier's administrative map in place of the occupied West Bank.
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)
Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “occupied” and “West Bank”.
The headline says bodycam footage "reveals" the arrests.
The impression it gives
There is footage showing the five detainees are terrorists, and the article describes or shows what it reveals.
The context
The body never mentions footage, video or cameras. It gives no account of what any recording shows. The headline adds an evidential claim the article does not support.
How we know
Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “video”, “camera” and “recorded”.
“the soldiers questioned suspects affiliated with the Hamas terrorist organization”
Why this matters
The outlet relays only the occupation forces' account of who was raided and questioned.
The impression it gives
The army's version is the whole story of the raids on more than 50 locations.
The context
No detainee is named. No resident, family member, lawyer or Palestinian official is quoted about raids on dozens of homes and places.
How we know
Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “residents”, “family” and “lawyer”.
On the recordReporting on Israel's assault on Gaza and on the Greens' Zionism motion has given Israeli, pro-Israel and Israeli-government sources far more space than Palestinian voices, who are quoted least when the story concerns them.newscord.org (opens in a new tab)