The IDF's 98th Division Headquarters on Sunday completed its mission overseeing the Judea and Etzion Regional Brigades of the Judea and Samaria Division. The Division Headquarters was deployed to the area on September 25th to reinforce command and control capabilities and strengthen defensive and offensive operations. During its deployment, the Division Headquarters drew on the operational experience gained from combat across multiple fronts in recent years, incorporating lessons learned from ground operations in Gaza and Lebanon and adapting them to the operational environment in Judea and Samaria.
Throughout this period, the Judea and Etzion Regional Brigades, under the command of the 98th Division, carried out over 1,500 counterterrorism operations, during which approximately 35 weapons were located and more than 140 suspects were apprehended. These operations reflected the command’s mission: enabling civilians to maintain their daily routines while confronting terrorist threats. During the Division Headquarters’ deployment in the Judea Brigade, two IDF soldiers, Staff Sergeant Ron Yonatan Roytman and Sergeant Yuval Shai Svilem, were killed during an encounter with terrorists.
Their actions and sacrifice prevented a serious terrorist attack against Israeli civilians. With the completion of its mission, the 98th Division will resume its role as a General Staff reserve division, focusing on readiness and preparations for future operational scenarios.
Arutz Sheva reports a division's deployment in the occupied West Bank in the words of Israeli occupation forces. It calls the territory Judea and Samaria in its own voice and calls more than 1,500 operations counterterrorism operations. With no attribution, it states as fact the military's account of its mission, that the people the soldiers met were terrorists and that an attack was prevented.
Uses the occupation's words
Serious
“Judea and Samaria”
Why this matters
The headline uses "Judea and Samaria" in the outlet's own voice for the territory where the division was deployed.
The impression it gives
A reader takes the area as an ordinary Israeli region where Israeli forces simply carry out a mission.
The context
The area is the occupied West Bank. The ICJ found the occupation unlawful and the settlements illegal. The article never uses the words occupied or West Bank anywhere.
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)
Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “occupied”, “occupation” and “West Bank”.
“adapting them to the operational environment in Judea and Samaria”
Why this matters
The outlet repeats "Judea and Samaria" in its own narration. It also places the occupied territory alongside Gaza and Lebanon as one more battlefield where lessons from ground operations are applied.
The impression it gives
A reader sees the occupied territory as a front in a war, with Israeli forces adapting combat tactics there as a matter of course.
The context
Israeli occupation forces hold the West Bank under an occupation the ICJ ruled unlawful. The article gives no word of that status.
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)
“enabling civilians to maintain their daily routines while confronting terrorist threats”
Why this matters
The outlet states the army's own description of its mission as fact, with no attribution.
The impression it gives
A reader takes the raids as having protected civilians from terrorist threats, as established fact.
The context
This is the army's self-description. Nothing in the article attributes it to the army or tests it. Other coverage attributes such purposes to the military with "the military says".
The outlet calls the unnamed people involved in the encounter "terrorists" in its own voice, with no source and no detail of what happened.
The impression it gives
A reader takes it as fact that the people the soldiers met were terrorists.
The context
The article gives no source for the label and no account of the incident. The only basis visible is the army's framing that the whole article reproduces.
“Their actions and sacrifice prevented a serious terrorist attack against Israeli civilians”
Why this matters
The outlet asserts as fact that the soldiers prevented a serious terrorist attack, with no attribution.
The impression it gives
A reader believes it is established that an attack on Israeli civilians was planned and was stopped.
The context
This is a military claim with nothing in the article to support it. The outlet ends the passage on it unchallenged and unattributed. Other coverage attributes similar claims to the army.