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 Palestinians arrested in Qabatiya "terrorists" in its own voice, in the headline and twice in the body, without a charge, a source or even the word alleged. It describes the raids as a "counterterrorism operation" in the "Binyamin sector" and never says these places are in the occupied West Bank. Its headline promises bodycam footage that the article never describes.
Labels people on one side's word
Severe
“Five terrorists arrested”
Why this matters
The headline calls the five people arrested "terrorists" as a plain fact, in the outlet's own voice.
The impression it gives
The reader believes five proven terrorists were caught.
The context
Nothing in the article shows any of the five has been charged, tried or even accused by a named source. The only basis is that soldiers arrested them. The article itself calls people detained in the same operations "suspects".
How we know
Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “charged” and “accused”.
Elsewhere in the article“questioned suspects affiliated with the Hamas terrorist organization”
Israeli occupation forces arrested five Palestinians in Qabatiya last week, three of whom the army says are affiliated with Hamas and two with Palestinian Islamic Jihad. No charges have been reported.
Uses the occupation's words
Serious
“a separate counterterrorism operation in the Binyamin sector”
Why this matters
In its own voice the outlet calls raids by occupation troops a "counterterrorism operation" and places them in the "Binyamin sector", the army's and the settlers' name for the area.
The impression it gives
The reader believes this is a security action against terrorism in an Israeli administrative district.
The context
The article itself says the forces "raided more than 50 locations". These are raids in the occupied West Bank, an occupation the ICJ has ruled unlawful. The article never uses the words West Bank or occupied.
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)
Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “occupied”, “West Bank” and “occupation”.
“in the village of Qabatiya, in the Menashe Brigade's area of operations”
Why this matters
The outlet locates Qabatiya only by the army brigade that controls it.
The impression it gives
The reader is never told that Qabatiya is a Palestinian town in the occupied West Bank, and sees it only as an Israeli military zone.
The context
The arrests took place in occupied Palestinian territory, whose occupation the ICJ found unlawful. The army's operational map is the only geography the reader gets.
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”.
“as part of the counterterrorism operation in the area”
Why this matters
The closing sentence repeats "counterterrorism operation" as the outlet's own description, so the army's label for the raids gets the last word.
The impression it gives
The reader ends the article believing that searches of more than 50 locations were all aimed at terrorism.
The context
The article reports searches for weapons and the questioning of suspects. It reports no weapons found and no charges. The counterterrorism label is the army's description, stated with no attribution.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“conducted searches for weapons”
The headline says bodycam footage "reveals" the arrests.
The impression it gives
The reader believes there is video that shows or proves something about the five arrested people.
The context
The body never mentions any footage, camera or video. It never says what any recording shows, so nothing in the article supports the headline's claim that footage reveals anything.
How we know
Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “video”, “recorded” and “camera”.
The outlet reports raids on more than 50 locations only as a count, told from the soldiers' side.
The impression it gives
The reader learns nothing about whose homes or property were raided or what happened to them.
The context
The article gives no Palestinian voice: no resident, family or local official. The people whose homes were searched appear only as a number of locations.
How we know
Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “residents”, “family” and “homes”.