Times of Israel, on West Bank, 24 October 2026

7.3out of 10Serious

IDF razes buildings near site of deadly shooting amid continued ...

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.5 findings

IDF razes buildings near site of deadly shooting

Emanuel (Mannie) Fabian is The Times of Israel's military correspondent

Buildings and structures near the site of Friday’s deadly shooting attack at the northern entrance to the West Bank city of Hebron were razed by Israeli authorities over the weekend.

in , where Israel has not given Palestinians building permits in years.

The army says the sites are being removed because they are illegal and due to the “security risks that they may pose.” In Friday’s attack, the two Palestinian gunmen used buildings near a temporary IDF checkpoint as cover to open fire on soldiers.

Meanwhile, where the two gunmen, Mohammad Jaaba and Firas Jaaba, lived. According to IDF assessments, some 2,000 residents of the area are members of the Jaaba clan, which it says is affiliated with Hamas.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article gives the IOF's claim that the 2,000 clan members are linked to Hamas but leaves out that the army offered little information on any offences and its sources had no specific information linking them to attacks. Without it a reader believes the 2,000 residents are known Hamas affiliates.

How we know

The IDF says .

So far, the army says troops have scanned some 200 sites in Hebron and apprehended 10 suspects for questioning.

The Times of Israel Community.

Read the original article on timesofisrael.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (5)

The Times of Israel reports the IOF's operation in Hebron almost entirely through the army's words. It carries the claim that civilians who "requested to evacuate" were allowed to leave, with nothing against it, when the defence minister and the Jerusalem Post said about 2,000 people were forced from their homes. It calls Palestinian buildings illegal in its own voice and never says the West Bank is occupied.

  1. Gives a contested claim the last word

    Serious

    “civilians who “requested to evacuate” were allowed to leave the area temporarily through designated checkpoints after a security screening”

    Why this matters
    The words "requested to evacuate" and "allowed to leave the area temporarily" tell the removal of residents as a voluntary, short departure that the army permitted. The article offers nothing against this IOF claim.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes some residents chose to go and were let out for a short time, and that nobody was forced from their home.
    The context
    Israel's defence minister acknowledged that Israeli forces had forcibly displaced around 2,000 Palestinians and said they would not be allowed to return. Even the Jerusalem Post reports that troops forcibly evacuated 2,000 people, and the Hebron municipality said families were handed notices ordering them to leave.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Israeli occupation forces forced about 2,000 Palestinians from their homes in Hebron, and Defence Minister Israel Katz said they would not be allowed to return. The IOF says civilians who "requested to evacuate" were let out through checkpoints.

  2. Hedges the documented record

    Serious

    “Israeli-controlled Area C of the West Bank”

    Why this matters
    The outlet calls the territory "Israeli-controlled" and never once calls the West Bank occupied, in a report about Israel demolishing Palestinian buildings and removing residents there.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes Israel simply administers this land as a lawful authority with the right to decide what is built on it.
    The context
    The ICJ found Israel's occupation of the West Bank unlawful. The article contains no word for occupation 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)
    • Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “occupied” and “occupation”.

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    The structures stood in Area C of the occupied West Bank, where Israel, whose occupation the ICJ has found unlawful, has not given Palestinians building permits in years.

  3. Uses the occupation's words

    Minor

    “amid continued operation in Hebron”

    Why this matters
    The word "operation" names a siege of the city and the removal of its residents with the army's neutral term.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes a limited, routine army action is under way in Hebron.
    The context
    Other outlets report the city sealed off and the al-Jilda and Deir Bahha areas placed under complete siege, with residents forced out of their homes.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “troops are operating in Hebron in the neighborhood”

    Why this matters
    "Troops are operating" describes soldiers clearing a district of its residents as if they were simply working there.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes soldiers are carrying out searches in one neighbourhood, with residents left in place.
    The context
    The Hebron municipality said around 1,500 people from 250 families had already been forced to flee these neighbourhoods, with more ordered out.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  4. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “The structures were illegally built”

    Why this matters
    The outlet states in its own voice that the Palestinian buildings were illegal, which is the army's stated reason for razing them.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes the illegality of the buildings as settled fact rather than the occupying army's justification.
    The context
    The next sentence gives this as the army's claim, and the legality rests on the permit system of an occupation the ICJ found unlawful. The article does add that Israel has not given Palestinians permits in years, which limits the harm.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“because they are illegal”
    • 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)

    Show it in the article

  5. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article gives the IOF's claim that the 2,000 clan members are linked to Hamas but leaves out that the army offered little information on any offences and its sources had no specific information linking them to attacks. Without it a reader believes the 2,000 residents are known Hamas affiliates.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Times of Israel

  1. 24 OctPalestinians in Hebron report widespread closures, blocked roads ...3.0
  2. 24 OctPA calls for international pressure amid mass displacement of ...3.0
  3. 24 OctKatz says some 2,000 Palestinians displaced during military op in ...6.0
  4. 24 OctReport: IDF op in Hebron has already displaced some 1,500 ...3.0
  5. 24 OctSeveral Palestinians said wounded in reported settler attack on farm ...0.0

Everything we scored from Times of Israel