Arutz Sheva / Israel National News, on Gaza, 25 October 2026

Arutz Sheva reports two Israeli strikes in Gaza entirely in the words of the Israeli military and Shin Bet, writing the killings out as eliminations and calling the dead terrorists in its own voice on the army's say-so alone. It states the army's justifications, that the men moved Iranian and Turkish money, that the strikes removed a threat, that a building was a Hamas weapons store, as settled fact, and closes with the military's own claim of precautions and continued operations with nothing set against it. It never tells its reader that Israeli attacks and Palestinian deaths have continued through the ceasefire it says Hamas violated.

Severe

out of 10

What we found

Writes the death out
Severe
“IDF eliminates two terrorists”
What the words do
The headline uses "eliminates" for the killing of two people.
What a reader comes away believing
That something was removed or neutralised, not that two men were shot dead from the air.
What is actually the case
The article's own second sentence says a strike killed one of them, and other outlets reporting the same announcement write plainly that the two were killed.
How we know
- Elsewhere in the article“killing Alaa Ibrahim Nimer Arshi”
- Ynet News (English) reported“it had killed two terrorists”IDF kills two terrorists who funneled millions from Iran and Turkey to Hamas (opens in a new tab)
Show it in the article
“The IDF eliminated two terrorists”
What the words do
Repeats "eliminated" in the opening line of the report, in the outlet's own voice.
What a reader comes away believing
That the operation is a clean removal of a problem rather than two deaths.
What is actually the case
i24News, reporting the same military statement, says the two men were killed in Israeli airstrikes.
How we know
- i24News reported“were killed in Israeli airstrikes”IDF: Gaza strikes killed two terrorists linked to Hamas funding network (opens in a new tab)
Show it in the article
“the IDF eliminated Karam Riyad Hassan Abu Butaihan”
What the words do
Names a man and then says he was "eliminated" rather than killed.
What a reader comes away believing
That a named human being's death is an administrative act of removal.
What is actually the case
The same announcement, as carried by Ynet, says he was killed in an airstrike in the Nuseirat area.
How we know
- Ynet News (English) reported“was killed in the Nuseirat area”IDF kills two terrorists who funneled millions from Iran and Turkey to Hamas (opens in a new tab)
Show it in the article
“The strikes were carried out to eliminate the threat posed by the two terrorists”
What the words do
Describes two killings as the elimination of a threat, with no word for killing and no attribution.
What a reader comes away believing
That the strikes removed an abstract danger, not that they ended two lives.
What is actually the case
The article elsewhere concedes a strike killed one of the men, and the purpose stated here is the military's own account of its motive.
How we know
- Elsewhere in the article“According to the joint announcement”
Show it in the article
Written straight
Israeli occupation forces killed two Palestinian men in separate air strikes in Gaza City and Nuseirat last week, the Israeli army and Shin Bet said.
Labels people on one side's word
Severe
“two terrorists who transferred millions to Hamas”
What the words do
The headline calls two killed men terrorists in the outlet's own voice.
What a reader comes away believing
That the dead were established terrorists and their killing needs no further justification.
What is actually the case
The article's only basis is the joint announcement by the Israeli army and Shin Bet; no charge, court record or independent source is given.
How we know
- Elsewhere in the article“According to the joint announcement”
Show it in the article
“a terrorist affiliated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad”
What the words do
Labels a named dead man a terrorist as a plain description, not as a claim.
What a reader comes away believing
That his affiliation and status are verified facts.
What is actually the case
The affiliation comes from the Israeli military and Shin Bet statement the article is reporting; nothing independent is offered.
How we know
- Elsewhere in the article“the IDF and Israel Security Agency (ISA, Shin Bet) announced”
Show it in the article
“both terrorists had been involved”
What the words do
Keeps the label in the outlet's voice even in a sentence that attributes the rest of the claim to the announcement.
What a reader comes away believing
That while the funding claim is the army's, the men being terrorists is settled.
What is actually the case
Both the label and the funding claim come from the same Israeli military statement.
How we know
- i24News reported“the IDF said”IDF: Gaza strikes killed two terrorists linked to Hamas funding network (opens in a new tab)
Show it in the article
Written straight
The Israeli army and Shin Bet said the two men they killed belonged to Hamas's military wing and to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. No independent confirmation of those claims has been given.
States one side's claim as fact
Serious
“The funds were recently used to support Hamas' efforts to rebuild its military capabilities and plan terrorist attacks against IDF troops and Israeli civilians”
What the words do
States the army's intelligence claim about what the money did as a fact of the matter, with attribution attached only to the ceasefire-violation phrase at the end.
What a reader comes away believing
That it is established that these men financed planned attacks on Israelis.
What is actually the case
Ynet and i24News both carry this as an accusation by the Israeli military, not as an established fact.
How we know
- Ynet News (English) reported“The military said the financial transfers”IDF kills two terrorists who funneled millions from Iran and Turkey to Hamas (opens in a new tab)
Show it in the article
“The facility was used by Hamas' military wing to store various weapons”
What the words do
Asserts in the outlet's own voice what the bombed building contained.
What a reader comes away believing
That the destroyed site was definitely a Hamas arms store.
What is actually the case
i24News reports this as the military's own description of the site it struck.
How we know
- i24News reported“destroyed a Hamas weapons depot in central Gaza”IDF: Gaza strikes killed two terrorists linked to Hamas funding network (opens in a new tab)
Show it in the article
Written straight
The Israeli army said the money had been used to rebuild Hamas's military capabilities and that the building it destroyed was a Hamas weapons store. Neither claim has been independently confirmed.
Headline goes beyond the article
Serious
“who transferred millions to Hamas”
What the words do
The headline asserts the funding claim without the attribution the body gives it.
What a reader comes away believing
That the two men demonstrably moved millions of shekels to Hamas.
What is actually the case
The body sources this to the joint Israeli army and Shin Bet announcement.
How we know
- Elsewhere in the article“According to the joint announcement”
Show it in the article
Written straight
Israeli army says two men it killed in Gaza moved millions to Hamas.
Gives a contested claim the last word
Serious
“The announcement said precautions were taken to minimize civilian casualties ahead of the strikes”
What the words do
Passes on the bombing party's assurance about its own care for civilians with nothing set against it.
What a reader comes away believing
That no civilians were harmed and the question is closed.
What is actually the case
The article offers no Palestinian account, no casualty check and no source other than the Israeli announcement itself.
Show it in the article
“will continue operating to eliminate threats, the statement said”
What the words do
Ends the article on the Israeli military's promise of further strikes, unanswered.
What a reader comes away believing
That continued Israeli strikes are a lawful policing of the agreement.
What is actually the case
Israeli attacks and the recorded Palestinian death toll have continued through the ceasefire the article says Hamas is violating.
How we know
- On the recordNewsCord tracked Gaza coverage across major outlets and found Western mainstream output fell by about three quarters after the October 2025 ceasefire was declared, while Israeli attacks and the recorded Palestinian death toll continued.newscord.org (opens in a new tab)
Show it in the article
Written straight
The army said it took precautions and would keep striking in Gaza. Israeli attacks have continued since the ceasefire was declared, with Palestinian deaths recorded throughout.
One side gets the space
Minor
“The security forces said they would continue operating to disrupt terrorist organizations' ability to finance and rebuild their forces in Gaza”
What the words do
Gives the Israeli security forces another paragraph of their own account in a report built entirely from their statement.
What a reader comes away believing
That this is the full picture of what happened.
What is actually the case
No Palestinian voice, no hospital or municipal source and no witness appears anywhere in the article.
How we know
- Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “hospital”.
Show it in the article
Leaves out what changes the picture
Minor
What is missing
Nothing in the article tells the reader the scale of Israel's killing in Gaza, where Gaza's Ministry of Health has recorded more than 74,000 Palestinians killed, or that a UN commission has found Israel committed genocide there. A reader is left with two strikes against named targets and no sense of what Israel's bombing of Gaza has been.
How we know
- On the recordGaza's Ministry of Health recorded the Israeli occupation as having killed 74,392 Palestinians, a cumulative toll that NewsCord's reading of BBC coverage cites as of October 2026.newscord.org (opens in a new tab)
- On the recordThe UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry found, on 16 September 2025, that Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip.ohchr.org (opens in a new tab)
Show where it belongs

Every underline is part of a finding. Press one to see why.

IDF eliminates two terrorists who transferred millions to Hamas

The IDF eliminated two terrorists involved in transferring millions of shekels to Hamas' military wing and destroyed a weapons storage facility in the Gaza Strip, the IDF and Israel Security Agency (ISA, Shin Bet) announced. Last Wednesday, the IDF struck in the Gaza City area, killing Alaa Ibrahim Nimer Arshi, a commander of a terrorist cell in Hamas' military wing. In a separate strike on Tuesday in the Nuseirat area, the IDF eliminated Karam Riyad Hassan Abu Butaihan, a terrorist affiliated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad who was involved in transferring funds to Hamas' military wing. According to the joint announcement, both terrorists had been involved throughout the war in facilitating the transfer of millions of shekels from the Iranian regime and Turkey to Hamas' military wing. The funds were recently used to support Hamas' efforts to rebuild its military capabilities and plan terrorist attacks against IDF troops and Israeli civilians, in what the security agencies described as a systematic violation of the ceasefire. The strikes were carried out to eliminate the threat posed by the two terrorists. Additionally, on Thursday, the IDF and ISA struck and destroyed a weapons storage facility in the central Gaza Strip in an aerial attack. The facility was used by Hamas' military wing to store various weapons, including Kalashnikov rifles, a launcher and rockets. The security forces said they would continue operating to disrupt terrorist organizations' ability to finance and rebuild their forces in Gaza, degrade their military capabilities and thwart attempts to rearm or obtain weapons intended to harm IDF troops. The announcement said precautions were taken to minimize civilian casualties ahead of the strikes. These included advance warnings to residents before the attack on the weapons storage facility, the use of precision munitions and aerial surveillance. Forces under the IDF's Southern Command remain deployed in the area in accordance with the agreement and will continue operating to eliminate threats, the statement said.

What we found

Writes the death out

Labels people on one side's word

States one side's claim as fact

Headline goes beyond the article

Gives a contested claim the last word

One side gets the space

Leaves out what changes the picture

IDF eliminates two terrorists who transferred millions to Hamas

How other outlets reported it

More from Arutz Sheva / Israel National News