What we found

1. Writes the death out

   Severe

   “eliminates”

   What the words do

   The headline uses the military's verb "eliminates" for the killing of two men.

   What a reader comes away believing

   That something was neutralised or removed, not that people were shot dead from the air.

   What is actually the case

   Two men were killed by Israeli air strikes. No form of the word kill appears anywhere in the article.

   How we know

   • Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “killed”.
   • Our analysis“Israel killed at least five people, including a Hamas commander, his wife, his child, and another woman.”Media hides the people Israel massacred on Eid.

   Show it in the article

   “announced the elimination”

   What the words do

   The outlet carries the army's noun "elimination" into its own reporting of the announcement.

   What a reader comes away believing

   That an administrative or technical act took place rather than a killing of named human beings.

   What is actually the case

   The article is reporting two fatal air strikes and never once writes that anyone was killed.

   How we know

   • Checked against the whole articleIt never uses the words “killed”.
   • Elsewhere in the article“were eliminated in an aerial strike”

   Show it in the article

2. Labels people on one side's word

   Severe

   “terrorist Mohammed Halawa”

   What the words do

   Labels a named man killed in a strike a terrorist in the outlet's own voice.

   What a reader comes away believing

   That it is established that the dead man was a terrorist, so his killing needs no further explanation.

   What is actually the case

   The only basis given anywhere in the article is the Israeli army's own announcement; no independent evidence is offered.

   How we know

   • Elsewhere in the article“the IDF stressed”

   Show it in the article

   “the terrorist Ahmed Zahir Fuad Abu-Odeh”

   What the words do

   Names the second man killed and attaches the label to him in the outlet's voice.

   What a reader comes away believing

   That this man was a terrorist, verified, and not merely so described by the force that killed him.

   What is actually the case

   Nothing in the article supports the label beyond the army's statement; the outlet gives no independent basis.

   How we know

   • Elsewhere in the article“in systematic violation of the ceasefire”

   Show it in the article

   Written straight

   Israel's military described both men as Hamas commanders. The claim could not be independently verified and no evidence beyond the army's statement was offered.

3. Headline goes beyond the article

   Serious

   “IDF eliminates two senior Hamas commanders in Gaza strikes”

   What the words do

   States the army's announcement as established fact and calls both men "senior", a word the body never uses.

   What a reader comes away believing

   That two confirmed senior Hamas commanders were killed, as a matter of record.

   What is actually the case

   The body says only that the army announced the killing of "a commander in Hamas' military intelligence apparatus" and an "engineering commander", with the army as the single source.

   How we know

   • Elsewhere in the article“The IDF and ISA on Monday announced”

   Show it in the article

   Written straight

   Israeli military says it killed two Hamas commanders in Gaza strikes.

4. Gives a contested claim the last word

   Serious

   “"Prior to the strikes, measures were taken to mitigate harm to civilians, including the use of precision munitions and aerial surveillance."”

   What the words do

   Closes the article with the army's assurance about civilian harm and sets nothing against it.

   What a reader comes away believing

   That the strikes harmed nobody but the two men, and that care for civilians is a tested fact.

   What is actually the case

   The article offers no casualty count from any source other than the army, and Israeli strikes on named commanders during this ceasefire have killed families in residential buildings.

   How we know

   • Our analysis“Israel has killed more than 900 Palestinians in Gaza since the 11 October ceasefire took effect”Media hides the people Israel massacred on Eid.

   Show it in the article

   Written straight

   The military said it had taken measures to reduce harm to civilians. The article gives no independent account of who else was in the buildings or who else was killed.

5. Leaves out what changes the picture

   Minor

   What is missing

   The article carries the army's claim that the two men acted "in systematic violation of the ceasefire" and never says that Israel has killed hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza since that ceasefire took effect. Without it a reader believes the ceasefire has been broken only by Hamas and that these strikes are an exception.

   How we know

   • Our analysis“Israel has killed more than 900 Palestinians in Gaza since the 11 October ceasefire took effect”Media hides the people Israel massacred on Eid.

   Show where it belongs