Arutz Sheva / Israel National News, on Gaza, 12 November 2026

9.5out of 10Serious

IDF exposes Hamas headquarters inside Gaza hospital where hostages were held

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.6 findingsSee them marked on israelnationalnews.com

The IDF on Thursday on in Khan Yunis, in the southern Gaza Strip, including the involvement of a senior Hamas commander in holding Israeli hostages captive during the war. According to the military, Muhammad Abu Ismail, who was targeted in the strike, played a central role in commanding and managing Hamas' Khan Yunis Brigade, particularly following the elimination of brigade commander Muhammad Yazouri in early September.

The IDF stated that Abu Ismail was responsible for holding numerous hostages captive throughout the war, including Nimrod Cohen, Matan Zangauker, Edan Alexander, Avera Mengistu, Col. Asaf Hamami, Staff Sgt. Oz Daniel, and Capt. Omer Neutra. The military also revealed that Hamas used Nasser Hospital to hold dozens of hostages throughout the war, many of whom were abducted from Kibbutz Nahal Oz. Among those held at the hospital were women, children, elderly people, and foreign nationals.

According to the IDF, the second floor of Nasser Hospital serves as a military headquarters for Hamas, with access restricted to terrorist commanders and other authorized personnel. In addition to Abu Ismail, the strike targeted , including Muared Tawfiq Mahmoud Abu Zarifa, a team leader in the engineering department of the Combat and Administrative Support Company, and Khaled Osama Abu Anza, head of the communications section in the Operations Department of Hamas' intelligence headquarters.

The IDF said the terrorists had been operating from the hospital to advance dozens of planned attacks against Israeli soldiers and to rebuild the military capabilities of the Khan Yunis Brigade, which had been significantly weakened during the war. According to the military, the aerial strike was carried out to eliminate the threat posed by the terrorists, with the attack specifically directed at the room from which they were conducting military activities.

The IDF emphasized that precautionary measures were taken before the strike to minimize damage to the hospital building and . The military further stated that it had repeatedly warned against the use of the hospital for terrorist activity, including in recent warnings, and demanded that such activity cease. The IDF stressed that it .

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The hospital director said the strike rendered the entire facility unusable, and that it serves about one million people and is the only centre performing surgery. Without this a reader believes the army's precautions left the hospital working and its patients unaffected.

How we know

The military added that Israeli security forces remain deployed in the area in accordance with the agreement and will continue operating to eliminate threats.

Read the original article on israelnationalnews.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (6)

Arutz Sheva tells the Israeli occupation forces' strike on Nasser Hospital through the army's statement and never says that anyone was killed, although its own report that morning gave six dead and other outlets reported a surgeon among them. It calls the people targeted terrorists in its own voice, states the army's claims about the hospital as fact, and ends on the army's assurances about international law. It leaves out the damage to the intensive care and surgical departments that it reported earlier, and the hospital director's account that the facility was rendered unusable.

  1. Writes the death out

    Serious

    “revealed additional details regarding the strike”

    Why this matters
    The article opens on 'additional details regarding the strike' and gives only the army's account of whom it aimed at. It never says the strike killed anyone.
    The impression it gives
    A reader comes away thinking the strike on a hospital hit a room of fighters, with no deaths or injuries worth reporting.
    The context
    Gaza's civil defence reported six people killed and at least 20 to 25 wounded, a surgeon among the dead. Arutz Sheva itself reported the six dead hours earlier. No word for killing or wounding appears anywhere in this article.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    An Israeli airstrike on Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis killed six people, including a surgeon, and wounded at least 20, according to Gaza's civil defence. The Israeli military said the strike targeted Hamas commander Muhammad Abu Ismail and others.

  2. Drops what it reported before

    Serious

    “reduce the risk of harm to uninvolved civilians”

    Why this matters
    The article carries the army's claim that it took precautions to reduce harm to civilians and sets nothing beside it.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the precautions worked and the hospital and the people in it were spared.
    The context
    The same outlet reported that morning that the hospital's intensive care and surgical departments were damaged and that six people were killed. This article drops both facts, so its readers believe something its own reporting contradicts.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  3. Labels people on one side's word

    Serious

    “Hamas terrorists operating from Nasser Hospital”

    Why this matters
    In its own voice the outlet calls the people struck in the hospital 'Hamas terrorists operating from Nasser Hospital'.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes it as established that everyone hit was a terrorist working out of the hospital.
    The context
    The only basis is the army's statement, which the article attributes elsewhere. Hamas rejected the claim, and medics said a surgeon was among the dead.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “other Hamas terrorists operating from the hospital compound”

    Why this matters
    The outlet applies the label again, unattributed, to two named men, Abu Zarifa and Abu Anza, and says as fact that they operated from the compound.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes these named men are proven terrorists who used the hospital as a base.
    The context
    Their roles and activity come from the army's list. The article offers no independent basis for the label, and Hamas disputes the account of the hospital's use.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    The Israeli military said the strike targeted Hamas members it accused of operating from the hospital. Hamas rejected the claim.

  4. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “The area is heavily secured and closed to civilians.”

    Why this matters
    Straight after attributing the headquarters claim to the army, the outlet states in its own voice that the area is heavily secured and closed to civilians.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes as fact that part of the hospital is a sealed military zone with no civilians in it.
    The context
    This is the army's claim and nothing in the article verifies it. Hamas rejected it, and medics reported a surgeon among the dead.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “Despite those warnings, Hamas continued operating from the facility.”

    Why this matters
    The outlet turns the army's justification into its own statement of fact that Hamas kept operating from the hospital.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes it is settled that Hamas defied warnings and used the hospital, so the strike was answered provocation.
    The context
    The claim comes only from the army and is disputed. The article gives no source for it in this sentence.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    The military said the area was secured and closed to civilians and that Hamas kept operating there despite warnings. Hamas rejected the claim.

  5. Gives a contested claim the last word

    Serious

    “operates in accordance with international law, targets military objectives only, and respects the special protections afforded to medical facilities and medical personnel”

    Why this matters
    The article ends its account on the army's assurance that it obeys international law and respects medical protections, with nothing set against it.
    The impression it gives
    A reader is left believing the strike's legality and its respect for medical staff are not in question.
    The context
    Spain called the strike a serious violation of international humanitarian law. MSF condemned it, and medics said a surgeon was killed.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    The military said it acts under international law and respects medical protections. Spain called the strike a serious violation of international humanitarian law, and MSF condemned it.

  6. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Serious

    What is missing

    The hospital director said the strike rendered the entire facility unusable, and that it serves about one million people and is the only centre performing surgery. Without this a reader believes the army's precautions left the hospital working and its patients unaffected.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Arutz Sheva / Israel National News

  1. 12 NovDozens of nations demand more Gaza aid, Israel blames Hamas for crisis7.3
  2. 12 NovIDF confirms elimination of Hamas brigade commander9.8
  3. 10 NovNetanyahu responds to Board of Peace: "Hamas has not surrendered a single weapon"0.0
  4. 9 NovTrump's Board of Peace criticizes Israel, Hamas following Gaza floods0.0
  5. 9 NovIDF: Over 91,000 tents, 8,200 trucks of winter supplies enter Gaza0.0

Everything we scored from Arutz Sheva / Israel National News