i24News, on Gaza, 25 October 2026

i24News passes on an Israeli military statement almost whole: it calls the two Palestinians killed "terrorists" in its own voice, states the funding accusation against them as established fact, and ends with the military's assurance that its operations will continue, with nothing set against it. The only Palestinians in the piece are the two men the IOF killed, and no Palestinian source, independent check or mention of Israel's own strikes during the ceasefire appears.

9.1

Severe

out of 10

What we found

  1. Labels people on one side's word

    Severe

    “Two terrorists involved in transferring millions of shekels to Hamas’s military wing”

    What the words do
    i24News opens in its own voice by calling the two men killed "terrorists" and by stating their involvement in moving money as settled, with the source, "the IDF said", tacked on at the end of the sentence.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That it is established that the two Palestinians killed were terrorists who financed Hamas's military wing.
    What is actually the case
    The only basis given anywhere in the article is the Israeli military's own statement, which the article itself says gave no information on civilian casualties; Ynet reports the same statement as an accusation, not a finding.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Israeli forces killed two Palestinians in air strikes in Gaza City and near Nuseirat last week, the Israeli military said, naming them as Alaa Ibrahim Nimer Arshi and Karam Riyad Hassan Abu Butaihan and accusing them of moving money to Hamas. The claims are based on the military's statement alone and have not been independently verified.

  2. States one side's claim as fact

    Serious

    “Both helped move funds from Iran and Turkey to Hamas throughout the war.”

    What the words do
    States the central accusation against the two dead men as a flat fact in i24News's own voice, with no source attached to the sentence at all.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That it is established that both men channelled Iranian and Turkish money to Hamas.
    What is actually the case
    Ynet attributes the identical claim to the Israeli military, and nothing in the article shows any source other than that statement.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    The Israeli military said both men had helped move funds from Iran and Turkey to Hamas during the war. The claim has not been independently verified.

  3. Gives a contested claim the last word

    Serious

    “Israeli forces remain deployed in Gaza under the ceasefire agreement, the military said, adding that operations would continue against threats and attempts by armed groups to rebuild their military capabilities.”

    What the words do
    Closes the article with the Israeli military's own account of its presence and its future strikes in Gaza, with nothing set against it.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That Israel's continued strikes in Gaza are lawful ceasefire enforcement and that the only side breaching the ceasefire is Hamas.
    What is actually the case
    Israeli attacks and the recorded Palestinian death toll have continued through the ceasefire; the article mentions no Palestinian or other response, and the one ceasefire-violation claim it reports, in S5, is the army's own.

    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)
    • Elsewhere in the article“systematic violations of the ceasefire”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    The military said its forces remain in Gaza under the ceasefire and will keep striking. Israeli attacks have continued since the ceasefire was declared, and Palestinians have continued to be killed in them.

  4. Writes the death out

    Minor

    “remove the threat posed by the two men”

    What the words do
    Relays the army's euphemism for killing two people as the stated purpose of the strikes.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That the strikes removed a danger, rather than that Israeli forces killed two named men.
    What is actually the case
    The article's own first sentence says the men were killed in air strikes; Arutz Sheva reports the same statement with the word "eliminate".

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  5. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “The military said the money had recently been used to rebuild Hamas’s armed capabilities and prepare attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians.”

    What the words do
    Gives the whole of the article's explanatory content to the Israeli military; no Palestinian official, witness, hospital or resident is quoted anywhere in the piece.
    What a reader comes away believing
    That the army's account of the strikes is the only account available.
    What is actually the case
    The article itself notes that the army's statement said nothing about civilian casualties, and it seeks no Palestinian source to fill that gap.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“Its statement did not provide information on civilian casualties.”

    Show it in the article

  6. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The article reports the army's charge that the two men's activities were "systematic violations of the ceasefire" without saying that Israeli forces have gone on striking Gaza and killing Palestinians throughout the same ceasefire. Without it a reader takes the strikes reported here as enforcement against the only side breaking the truce.

    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 where it belongs

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

IDF: Gaza strikes killed two terrorists linked to Hamas funding network

were killed in Israeli airstrikes in Gaza last week, the IDF said. The military identified the men as Alaa Ibrahim Nimer Arshi, a Hamas cell commander killed in Gaza City on Wednesday, and Karam Riyad Hassan Abu Butaihan, an Islamic Jihad terrorist killed near Nuseirat on Tuesday. The IDF described those activities as systematic violations of the ceasefire and said the strikes were intended to . Separately, an Israeli airstrike destroyed a Hamas weapons depot in central Gaza on Thursday in a joint operation with the Shin Bet, the military said. The facility was used to store Kalashnikov rifles, a launcher and rockets. New reports say Israel gave the US intelligence that Hamas is preparing for war The IDF said it used precision munitions and aerial surveillance to reduce the risk to civilians, and issued advance warnings before striking the weapons depot. Its statement did not provide information on civilian casualties. Suggested articles Hamas threatened another October 7-style attack in message to Israel - report | i24NEWS A UNRWA teacher denounces antisemitic indoctrination in Gaza schools | i24NEWS IDF strike kills Hamas terrorist linked to Shani Louk’s abduction | i24NEWS

Read the original article on i24news.tv (opens in a new tab)

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from i24News

Everything we scored from i24News