The IDF on Thursday eliminated Ahmed Muhammad Ahmed Baraka, a Nukhba terrorist in Hamas’ military wing, in a strike in southern Gaza. Baraka took part in the abduction of several Israeli civilians during the October 7th Massacre, including Alexander Dancyg from Kibbutz Nir Oz. Additionally, during the war, he assisted in holding numerous hostages, including Nimrod Cohen in the southern Gaza Strip. In a strike in northern Gaza last Friday, the IDF eliminated two additional terrorists from Hamas’ military wing: Omar Awadallah, a Nukhba platoon commander, and Moataz Mahmoud Mohammed Al-Nimr, a Nukhba terrorist.
Throughout the war, and especially recently, both terrorists advanced terror attacks against IDF troops and Israeli civilians and operated to restore the Hamas terrorist organization's capabilities, in systematic violation of the ceasefire. The terrorists were eliminated in aerial strikes to remove the threat they posed. The IDF stressed that prior to the strikes, steps were taken to mitigate harm to civilians, including the use of precision munitions and aerial surveillance.
Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture
The article blames ceasefire violations on Hamas alone. It never says that the strikes it reports are themselves Israeli attacks inside the ceasefire. It also leaves out that Gaza's Civil Defence reported 13 people killed by Israeli fire in a single day that week. A reader comes away believing only one side is breaking the ceasefire.
"IDF troops under the Southern Command remain deployed in the area in accordance with the agreement and will continue to operate to remove any threat," the IDF added.
Arutz Sheva reports three Palestinians killed in IOF air strikes without once using the word killed. It calls them eliminated and labels them terrorists in its own voice, and it states the IOF's accusations against them as established fact, although other outlets attribute every one of those claims to the military. The only voice in the piece is the IOF's, which closes the article.
Writes the death out
Severe
“eliminated”
Why this matters
The headline uses "eliminated" for a man the IOF killed in an air strike.
The impression it gives
A reader takes in a clean removal, not a person killed by a bomb.
The context
Baraka was killed in an Israeli air strike. Other outlets reporting the same IOF statement say so plainly.
Israeli occupation forces killed Ahmed Muhammad Ahmed Baraka in an air strike in southern Gaza last Thursday, and killed Omar Awadallah and Moataz Mahmoud Mohammed Al-Nimr in a strike in northern Gaza on Friday, the military said.
Labels people on one side's word
Severe
“Terrorist”
Why this matters
The headline calls the dead man a "Terrorist" in the outlet's own voice.
The impression it gives
The reader takes it as established that the man killed was a terrorist.
The context
The only source for this description is the IOF's announcement. Other outlets attribute the identification to the military.
The Israeli military said the men it killed were members of Hamas's Nukhba force. It gave no evidence beyond its own statement.
States one side's claim as fact
Serious
“who held hostage Nimrod Cohen”
Why this matters
The headline turns the claim that Baraka "assisted in holding" hostages into a flat statement that he held Nimrod Cohen hostage. It gives no attribution.
The impression it gives
The reader believes it is a settled fact that this man was Nimrod Cohen's captor.
The context
The claim rests on the IOF's word alone, and the article's own body says only that he assisted.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“he assisted in holding numerous hostages”
The Israeli military said Baraka took part in abductions on 7 October and later helped hold hostages, and that the two men killed on Friday had been planning attacks in violation of the ceasefire. It did not publish evidence.
One side gets the space
Minor
“The IDF stressed that prior to the strikes, steps were taken to mitigate harm to civilians”
Why this matters
The outlet gives the IOF's assurance about civilian harm, then closes on another IOF quote. No Palestinian source or account from Gaza appears anywhere.
The impression it gives
The reader is left to believe that no one else was harmed and that the military's account is the whole story.
The context
The article has no Palestinian voice. The same day's coverage carried a Gaza Civil Defence report of people killed and wounded by Israeli fire during the ceasefire.
The article blames ceasefire violations on Hamas alone. It never says that the strikes it reports are themselves Israeli attacks inside the ceasefire. It also leaves out that Gaza's Civil Defence reported 13 people killed by Israeli fire in a single day that week. A reader comes away believing only one side is breaking the ceasefire.