BBC story about Hamad capture

Here is an example of attempting to disguise facts as mere claims:

Israeli forces have captured the leader of Islamic group Hamas' military wing in the West Bank in a raid in Ramallah.

Israel accuses Ibrahim Hamad, 41, of masterminding a string of suicide bombings, including attacks on cafes and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Does this mean there is some doubt about Hamad's role in these attacks? The story, without qualification, refers to Hamad as the "leader" of the Hamas "military wing." What is being relegated to the category of a mere Israeli accusation? Hamas took credit for the Hebrew University attack. The point here is that maybe there was a co-mastermind?

The following is also of interest:

Shortly before the arrest, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya told an Israeli newspaper that Hamas would observe a long-term ceasefire if Israel withdrew to its pre-1967 borders.

Are we going to be seeing constant references to this from now on? A "long-term ceasefire" is explicitly a phase of a war, a non-peace. Why is this being presented as anything more than a very meager sop to the panting Western press?

Tags: Israel, Hamas, Hamad, Haniyeh, BBC