Did Hamas capture Israeli 'spy dolphins' in 2015 or 2022? What we know 16%

By Laerke Christensen12%

6/14/2026, 12:00:08 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Recency Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 19.6% saturation with 145 hits. Analysis detected 1,106 faulty-reasoning hits from 739 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.5% and a BS Rank of 16% (18,591 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.90% of the article peer group.

In 2026, a decade-old BBC News report with the headline, "Hamas 'seizes Israeli spy dolphin' off Gaza," circulated online. 
The article details how the Palestinian political group's military wing allegedly caught a dolphin equipped with "spying devices," including cameras. 
Some social media users appeared to cast doubt on Hamas' claim and the BBC's reporting. 
One X account that posted a screenshot of the article wrote (<a href="https://perma.cc/Y2T2-LHR8">archived</a>), "Hamas: We arrested a Mossad dolphin. 
BBC: Print it." 
The BBC did not independently verify the claim. 
Instead, the publication attributed the rumor to Hamas and reporting by Al-Quds Al-Arabi, an Arabic-language newspaper. 
Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported that Hamas' military wing, the Qassam Brigades, caught the spy mammal. 
International news outlets like DW and CNN also reported on the story in 2015 but did not independently verify Hamas' claim. 
Snopes, too, could not independently verify the story. 
We put the rumor to the Israeli military, which received our message but did not reply before the publication of this article. 
It was not possible to reach a representative of Hamas' military wing that allegedly caught the "spy dolphin." 
Therefore, we have left this claim unrated. 
It did not appear from any reports or searches that Hamas released photo or video evidence to back its accusation in 2015. 
Such evidence would have been included in the reports linked above if Hamas had published it. 
An August 2015 Times of Israel report suggested that the crux of Hamas' claim may have been lost in translation. 
According to the Jerusalem-based outlet, Iranian news agency Fars reported that the alleged spy dolphin was actually a robot, rather than a live dolphin. 
Snopes could not find the original Fars reporting to verify the Times of Israel's interpretation of the story. 
It is unclear what happened to the dolphin the Qassam brigades allegedly captured in 2015. 
A second dolphin 
In 2022, reports surfaced again, this time accompanied by a video (<a href="https://perma.cc/9CWJ-CJC4">archived</a>) featuring a spokesperson for the Qassam Brigades, the same group that reportedly captured the original "spy dolphin" seven years earlier. 
According to that spokesperson, the group had encountered another alleged Israeli spy dolphin and recovered a device that the mammal reportedly wore. 
It is unclear what the function of that device was. 
One X user reported that this dolphin killed a Hamas fighter. 
According to an Arabic speaker Snopes consulted, the spokesperson did not say that in the footage. 
Snopes could not independently verify the authenticity of the 2022 clip because the Telegram channel for the Qassam Brigades, where the group would have issued such a video, is blocked in the U.S. and the U.K. 
The video featured the correct seal of the Qassam Brigades and circulated online before generative artificial intelligence was widely available. 
The Middle East Media Research Institute, an American nonprofit that specializes in Middle Eastern media monitoring, logged the video in its archive in January 2022. 
According to the institute, the video did come from the Qassam Brigades Telegram channel. 
Israeli news outlets included the footage in their reports at the time. 
The Israeli government appeared to mock Hamas' claims, posting eight dolphin emojis on its official X account days after the Qassam Brigades clip circulated online. 
US, Russia allegedly train dolphins to kill 
Though we could not draw a firm conclusion on the existence of Israeli-trained spy dolphins due to a lack of verifiable sources, Israel is not the only country alleged to have trained animals to kill. 
In May 2026, Snopes investigated a claim that the U.S. 
Navy trained "kamikaze dolphins" and used them during marine combat operations against Iran. 
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said at the time that he could neither "confirm or deny" the existence of such mammals. 
The U.S. 
Navy does train marine mammals for mine detection, recovery and other purposes through the Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific's Marine Mammal Program. 
In 2017, Russian news outlet Russia Beyond reported on the work of the Murmansk Marine Biological Institute and the Sevastopol Oceanarium, two facilities that allegedly trained marine mammals, including dolphins, for military purposes. 
The facilities reportedly trained bottlenose dolphins to kill intruders using "a special dolphin muzzle with a spike." 
It is unclear whether the dolphin that the Qassam Brigades allegedly caught in 2022 wore a similar device. 
For further reading, Snopes has previously reported on other claims about dolphins and other marine life. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 2.2%Snopes: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.9%Snopes: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.4%Laerke Christensen: 2.6%Snopes: 3.4%Availability Heuristic19.4%This article: 2.8%Laerke Christensen: 1.3%Snopes: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic2.8%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 1.7%Snopes: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 2.2%Snopes: 2.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.9%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.9%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.7%Snopes: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Laerke Christensen: 0.9%Snopes: 0.5%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 4.7%Laerke Christensen: 0.4%Snopes: 0.4%Pessimism Bias4.7%This article: 9.7%Laerke Christensen: 4.4%Snopes: 5.1%Negativity Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.4%Snopes: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Laerke Christensen: 0.4%Snopes: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error8.4%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.2%Snopes: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.5%Snopes: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.8%Laerke Christensen: 1.9%Snopes: 1.5%Recency Bias11.8%This article: 0.4%Laerke Christensen: 0.3%Snopes: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.4%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Laerke Christensen: 1.3%Snopes: 1.5%Ad Hominem1.1%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.5%Snopes: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.6%Laerke Christensen: 6.2%Snopes: 6.0%Appeal to Authority19.6%This article: 1.4%Laerke Christensen: 2.1%Snopes: 0.9%False Dilemma1.4%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.7%Snopes: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.2%Laerke Christensen: 4.0%Snopes: 3.5%Hasty Generalization3.2%This article: 10.1%Laerke Christensen: 0.7%Snopes: 0.7%Red Herring10.1%This article: 4.5%Laerke Christensen: 0.7%Snopes: 1.5%Bandwagon4.5%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 3.7%Snopes: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.6%Snopes: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.5%Laerke Christensen: 1.6%Snopes: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.5%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.5%Snopes: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.4%Laerke Christensen: 0.9%Snopes: 1.6%Burden of Proof5.4%This article: 2.7%Laerke Christensen: 0.6%Snopes: 0.2%Appeal to Nature2.7%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.3%Snopes: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.5%Laerke Christensen: 0.9%Snopes: 1.8%Anecdotal3.5%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.3%Laerke Christensen: 1.8%Snopes: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.3%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.2%Snopes: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.5%Snopes: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.1%Laerke Christensen: 2.0%Snopes: 3.3%Unattributed Quote5.1%This article: 9.6%Laerke Christensen: 1.8%Snopes: 2.3%Quote-first Misdirection9.6%This article: 0.4%Laerke Christensen: 2.2%Snopes: 2.5%Biased Writer Voice0.4%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.1%Snopes: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.6%Snopes: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.6%Snopes: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Laerke Christensen: 0.4%Snopes: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.2%

739 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers24%attributed speech563writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAl-Quds Al-Arabi • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageTimes of Israel • 20 words • 0.0% coverageTimes of Israel • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageMiddle East Media Research Institute • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMiddle East Media Research Institute • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageIsraeli government • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageRussia Beyond • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Israeli government

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words14% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Quote-first Misdirection-12.6 ptsWriter: 12.6%Israeli government: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%Israeli government: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Israeli government: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-0.5 ptsWriter: 0.5%Israeli government: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.