NYN | News
Explosions rocked Beersheba and the Haifa area in northern occupied Palestinian territories early Friday, following a precision missile strike carried out by the Islamic Republic of Iran against Israeli targets, marking a significant escalation in military confrontation.
The strike resulted in widespread destruction and a state of panic among residents, amid reports of injuries and substantial material losses.
Despite Tel Aviv’s boasts about its advanced defense systems and technological capabilities, the Iranian strike revealed serious vulnerabilities in Israel’s security infrastructure and exposed the fragility of cities presumed to be well-fortified.
One of the targets of the Iranian missile attack was a six-story building, which was destroyed, while dozens of nearby apartments sustained damage, according to Israeli emergency services. The Beersheba train station also had to be shut down after suffering direct damage.
The target was not random; Iran’s official news agency confirmed that the strike was aimed at the Gav-Yam Negev Advanced Technologies Park—one of the most sensitive sites housing Israeli military and cyber institutions. The message from Iran was clear: the hand that launches missiles can also accurately hit the centers of power.
Hebrew-language media reported that more than 22 Israelis were injured, including three in critical condition, in the initial toll of the latest Iranian missile attacks.
Local testimonies from residents in some of the affected areas described the Iranian missiles as a “100 out of 100 tsunami”—an unusual phrase in Israeli discourse that reflects the psychological shock caused by the attack.
While this popular characterization may have stemmed from emotional reaction, it raises questions about Israel’s psychological preparedness for escalation with an adversary possessing long-range missile capabilities. It also signals a shift in the balance of deterrence, which for a long time was one-sided.
Observers expressed surprise at Israeli descriptions of the Iranian missile attacks as a “100 out of 100 tsunami,” despite their short duration. They argued that such descriptions reveal the profound psychological impact inside Israel, but also raise fundamental questions about the double standards in humanitarian and media narratives.
They asked: if such limited Iranian strikes are described in such dramatic terms, how should one describe what happened in Gaza? A year and a half of daily bombings, siege, starvation, and systematic destruction have resulted in over 55,000 Palestinian martyrs, hundreds of thousands of wounded, and thousands still missing under the rubble.
They emphasized that what civilians in Gaza have endured amounts to a comprehensive genocide that has turned the city into ruins, amid international silence and media neglect—contrasted starkly with the extensive coverage of a missile that struck a building in Beersheba.
The observers concluded that Iran’s response was not merely a military action, but one that exposed the glaring contradiction in the narrative of victim versus aggressor, and raised the larger moral question: who has the right to cry out? And who will be held accountable for the destruction and killings they have inflicted?
