• Iran says it targeted a military-intelligence hub beside Soroka Hospital, not the hospital itself.
• Israel denies any military use, but independent verification remains elusive due to military secrecy.
On 14 June 2025, amidst spiralling tensions between Iran and Israel, Iranian missiles landed in the Israeli city of Be’er Sheva, with one of the strikes hitting parts of Soroka Medical Centre. The incident triggered a wave of condemnation from Israeli officials and Western media, who framed the attack as a flagrant violation of international law – a direct strike on a civilian hospital. Israel labelled it a war crime. Iran, however, maintains that the hospital was not the intended target at all and insisted that the targets were, in fact, “strategic centres”.
According to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Iran launched precision-guided Sejjil missiles targeting the Gav-Yam Negev Advanced Technologies Park, a known tech hub adjacent to the hospital. Within that tech park, Iran claims, lies an IDF command and control centre (C4I) and military intelligence facilities operating under the guise of civilian research spaces. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated unequivocally that the missile had targeted a military site, not the hospital, and described the suggestion that Iran would intentionally strike a hospital as “ridiculous and hilarious.”
According to Iranian officials, the hospital was exposed only to the blast wave, not the direct impact of the missile. This is further supported by reports indicating that most injuries resulted from blast debris rather than a direct strike. The Iranian military further asserted that approximately 90% of the missiles launched in that salvo hit their intended targets, with high-precision payloads designed to minimise collateral damage.
Israel, on the other hand, has refused to accept all such claims, stating that no military facility was present in or near Soroka. Israeli defence officials went so far as to accuse Iran of using “AI-generated maps” to fabricate military targets near civilian infrastructure. The Israeli media quickly followed suit, describing Iran’s justification as propaganda, without interrogating the facts further.
This is where the story gets complicated – and revealing.
Strategic Silence and Censorship
Israel is one of the most tightly controlled information environments in the world when it comes to military matters. The Israeli Military Censor’s Office actively filters reports, news footage, and even social media posts that may reveal the location or nature of military assets. Satellite images are heavily restricted, and journalists are often barred from publishing images or details of sensitive sites. This means that even if military infrastructure did exist adjacent to Soroka Hospital, Israeli media cannot legally confirm or deny it. The Israeli public is left in the dark. So is the rest of the world.
Iran’s assertion, then, becomes hard to verify but not necessarily because it is false. Rather, it cannot be verified because Israel makes it un-verifiable. The strategic benefit of such censorship is clear: Israel retains the upper hand in shaping international narratives, regardless of what may actually exist beneath or around its civilian buildings.
Concealment as Strategy
Israel has a long-standing history of embedding military infrastructure within or adjacent to civilian sites. The most well-known example is the Dimona nuclear complex, much of which is underground and long-denied by Israel. In past wars, Israel has also placed Iron Dome batteries near residential areas, artillery near schools, and military command operations within civilian tech parks, especially in high-density regions where space is limited.
The Gav-Yam Tech Park, targeted by Iran, is located less than 300 metres from Soroka Medical Centre. It houses both Ben-Gurion University research labs and Israeli military-affiliated cyber and communication centres, making it a dual-use complex by all definitions under international law.
Under the Geneva Conventions, if a civilian facility is used to shield or host military operations, it may lose its protected status. This was the argument Israel used to justify its strikes on Gaza hospitals, particularly Al-Shifa Hospital, which it claimed was being used by Hamas to house command centres. Western media and political leaders largely accepted Israel’s claims without demanding hard evidence – even after independent investigations later debunked them.
In contrast, when Iran uses the same justification – that a military facility was being shielded by or embedded near a hospital – it is met with near-universal scepticism and condemnation. This discrepancy reveals a deep-rooted double standard in how acts of war are judged, depending on who commits them.
The Missing Satellite Imagery
In this digital age, satellite imagery is often the first form of independent verification used to confirm or discredit such claims. Strikingly, no satellite images have been released showing the exact strike site at Soroka or the alleged military facility in the adjacent tech park.
Platforms such as NASA Worldview, Sentinel-2, and Zoom Earth offer real-time satellite data, yet no OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) analysts, many of whom closely track the Israel-Iran conflict, have provided visual overlays, strike mapping, or impact assessments in this case.
This absence is quite telling. In previous conflicts, such as Russia’s conflict with Ukraine or Israel’s bombardments of Gaza, satellite imagery has been used extensively to verify claims of strikes, damage, and military positioning. In the Soroka case, the silence is deafening.
The Gaza Comparison
It’s instructive to look at how similar claims have been treated in the past.
In 2023, Israel bombed Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza, claiming it was being used as a Hamas command base. The IDF released grainy bodycam footage and some still images to support this claim. However, no satellite imagery, no verified blueprints, and no independent oversight were ever presented.
Al Jazeera’s investigative unit, Sanad, and several human rights groups reviewed the data and concluded there was no conclusive evidence that the hospital was used for military operations. Despite this, Western officials largely sided with Israel, and the strike was quietly forgotten in the news cycle.
Now compare that to Soroka. Iran has provided detailed targeting information, named the missile used, and identified the target site with specificity. Still, its account is dismissed without serious consideration.
Why? Because Iran is not considered as one of the “credible” countries in the eyes of the Western political-media complex. But Israel, despite repeated false claims, including denying civilian deaths, misidentifying UN schools, and bombing journalists, is routinely believed.
Data Analysis: Double Standards in Practice
These contrasts highlight a media bias as well as political hypocrisy in how intel-based claims are judged.
What Would Independent Verification Look Like?
Independent verification would require:
- Third-party satellite imaging showing the nature of the impact and surrounding structures.
- OSINT mapping of military installations in the tech park.
- Access to Gav-Yam Park by a neutral body – unlikely to be granted by Israel.
- UN-led field investigations, as are sometimes conducted after major civilian casualty events.
So far, none of these have taken place – and are unlikely to – given the geopolitical dynamics and Israel’s control over domestic access.
Final Thoughts: Buried Truth
Whether or not Iran’s missile strike hit a military installation disguised within a civilian area, the burden of proof has been unfairly placed on one side only. Iran is asked to prove its innocence, while Israel is never asked to prove its denials. This absence of transparency benefits those keen to maintain plausible denial.
This asymmetry is more than just political – it is both strategic and structural. It is rooted in a global system where some states are always assumed to be acting in self-defence, and others, in aggression. The Soroka incident reveals how military secrecy, media complicity, and selective moral outrage combine to shape public perception, often far from the actual battlefield.
Until neutral evidence is made public – satellite images, third-party assessments, or UN inspections – the truth of what happened at Soroka Medical Centre will remain buried. But one thing is clear: the global standard for judging such acts is far from fair or equal, and Iran’s claims deserve further consideration.
