The militant wing of Hamas, known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, claimed responsibility for an attack on the Israeli city of Eilat. The claim appeared in a Telegram channel associated with Hamas, indicating that the operation involved a rocket attack on the southern city.
Hamas stated that the Qassam Brigades fired on Eilat using the Ayash-250 rocket, a weapon noted for its range of over 250 kilometers. The declaration framed the strike as a response to what it described as crimes committed by Zionist forces against civilians.
There is also mention of earlier statements from Hamas about the launch of the R-160 rocket toward Haifa, signaling a broader pattern of heavy missile activity reported by the group in that period.
On 7 October, Hamas and allied groups reportedly unleashed thousands of rockets toward Israel and announced the start of a large-scale operation referred to as Al-Aqsa Flood. Concurrently, militants moved into Israeli territory, seizing equipment and detaining a substantial number of hostages. In response, Israeli officials indicated that the country was entering a state of war, with prime ministerial statements aligning with that assessment.
The Israeli defense plan, identified by authorities as Iron Swords, outlined the aim of disrupting and destroying Hamas forces. The Israeli Air Force conducted airstrikes against a significant number of Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip, while security authorities in Israel debated measures that would restrict essential goods such as water, food, electricity, and fuel to Gaza as part of a broader security and humanitarian consideration. On 13 October, reports from the Israeli side referenced a United Nations assessment urging the evacuation of approximately 1.1 million Palestinians to southern Gaza within 24 hours in advance of any potential ground operations in the territory.
Prime Minister Netanyahu also articulated Israel’s goals in the broader campaign against Hamas, outlining objectives connected to regional security, deterrence, and the protection of civilians within Israel’s borders. The evolving situation prompted ongoing international concern and a flurry of updates from various governmental and non-governmental bodies seeking to interpret the developments and humanitarian implications.
Context from the period emphasizes that the incidents occurred within a rapidly changing security landscape in which multiple actors and messaging channels circulated statements, claims, and counterclaims about firepower, casualty figures, hostages, and strategic aims. Analysts and observers frequently cited the need to verify claims across sources while recognizing the immediate human impact and the broader regional repercussions that followed the exchange of missiles, ground operations, and political decisions.
Throughout the events, the emphasis remained on how military actions intersect with civilian life, international law, and humanitarian considerations. The cadence of rhetoric and the speed of developments underscored the volatility of the conflict and the urgency for timely information, careful verification, and cautious analysis from policymakers, journalists, and researchers alike. Attribution for specific claims often appeared through official channels, press briefings, and independent reporting, reflecting the complexity of conveying accurate details in real time.