Israel’s relentless bombardment of Gaza for nearly three months has destroyed 70 percent of the homes in the besieged Palestinian enclave, according to the Government Media Office.
No further details were provided but an earlier report said more than 200 heritage and archaeological sites were destroyed in the Israeli bombardment considered the most destructive in modern history.
About 300,000 out of 439,000 homes have been destroyed in Israeli attacks, a Wall Street Journal report said. Analysing satellite imagery, the report added that the 29,000 bombs dropped on the strip have targeted residential areas, Byzantine churches, hospitals and shopping malls and all civilian infrastructure has been damaged to an extent that they cannot be repaired.
“The word ‘Gaza’ is going to go down in history along with Dresden [Germany] and other famous cities that have been bombed,” Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago who has written about the history of aerial bombing, told WSJ.
The actual figure is “70% damaged or destroyed”. Not a whole lot better, but there is a huge difference between a house with some broken windows and a pile of rubble. The article shouldn’t be hyperbolizing - the situation is bad enough as it is without lying to us.
To be fair, if someone blew out all the glass over the floor of my house and half of a wall is gone I think I would say
“Man, they destroyed my house.”
Not
“Man, my house is partially damaged”
It doesn’t have to be a literal pile of rubble, significant damage is enough to warrant (re)construction. Not being sure if the pillars are going to keep holding up your house doesn’t sound very appealing
Despite that I would love to see new comprehensible satalite imagery like they did for Mauriopol which according to western media would be described as “precision bombing on military targets” I guess
Israel has hit Gaza, which has an area of 141 sq miles, with 29,000 bombs. That works out to just over 205 bombs per square mile.
Just how many homes do you think only have broken windows and no major damage?
The ones that are buried under rubble are probably safe.
Both this comment and the reply to it are irrelevant. Bombs aren’t spread over average areas, bombs aren’t all the same power of explosive, nor can any math tell us much about the effect of the bombs.
All of that can only be done by looking at satellite or overhead footage, assessing the average damage to buildings in that area, and then generalizing each square to write off a percentage of homes as unlivable.
Like other comments have said, we have to be careful about this because I’d prefer the correct number and not the larger number.
I don’t know, but we can do some back-of-the-envelope math. Start with 2 million people total, averaging maybe 10 people per building, gives 200,000 residential buildings. Some of these are 100+ person highrises, but others are single family homes. If each bomb, on average, destroys a building, we get 25-30k destroyed using recent bomb estimates. Obviously some bombs destroy more, but others hit already destroyed buildings.
If we then take the 70% number as gospel, that is 140k buildings “damaged or destroyed”, so that would give us something like 30k destroyed, 110k damaged. This ratio is why the article in question is being disingenuous.
Of those 110k, you ask how many just have broken windows. As I said I don’t know, but just based on what I have seen, bombs can break windows a quarter mile away, especially when the overpressure is channelled down a city street. This is much farther than you’d see actual structural damage. If I had to guess, most of these damaged buildings will fall in the “broken windows” category.
The problem there is 2,000 pound bombs are being used regularly. They will destroy multiple buildings easily, especially in built up areas.
Agreed, dropping a bomb that large in an urban environment is frankly insane. My understanding is that only 2% of bombs dropped are 2000 pounders, and presumably they are mostly used against large, hardened targets, so we should keep in mind that they are at least a rarity. That being said they probably account for an outsized number of destroyed buildings and civilian deaths.
So many apologists.
It’s important to call out even minor misinformation, even when it’s for the “right” side. Especially then, because we need to keep ourselves disciplined, or we will fall into the same trappings as the opposition.
Literally just a fact-check, unless you’re disputing the original quote?
You are downplaying the human impact of a damaged home vs a destroyed one. Specifically, you categorized it as a huge difference. The effect of not having a home fit to live in is the same. Your comment heavily implies it’s not actually that bad.
“damaged” doesn’t actually equate to being unfit for habitation. It spans a wide range from broken windows to barely standing.
The article is deliberately overplaying the human impact to get clicks and make money. I find that gross since the destruction should not need hyperbolizing. All I did was cite the actual quote, and I did so while explicitly emphasizing how bad the true situation is.