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.

    • Anti-Face Weapon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Arete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Literally just a fact-check, unless you’re disputing the original quote?

      • hglman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Arete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          “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.