Campaign 400: The Second Punic War in Iberia 219–206 BC.

/

Campaign 400: The Second Punic War in Iberia 219–206 BC. (https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-second-punic-war-in-iberia-219-206-bc-from-hannibal-at-saguntum-to-the-battle-of-ilipa-mir-bahmanyar/19994256?ean=9781472859754)

Yes, I am one of those people who has always been fascinated by Hannibal. Back in the day when I was very young the shopping center across from our home in Hamburg, Germany had an old game in one of the retail stores. It wasn’t so much a game in the traditional sense but more a of question and answer one, a test your knowledge kind of a thing. The question that has remained with me to this day was:  How many elephants did Hannibal have when he crossed the Alps?

Since then life has kept me busy but the fascination for the Punic Wars remained throughout eventually leading to a 200 plus book collection as well as hundreds if not thousands of scholarly articles. I have travelled to Italy, including Sicily, and Spain to which I will return this year for some additional trips to Phoenician/Carthaginian sites.

Campaign 400 The Second Punic War in Iberia 219–206 BC came out of several failed book proposals. Seemingly, the market did not want yet another book on Hannibal – what’s wrong with editors? Fortunately, I pitched my long time editor Nikolai Bogdanovic, who also had commissioned Campaign 299 on the battle of Zama, a smaller aspect of the incredible Punic Wars and he accepted the proposal. Spain it was and I was delighted.

The exciting thing for me was to trace the first Carthaginian encroachment before the Second Punic War in Spain. Phoenicians had been there of course, as had Carthaginians and many others. I was also excited about the non-Hannibal actors in the theater such as Hamilcar, the Hasdrubals, Mago and Numidian leaders who proved crucial for and against Carthage throughout the campaigns. And then, of course, there was Hannibal as a young commander having learned the art of war and winning his first battles in Iberia. Examining sieges, focusing on Saguntum mostly, it is easy to understand the challenges Hannibal would have had to have faced had he laid siege to Rome after his mass-slaughter victory over the Romans at Cannae years later in mainland Italy. The Second Punic War in Iberia 219–206 BC spends considerable time in the early years of the re-conquest of the peninsula by Carthage. It traces its slow but methodical expansion along the south-eastern seaboard and the founding of several bases including that of New Carthage. It details the competition with Greek colonies and alliances that led to Roman interference and eventual war.

Spain with its diverse cultures and tribes and with its varying environments from coasts to plains to  mountain ranges are fully featured in the Iberian campaigns. Who can forget Scipio’s audacious attack on New Carthage? Or Hannibal’s march through Spain to lay siege to several native cities east of modern Madrid or the battle he fought outnumbered four to one while returning to his base at New Carthage? The other fascinating events were the ever-shifting alliances for and against the Carthaginian and Roman invaders resulting in the assassinations of Hamilcar and Hasdrubal the Fair, and the abandonment, at times, of Roman forces leading to disastrous results. Two Scipios died in Spain. For Hannibal, Spain was the proving ground as a highly-skilled commander but the fight for the peninsula was by and large waged by his brothers Hasdrubal and Mago. 

The campaign in Spain was crucial to the overall conduct of the second of the Punic Wars, and Carthage, often accused of not supporting the war effort, did spend fortunes on reinforcements despite its naval inferiority to the Romans. Ultimately, Spain was conquered by the Romans, the logistical support for Hannibal in Italy was cut off, Numidian alliances shifted favoring Rome, finally leading to Carthage’s defeat in the Second Punic War. Often the Numidian and Iberian warriors are left with a poor image by many scholars. In this book I hope to demonstrate their value and contributions to the overall campaigns.

My last book featured the wonderful artwork of the great Peter Dennis who recently retired. I have seen the work of the Italian artist Marco Capparoni for the new book and I am rather pleased. Hopefully,  you too will enjoy the book as much as I enjoyed writing it – well, I actually had a blast. 

The Second Punic War in Iberia 219–206 BC is an excellent primer for anyone interested in general military history in this theater of war. Its release date is 23 April, 2024.

A great photographer of life in all its forms Sebastião Salgado

/

His website is linked followed by a film on Youtube - you can also read a Guardian article by Andrei Netto you’ll find below

https://www.amazonasimages.com/sebastiao-salgado/

I photographed the world,” says Sebastião Salgado, flicking through the archive in his Paris studio. Salgado, who turns 80 this week, has witnessed wars, revolutions, coups, humanitarian crises, and famine. He has also seen some of the most pristine places on the planet – locations and peoples untouched by the devastating fury of the modern world.

His body of work, an instantly recognisable combination of black-and-white composition and dramatic lighting, has been built up over decades, covering hundreds of assignments in 130 countries and his name stands in the photojournalist pantheon alongside figures such as Robert Capa, Eugene Smith, Margaret Bourke-White, Henri Cartier-Bresson, James Nachtwey and Steve McCurry.

Now, Salgado tells the Guardian, it’s time to step down. “I know I won’t live much longer. But I don’t want to live much longer. I’ve lived so much and seen so many things.”

Although still strong and active – able to walk or cycle several kilometres a day – his body is paying the price for his years working in some of the world’s most hostile and challenging places.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/feb/08/photographer-sebastiao-salgado-at-80-they-say-i-was-an-aesthete-of-misery

Shameful Behaviour by David Williams of The Descendants of WWII Rangers, Inc. UPDATED

/

A long time ago this was the WWII Ranger Battalions Association, then it became the Sons & Daughters to todays version.

David Williams, the president, decided not to share Ranger research I requested last year as he sees this request a threat, a competitor to his work. Additionally, 2.5 months later, the “board” rejected my general membership application to join their FB [I stand corrected not FB but to join their members only section of the website - see below] page because “that would open the door to others.” But hey what’s this from their website?

If you are requesting General Membership:
A General Member (previously called Honorary Member) is defined in the By-Laws as being someone who is not related to a WWII Ranger as a spouse, son, daughter, niece, nephew or any descendant of these categories. If you are a General Member (meaning not Ranger family), when you send in your annual dues, please list on the back of this form, or on an additional sheet which follows for those joining on-line, your intended contributions ( non-monetary) to the Descendants of WWII Rangers, Inc., and explain how you might further the above purposes of the Descendants of WWII Rangers organization.

Okay - Gollum has his “precious” and David has his although it is extremely unprincipled to exclude a former member of the association, a fund raiser, and an associate historian of it. Very un-author like and certainly not in the spirit of the Ranger Brotherhood to aid, assist and preserve all things Ranger…

He signs off his emails with “honoring my uncle” - a former Darby Ranger officer. I am certain his uncle would not approve - David’s behaviour is disrespectful and dishonourable.

It is also a shame that previously I was looking for a home with them for all the Ranger research I have but now I’ll look elsewhere.

This is not unexpected because Darby Ranger Jim Altieri (former president of RBA) and Combat Camera Phil Stern had told me they did not like the people that replaced them. Oh well - if only they knew.

I am not the only one who has complaints about David (other descendants and researchers do as well) but hey, life goes on - Rangers lead the way or they stagger onwards…

From David with my responses as a matter of fairness and truth:

Mr. Bahmanyar:    To say that I was stunned when I learned of your slanderous remarks on your website about me, also implicating the Descendants of World War II Rangers, Inc., is an understatement:  www.mirbahmanyarya.com.  You have damaged my reputation as well as that of our organization, and I hope you will take down the Blog immediately.  Here are the facts.   

1.      You contacted me asking for my files on WW II Rangers, saying you needed them to complete a book that you have under contract to be published in 2025.  I responded by saying that I have written a book on the same subject and am not willing to turn over the files that I have collected over a 25 year period.  It is a matter of academic integrity that I keep these files at least until my book is published.  When and if it is in the public domain it can be shared.  As an author and researcher I would expect that you understand that. What a mean, damaging comment for you to call my behavior “shameful” - and  to do it in public.

[I did not ask for files that I needed to complete my book. This is what I sent: Hello David

I am writing a book on Darby’s Rangers to be published in 2025. Unfortunately, I do not have a lot of time to deliver the manuscript - end of summer latest.

Phil Stern and Jim Altieri were friends. Not sure if you had asked me about Stern’s photographs a long time ago?

Anyway, I am looking for any help I can get to craft a good book historically but importantly a personality driven one. The idea is to tell the story through the eyes of some 12-24 Rangers. Although I have a list I’d like to also write about men who were killed early on or Rangers who joined later. So personal details matter. I’ll also cover the First Special Service Force. 

I do have thousands of pages of material including most of Bob Black’s archives, the sealed court judgment on Shunstrom, 100+ Stern photos and so forth. I have been to Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland a couple of times and will revisit Sicily and Italy next year.  

I am an author and researcher and understand sharing material since it belongs to all (to be fair this holding onto material is something new to me) – it has always been about preserving and sharing Ranger history. Accumulating material as a member of an association that is supposed to preserve history and then not willing to share anything – not everything - because it might help a “competitor” is shameful or maybe just selfish. Additionally, David’s book is with a publisher so he is well ahead of me – so what’s the problem? Many others have supported this effort as it is intended to preserve some Ranger history for future generations. I have shared research, stories etc with numerous writers, researchers, associations, and a museum as well as Darby Rangers and it has always been supportive and for the greater good.]

2.      You sent $50.00 to the Descendants to join the organization,  hoping to gain access to the Descendants’ Members’ Only site where we keep Morning Reports and Records. In this case Members Only means voting members, which are defined in our Constitution as lineal descendants of WW II Rangers.  Perhaps our message on the web was unclear to you. Nevertheless, I sensed ill feelings on your part and therefore, to step aside, I took the matter to our nine member Board of Directors who voted that access to the Members Only site is for Voting Members only.  You then said that if you could not have access to the Members Only site, you wanted your $50 back, and it was returned to you. 

[Actually the intent was primarily to reach out to members to see if anyone had anything they’d be willing to share – I do have all of the Morning Reports and Rosters generously shared by Bob Black, Jim Altieri, the Donovan Technical Library, Carlisle Barracks etc. I never asked for the fee to be returned – I asked about the status of the membership application after 2 months. Instead of refunding the credit card I was sent a check.

Also note – you should probably remove this from your website: A General Member (previously called Honorary Member) is defined in the By-Laws as being someone who is not related to a WWII Ranger as a spouse, son, daughter, niece, nephew or any descendant of these categories. If you are a General Member (meaning not Ranger family), when you send in your annual dues, please list on the back of this form, or on an additional sheet which follows for those joining on-line, your intended contributions ( non-monetary) to the Descendants of WWII Rangers, Inc., and explain how you might further the above purposes of the Descendants of WWII Rangers organization.]

 

3.      Finally, you mention a Facebook page.  That group, which is named the World War II Rangers and Descendants, is independent of the Descendants of World War II Rangers, the formal group which is a non-profit foundation which I currently chair.  The Descendants has nothing to do with management or over-sight of the Facebook page.  The Descendants, the formal group which you slandered, has no involvement with the Facebook group except that a number of us belong as members. If you were turned down on Facebook, I had nothing to do with it and did not even know about it.  

[This is a legitimate point – I did not know this. I stand corrected. UPDATE - actually I was correct as originally both worked together.]

Against my better judgment, I answered your three slanderous complaints.  As a matter of fairness and truth, you should take down the post.  You do not know me! 

Darby's Rangers and the Battle of Cisterna on WW2TV 1/26/24

/

Paul Woodadge had an Anzio Week. It included Brad St. Croix’s FSSF on the Anzio Beachhead and a segment on Mark Clark Anzio to Rome with James Holland just before the Ranger presentation.

Big thank you to Paul for having me and everyone who joined us live… very cool and very enjoyable.

Who says Congress isn't corrupt and can't be bought?

/

Say it ain’t true. Kidding.

Can you imagine the corruption and not just from AIPAC (domestic and foreign interference - but what about Russia) but oil, guns, war corporations, pharma etc? These are the people who are constantly getting elected to the detriment of the American citizenry and the world - truly disgusting - Democrats and Republicans complicit in genocide and apartheid, all completely corrupt and always for sale to the highest bidder.

In any event here is a breakdown of the monies politicians receive to support Israel’s apartheid state and genocial campaign against Palestinians - then again we have done the same throughout our history, eh? The entire article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/10/congress-member-pro-israel-donations-military-support

Revealed: Congress backers of Gaza war received most from pro-Israel donors

Guardian analysis finds top recipients of pro-Israel contributions in last elections were centrist Democrats who defeated progressives in primaries

Tom Perkins, with data reporting by Will Craft

Congress members who were more supportive of Israel at the start of the Gaza war received over $100,000 more on average from pro-Israel donors during their last election than those who most supported Palestine, a Guardian analysis of campaign data shows.

Those who took more money most often called for US military support and backed Israel’s response, even as Gaza’s civilian death toll mounted, the findings show. The analysis, which looks at positions taken during the war’s first six weeks, does not prove any particular member changed their position because they received pro-Israel campaign donations. However, some campaign finance experts who viewed the data argue that donor spending helped fuel Congress’s overwhelming support for Israel.The analysis compared campaign contributions from pro-Israel groups and individuals to almost every member of the current Congress with each lawmaker’s statements on the war through mid-November.

About 82% of Congress members were more supportive of Israel, and just 9% more supportive of Palestine during this period. The remainder had “mixed” views. Legislators categorized as supportive of Israel received about $125,000 on average during their last election, while those supportive of Palestine on average took about $18,000.

The volume and breadth of the donors’ spending is considerable: over $58m went to current Congress members, and all but 33 received donations. (TEXT CONTINUES BELOW)

The findings have “profound implications for what American policy toward … Israel looks like”, said John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political scientist and co-author of the 2006 book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. “If there was no lobby pushing Congress in a particular direction in a really forceful way, the position of the US Congress on the war in Gaza would be fundamentally different.”

The groups’ campaign contributions have varying goals depending on the member. Spending can be “defensive” or “shore up support” in Congress for allies who already share pro-Israel groups’ views, said Sarah Bryner, a spokesperson for Open Secrets, which tracks campaign finance spending and collected the contributions data used in the Guardian’s analysis. Spending can also be “offensive”, or intended to persuade a lawmaker to take a pro-Israel position, campaign finance observers and political strategists who reviewed the data said.

The donors’ highest profile battles have involved members of the “The Squad”, like Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, who are among the most critical of Israel. But statements from Representatives Don Bacon, Dan Kildee and André Carson in the wake of the 7 October attack in which 1,200 Israelis were killed help illustrate varying levels of donations and responses across Congress.

All three first strongly condemned the assault’s perpetrators and expressed deep sympathy for the victims, but their messaging quickly diverged.

Bacon, who received about $250,000, offered full-throated support for Israel: “Whatever Israel wants … we should be there to help.”

Carson, who received $3,000, took aim at Israel, denouncing its “unfair, two-tiered rule over the Palestinian people” and demanded a ceasefire.

Kildee, who received $91,000, fell somewhere in between, underscoring“Israel’s security and its right to respond” and his ”grave concern” over its airstrikes killing thousands of Palestinian civilians…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/10/congress-member-pro-israel-donations-military-support

COVERAGE OF GAZA WAR IN THE NEW YORK TIMES AND OTHER MAJOR NEWSPAPERS HEAVILY FAVORED ISRAEL, ANALYSIS SHOWS

/

A quantitative analysis shows major newspapers skewed their coverage toward Israeli narratives in the first six weeks of the assault on Gaza.


THE NEW YORK Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times’s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza showed a consistent bias against Palestinians, according to an Intercept analysis of major media coverage. 

The print media outlets, which play an influential role in shaping U.S. views of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, paid little attention to the unprecedented impact of Israel’s siege and bombing campaign on both children and journalists in the Gaza Strip. 

Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians; and offered lopsided coverage of antisemitic acts in the U.S., while largely ignoring anti-Muslim racism in the wake of October 7. Pro-Palestinian activists have accused major publications of pro-Israel bias, with the New York Times seeing protests Opens in a new tabat its headquarters in Manhattan for its coverage of Gaza –– an accusation supported by our analysis.

Complete article here: https://theintercept.com/2024/01/09/newspapers-israel-palestine-bias-new-york-times/

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO AMERICA? by Jack F. Matlock Jr.

/

Great missive from https://jackmatlock.com/2023/12/what-has-happened-to-america/ Jack Matlock is a career diplomat who served on the front lines of American diplomacy during the Cold War and was U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union when the Cold War ended. Since retiring from the Foreign Service, he has focused on understanding how the Cold War ended and how the lessons from that experience might be applied to public policy today.

Rummaging through my accumulated papers, I just came across the English translation of a speech I delivered in Czech on July 4, 1982, when I was American ambassador in Prague. At that time Czechoslovakia was ruled by a Communist regime imposed by the Soviet Union.

As I perused it, I realized to my dismay that today I could not honestly make many of the statements in this message.

Here are some of the key paragraphs (in bold italic) and my reflections on them today:

I am pleased to send greetings to the people of Czechoslovakia on this 206th anniversary of my country’s independence. It is a day when we Americans celebrate the foundation of our nation as an independent, democratic republic, and a day on which we dedicate ourselves anew to implementing the ideals of our founding fathers. For us, the bedrock of these ideals is the proposition that states and governments are created by the people to serve the people and that citizens must control the government rather than being controlled by it. Furthermore, we believe that there are areas of human life such as expression of opinion, the practice and teaching of religious beliefs, and the right of citizens to leave our country and return as they wish, which no government has the right to restrict.

Can we really say that our citizens “control the government” today? Twice in this century we have installed presidents who received millions of votes fewer than did the president we installed. The Supreme Court has nullified rights supported by a decisive majority of our citizens. It takes far more votes to elect a senator in a populous state than it does in one with fewer citizens so the U.S Senate can be controlled by a minority of the country’s voters. Corporations and individuals are virtually unlimited in the amount they can spend to promote or vilify candidates and to lobby Congress for favorable tax and regulatory treatment. The Supreme Court has, in effect, ruled that corporations are citizens too! Is this not more akin to oligarchy than to democracy?

We are a nation formed of people from all corners of the world, and we have been nurtured by all the world’s cultures. What unites us is the ideal of creating a free and prosperous society. Through our history we have faced many challenges but we have been able to surmount them through a process of open discussion, accommodation of competing interests, and ultimately by preserving the absolute right of our citizens to select their leaders and determine the policies which affect their lives.

Since when have we seen an open discussion and accommodation of competing interests in the work of the U.S. Congress? When in this century has there been a debate on foreign policy? Why has Congress repeatedly authorized violence normally legal only under a state of war without voting a declaration of war as the Constitution requires?


Our society is not a perfect one and we know very well that we have sometimes failed to live up to our ideals. For we understand the truth which Goethe expressed so eloquently when he wrote, “Es irrt der Mensch, so long er strebt”(Man errs as long as he strives.) Therefore, while we hold fast to our ideals as goals and guides of action, we are convinced that no individual and no group possesses a monopoly of wisdom and that our society can be successful only if all have the right freely to express opinions, make suggestions and organize groups to promote their views.

Unless you are a Member of Congress who speaks out in defense of the fundamental rights of Palestinians to live in freedom in their ancestral lands, or students at Columbia University who wish to do the same.

As we Americans celebrate our nation’s birthday and rededicate ourselves to its ideals, we do so without the presumption that our political and economic system– however well it has served us–is something to be imposed upon others. Indeed, just as we preserve diversity at home, we wish to preserve it in the world at large. Just as every human being is unique, so is every culture and every society, and all should have the right to control their destinies, in their own ways and without compulsion from the outside. This is one of the principal goals of our foreign policy: to work for a world in which human diversity is not only tolerated but protected, a world in which negotiation and accommodation replace force as the means of settling disputes.

Unless you live in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Syria, or Palestine…or, for that matter, in Iran, Cuba, or Venezuela.

We are still a long way from that world we seek, but we must not despair, for we believe that people throughout the world yearn basically for the same things Americans do: peace, freedom, security, and the opportunity to influence their own lives. And while we do not seek to impose our political system on others, we cannot conceal our profound admiration for those brave people in other countries who are seeking only what Americans take as their birthright.

Unless they live in Gaza or the Palestinian West Bank.

While this is a day of national rejoicing, there is no issue on our minds more important than the question of preserving world peace. We are thankful that we are living at peace with the world and that not a single American soldier is engaged in fighting anywhere in the world. Still, we are concerned with the high levels of armaments and the tendency of some countries to use them instead of settling disputes peacefully. We share the concern of all thinking people with the destructive potential of nuclear weapons in particular.

At that time the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan and the U.S. was demanding their withdrawal. Subsequently they did withdraw in accord with an agreement the U.S, negotiated. But then, after 9/11, the U.S. invaded and stayed for 20 years without being able to create a democratic society. A subsequent invasion of Iraq, on spurious grounds, removed the Iraqi government and gave impetus to ISIS. Then, the U.S., without a declaration of war, invaded Syria and tried unsuccessfully to overthrow its government (which we recognized) and also to combat ISIS, which had been created as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
American soldiers are now stationed in more than 80 countries. We spend more on arms than all other budgets for discretionary spending, and now the Biden administration is making all but formal war against Russia, a peer nuclear power.

It is for this reason that President Reagan has proposed large reductions of nuclear weapons. … We have also made numerous other proposals which we believe would increase mutual confidence and reduce the danger of conflict. All aim for verifiable equality and balance on both sides. That way, the alliance systems facing each other would need not fear an attack from the other. …

Yes, and by 1991 we negotiated massive reductions in nuclear weapons, banned biological and chemical weapons and limited conventional weapons in Europe. The Cold War ended by agreement, not the victory of one side over the other. But, beginning with the second Bush administration, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from every important arms control treaty and embarked on a “modernization” of the American nuclear arsenal costing tens of billions. Meanwhile, although there was no Warsaw Pact after 1990, the U.S. expanded NATO and refused to negotiate an agreement that insured Russia’s security.

The task ahead for all the peoples of the world to establish and preserve peace is not an easy one, The issues are complex and they cannot be solved by simplistic slogans, but only by sustained effort.

Nevertheless, from the late 1990s the U.S. seemed motivated by a false and simplistic doctrine that the world was destined to become like the U.S. and the U.S. was justified in using its economic and military power to transform the rest of the world to conform with its image of itself (the Neocon thesis). It was, in effect, an adaptation of the failed “Brezhnev doctrine” pursued by the USSR until abandoned by Gorbachev. As with the Brezhnev doctrine, the attempt has been an utter fiasco, but the Biden administration seems, oblivious to the dangers to the American people, determined to pursue it.

Nevertheless, I speak to you today with optimism, since I know that my country enters the 207th year of its independence with the determination not only to preserve the liberties we have one at home but to devote our energies and resources to maintaining peace in the world.

But, today, during the 248th year of American independence :

The US is sending 100 “super-bombs” for dropping on Gaza. The BLU-109 “bunker busters”, each weighing 2,000 pounds, penetrate basement concrete shelters where people are hiding, the Wall Street Journal reported Dec. 1.
America has sent 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells to Israel since October 7, the paper said. Details of the size and number of weapons sent have not been previously reported.
Also on the list are more than 5,000 Mk82 unguided or “dumb” bombs, more than 5,400 Mk84 2,000-pound warhead bombs, around 1,000 GBU-39 small diameter bombs, and approximately 3,000 JDAMs, the Journal said.
The news dramatically contradicts statements of Foreign Secretary Antony Blinken that avoiding civilian casualties is a prime concern for the United States.
The US also provided the bomb that was dropped on the Jabalia refugee camp, killing 100 people, possibly including a Hamas leader, the Journal said.
Repeated calls by the countries of the world, through the United Nations, for a ceasefire have not been supported by the U.S. and its follower nations.
Military spending makes up a dominant share of discretionary spending in the U.S., and military personnel make up the majority of government manpower.
The weapons are being airlifted on C-17 military cargo planes directly from the U.S. to Tel Aviv.

OH, LORD, WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO US?

FROM: https://jackmatlock.com/2023/12/what-has-happened-to-america/

Israel's Gaza bombing campaign is the most destructive of this century [and use of AI]

/

Satellite technology reveals bombing more intense than in Ukraine, Syria or even the Second World War

Article on CBC website by Evan Dyer.

Few outside journalists have been able to enter Gaza, but developments in satellite technology over the past decade have made it possible to accurately assess from space the destruction brought by the war in the small Palestinian enclave.

Some of the tools being used to track bomb damage in Gaza were developed to measure deforestation or damage following natural disasters. 

In addition to taking bird's-eye-view photos of rooftops and streets, satellites can aim radar at an angle, causing it to bounce off buildings and scatter in a way that allows operators to "see" not only rooftops but also the sides of structures. Computers can then compare it to baseline data collected before the bombs hit.

Corey Scher of the City University of New York Graduate Center and Jamon Van Den Hoek of Oregon State University are experts in mapping damage during wartime. They've studied the effects of aerial bombing and artillery strikes in conflicts ranging from Syria to Yemen to Ukraine.

They applied data from the Copernicus Sentinel-1 satellite to Gaza and found levels of destruction unprecedented in recent conflicts, Scher told CBC News.

"We're adapting and building off of almost two decades of research that's mainly gone into catastrophe impact mapping, so after seismic hazards or floods, and adapting those methods to war and conflict," he said.

As of Dec. 22, 20,057 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since the war started, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry. During the Oct. 7 attack, Hamas militants killed about 1,200 people in Israel and took about 240 hostages back to Gaza, according to Israel.

The intensity of bombing in Gaza is something the researchers said they've never seen before.

"It's just the sheer speed of the damage," said Van Den Hoek. "All of these other conflicts that we're talking about [Ukraine, Syria, Yemen] are years long. This is a little over two months. And the sheer tempo of the bombing — not just the scale of it but the sheer tempo — there's nothing that tracks [like] this in such a short timeframe."

The two researchers have worked extensively on Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.

"The extent and the pace of damage in Gaza only compares to the heaviest-hit cities that we've seen in Ukraine," said Scher. "And those were much smaller areas. Mariupol and Bakhmut by area are smaller and the built-area density and clustering of structures was also much less."

United Nations figures have yet to be finalized for both conflicts, but the ones released to date show that Israeli forces have killed approximately twice as many women and children in two months in Gaza as Russian forces have killed in Ukraine in nearly two years.

"Where we do have comparable surveys in Ukraine, Gaza is really standing out as much faster and much larger in extent. A much larger portion of the built environment is affected in Gaza," said Scher.

Van Den Hoek said that while Israel's 2021 bombing of Gaza damaged several hundred buildings, in 2023, an equivalent or even larger number of freshly damaged buildings are being detected in each daily data update.

"Somewhere around a third, maybe 40 per cent of all structures in Gaza, are showing some degree of damage, some of which are likely destroyed. In north Gaza and Gaza City, we see much higher rates approaching two-thirds," he said.

More damage than Dresden

The Financial Times did a statistical analysis that compared Gaza to the Allied bombing campaign over Germany during the Second World War.

Three cities in Germany were effectively destroyed from the air during that war: Cologne, Hamburg and Dresden. In Hamburg and Dresden, a mix of high explosives and incendiary bombs created the notorious "firestorm" conditions that caused streets to melt.

Data analyzed by Scher and Van Den Hoek shows that by Dec. 5, the percentage of Gaza's buildings that had been damaged or destroyed already had surpassed the destruction in Cologne and Dresden, and was approaching the level of Hamburg.

Israel Defence Forces (IDF) dropped around 1,000 bombs a day in the first week of the campaign and said that it had conducted more than 10,000 airstrikes on Gaza as of Dec. 10. The number of aircraft involved or bombs dropped on each mission is unknown, but Israel's main strike aircraft are capable of carrying six tons of bombs each.

For context, London was hit with an estimated 19,000 tons of bombs during the eight months of the Blitz, and the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima was equivalent to 15,000 tons of high explosive.

The figures for airstrikes do not take into account the many thousands of artillery shells fired into Gaza since Oct. 7….

read the entire article - https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/israel-gaza-bombing-hamas-civilian-casualties-1.7068647