Modern Aerial Warfare Is Systematically Erasing Cultural Heritage Across Conflict Zones
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/simonjenkins. "Ukrainian cathedrals, Gaza’s archives, Iranian squares – modern war is systematically erasing human history | Simon Jenkins | The Guardian." August 13, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
Simon Jenkins argues that modern wars in Ukraine, Iran, Gaza, and Lebanon are not just killing people but deliberately destroying ancient monuments, mosques, churches, and archives that represent entire civilizations' histories. He says this happens because bombers flying at safe distances don't distinguish cultural treasures from other targets, and because international laws meant to protect heritage sites have become powerless to stop this destruction.
Conclusion
Modern warfare has evolved to deliberately target and eradicate cultural heritage and historical identity, not merely kill people, and this represents a dangerous erosion of humanity's obligation to protect its shared past.
Premises
- Russia has destroyed or damaged 545 historic Ukrainian sites, including cathedrals, museums, and religious sites, despite Putin claiming Ukraine's history as part of Russia's own heritage
- US/Israeli bombing has damaged historic sites in Iran including Naqsh-e Jahan Square, ancient mosques, palaces, and an 1,800-year-old fortress
- Over 80% of buildings in Gaza have been destroyed, including ancient mosques, a fifth-century church, and irreplaceable archives and museums that survived even the Crusades
- Israel's bombing of Lebanon damaged the ancient port of Tyre, Roman ruins, and a 1,000-year-old fortress
- Aerial warfare differs from ground warfare in that bombers are largely invulnerable and treat victims and heritage sites as anonymous targets rather than distinguishing them as ground troops historically did
- International legal frameworks like The Hague Convention (1954) and cultural property protections have become 'paper tigers' amid a broader collapse of global governance
- Historical precedent (Allied forces protecting Italian monuments in WWII) shows that armies can choose to protect cultural heritage when war is conducted with more restraint and respect for cultural distinction
Assumptions
- Cultural heritage and historical identity have intrinsic value worth protecting even amid active conflict
- The destruction described is deliberate or at least reflects reckless indifference rather than unavoidable collateral damage
- International law and conventions could meaningfully constrain state behavior if enforced or respected
- There is a meaningful moral distinction between killing people and destroying cultural/historical sites, with the latter constituting a separate, additional harm
- Modern leaders (Putin, Trump, Israeli leadership) view destruction of enemy identity as a legitimate or acceptable war aim
- The invulnerability of modern bombers causally contributes to disregard for cultural sites, rather than heritage destruction being incidental to military necessity