Erasing Identity: The Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Gaza and the Challenge of Post-Conflict Reconciliation

Author: Yumna Azeez

July 15, 2026

Gaza City's al-Hassaina mosque, damaged in an Israeli bombardment during the ongoing battles between Israel and the Palestinian Hamas movement. [Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via The Guardian]

Introduction

The destruction of cultural heritage has increasingly emerged as a deliberate tactic of warfare. Aimed not only at physical eradication, but also to undermine the identity, memory, and social fabric of targeted communities (Brosché et al., 2017). In protracted conflicts, the deliberate targeting of cultural and historical sites goes beyond any immediate material loss, yet inflicts deep psychological and symbolic wounds that last for generations. The Gaza Strip, a focal point of recurrent and intense conflict, epitomizes this grim reality. Amid cycles of violence, its rich and diverse cultural heritage, which embodies centuries of Palestinian history and identity, has been extensively destroyed (Veronese et al., 2025).

This article seeks to critically examine the destruction of cultural heritage in Gaza as a strategic wartime practice, exploring its complex implications for Palestinian identity and the processes of reconciliation. By investigating the systematic damage to archaeological sites, religious landmarks, museums, and other cultural assets, the research argues that this destruction serves broader military and political goals aimed at eroding collective memory and asserting dominance. The decimation of cultural heritage sites in Gaza is not merely collateral damage but a targeted assault with lasting consequences for the social and cultural continuity of its people. Understanding the ramifications of such destruction is crucial for both scholarship and policy. Cultural heritage embodies the collective narratives that define identity, offering resilience and continuity in the face of turmoil. When it is destroyed, it jeopardizes not only the physical history but also the symbolic and emotional foundations on which communities build their sense of self and belonging (Mahmood et al., 2024). Furthermore, cultural heritage plays an important role in post-conflict peacebuilding and reconciliation efforts (Atabay et al., 2024). The extensive loss in Gaza complicates efforts toward peace by fracturing shared histories and making it harder to build dialogue rooted in mutual recognition and respect.

Historical and Cultural Background of Gaza

Historically, Gaza has been a vibrant port city and a cultural hub that connects Africa, Asia, and Europe. Its strategic location made it a prized possession for successive empires, each leaving an indelible mark on Gaza’s cultural landscape. Each contributed to a collective patrimony reflective of centuries of interaction, conquest, and coexistence. This multivalent heritage served not only as historical documentation but also as a living repository for the people of Gaza, grounding their collective identity and community life in a shared history of resilience and cultural synthesis (Filiu, 2014). The Gaza Strip hosts several archaeological sites, religious monuments, and cultural landmarks, embodying remnants of the Philistine civilization, Roman-era ruins, Ottoman-era architecture, and modern cultural expressions. Gaza’s heritage encapsulates a layered narrative that testifies to the diverse peoples and cultures who have inhabited the region. Religious sites such as ancient mosques, churches, and shrines reinforce spiritual connections and communal continuity. Tangible heritage, including historic neighbourhoods, marketplaces, and public spaces, embodies collective memory and social relations, influencing daily life and cultural practices.

The socio-political history of Gaza since the 20th century, marked by wars, occupation, and humanitarian crises, has intensified the symbolic importance of cultural heritage. As Palestinians persist in asserting their national identity and rights under Israeli occupation and blockade, cultural heritage has become a key arena for the expression of resistance and identity affirmation (Bleibleh & Awad, 2020). Conversely, successive conflicts have exposed Gaza’s heritage to unprecedented vulnerability, with historic sites caught in the crossfire or targeted as part of wider military strategies. Moreover, the fragmentation of Gaza’s social fabric amplifies the fragility of its heritage. Urban expansion, population displacement, and infrastructure damage impact historic urban morphology and conservation efforts (Ahmad, 2011). At the same time, efforts by local and international actors to document, protect, and revive Gaza’s cultural history demonstrate the resilience and determination of communities to safeguard their identity amid adversity (Veronese et al., 2025).

Literature Review

Scholarship has increasingly recognized that cultural heritage does not merely include physical artefacts or monuments. Instead, cultural heritage is a deeply symbolic repository of collective memory, identity, and social cohesion that are profoundly vulnerable in armed conflict. (Johannot-Gradis, 2015). Understanding this unique situation requires engaging with multidimensional academic theories from heritage studies, conflict theory, and identity scholarship.

At the core lies the theory that cultural heritage embodies more than historical value; it represents a community’s living connection to its past- all that it ever was and currently is- and a foundation for collective identity. As articulated in heritage studies, cultural heritage—whether tangible, such as architecture, archaeological sites, or intangible, like rituals and oral histories—functions as an anchor for social continuity and a unifying symbol for communities (Ruggles & Silverman, 2009). Moreover, Homi Bhabha’s concept of hybridity explains how cultural identity and heritage are not fixed but continuously reshaped through the interaction of different cultures (Umar & Lawan, 2024). This occurs in a "third space," an in-between zone where new, mixed identities and cultural forms emerge, challenging binary oppositions such as colonizer/colonized. Hybridity highlights the fluid, dynamic nature of culture and identity, showing how heritage evolves through adaptation and negotiation. This perspective encourages viewing cultural heritage as a living process, reflecting diverse influences and empowering marginalized groups to resist fixed or exclusionary narratives.

The political and ideological motivations behind deliberately destroying heritage sites are portrayed by conflict studies that link them to broader war goals of domination, ethnic cleansing, and psychological warfare (Brosché et al., 2017). Said's concept of Orientalism offers a partial but instructive lens in this regard. Where Orientalism describes how colonial discourse constructs the "Orient" as inferior to justify Western dominance (Shabanirad & Marandi, 2015), its underlying logic, that one power can delegitimize another's culture by denying its historical depth and authenticity, resonates with the dynamics at play in Gaza. The systematic destruction of cultural heritage enacts a denial of Palestinian cultural legitimacy, rendering their history invisible and their claim to place contestable. In this sense, Orientalist logic operates not only through discourse but through the built environment itself. Further, the targeting of cultural heritage also has a strong territorial dimension. In ethno-nationalist conflicts, heritage sites often serve as powerful symbols of a group's historical legitimacy and ancestral claim to the land. This is often coupled with urban warfare, where the proximity to densely populated cultural sites increases the risk of collateral and targeted damage. The destruction of cultural heritage has also been theorized through the lens of asymmetrical warfare, where non-state actors deploy such acts to gain global attention and challenge dominant power narratives (Lostal et al., 2017). While this framework was developed in relation to non-state actors, its logic can be read inversely in the Gaza context. Here, it is the more powerful state actor that leverages the destruction of cultural sites to consolidate territorial and symbolic dominance, demonstrating that heritage is weaponized across the asymmetry of power. Moving away from conflict, reconciliation theory underscores the role of cultural heritage in healing post-conflict societies. The reconstruction and preservation of heritage sites provide tangible focal points for rebuilding, fostering dialogue, and facilitating peacekeeping initiatives, which are essential for social cohesion and reconciliation. Minority and marginalized communities, often excluded from dominant historical and cultural narratives, frequently rely on their tangible cultural heritage as vital anchors for who they are. When destroyed, it severely complicates post-conflict reconciliation and peace-building processes. Effective reconciliation, therefore, requires actively empowering subaltern voices; an argument made by Gayatri Spivak (Bhagwat & Arekar, 2018). Protecting the cultural markers of such groups is a crucial step in empowering their voices, as it provides a vital foundation for them to reclaim their own stories. These theoretical angles highlight that heritage destruction is not a simple byproduct of conflict but an integrated, multifaceted tactic used to achieve a range of strategic goals in warfare.

Discussion

Documentation of the Destruction

The documentation of cultural heritage destruction in Gaza provides a critical foundation for understanding the scale, nature, and specific targets of damage amid the ongoing conflict. The Gaza Strip has witnessed considerable devastation to its cultural landscape, as documented by international organizations, local authorities, heritage experts, and remote sensing technologies. This documentation serves not only as an evidentiary record but also as a basis for strategies for future restoration, legal accountability, and cultural recovery.

The damage in Gaza has been extensive and multifaceted. The nature of destruction ranges from complete demolition of standing structures to damage caused by airstrikes, shelling, fires, and looting, reflecting both direct targeting and collateral impact from military actions (Jacobin, 2024). As of 28th May 2025, UNESCO conducted a preliminary damage assessment for cultural properties through remote monitoring based on satellite imagery and analysis provided by UNITAR/UNOSAT, as on-the-ground assessments are impossible in the current situation (UNESCO, 2026). These include, as of 24 March 2026, 164 sites since 7 October 2023: 14 religious sites, 128 buildings of historical and/or artistic interest, 3 depositories of movable cultural property, 9 monuments, 2 museums, and 8 archaeological sites. Adding to this, Al Jazeera reported that nearly 200 sites of historical importance were destroyed or damaged in Israeli air raids on the Palestinian enclave in 2023 (Al Jazeera, 2024). Similar statistics were reported in NPR (NPR, 2023). The World Bank estimated the cultural heritage damage alone at over US$300 million by early 2024, indicating the scale and severity of the destruction and the extensive timeframe required for restoration and reconstruction, potentially spanning a decade or more (The Art Newspaper, 2025).

Religious sites such as the Great Omari Mosque and the Church of Saint Porphyrius experienced partial collapses and extensive interior damage, compromising their cultural and spiritual functions. Museums, such as the Al Qarara Cultural Museum, the Akkad Museum, and the Rafah Museum, which housed a diverse collection of artefacts representing Palestine’s rich cultural past, suffered collapse or severe damage along with looting, causing loss of irreplaceable materials (Al Jazeera, 2024). Traditional marketplaces such as Suq Al-Qaisariyya (which is a Mamluk-era market that has served as Gaza City’s gold market since the late twentieth century) and historic neighbourhoods, central to the intangible cultural heritage of social interactions and crafts, have endured widespread destruction (World Monuments Fund, 2025), further disconnecting communities from their heritage practices. As noted by UNESCO, documenting cultural heritage destruction during active conflict is challenging due to limited access to damaged sites (UNESCO, 2026). Ongoing hostilities, security risks, and infrastructural collapse restrict the ability to conduct on-the-ground assessments. Looting also complicates the process by changing the condition and location of artefacts.

Legal and Ethical Perspectives

The protection of cultural heritage during armed conflict is enshrined in a robust framework of international laws and conventions, reflecting the global consensus on the importance of safeguarding humanity’s shared cultural legacy. Principal among these is the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its subsequent protocols (Techera, 2007), which establish legal obligations for parties in conflict to prevent destruction, theft, or damage to cultural property. The Hague Convention recognizes cultural heritage as a common concern of humankind and mandates proactive measures, including safeguarding, respect, and penal sanctions for violations, reflecting the principle that cultural heritage transcends national boundaries and embodies collective human history (Graham & Howard, 2016). Complementing the Hague Convention are provisions within the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (Kastenberg, 1997), which explicitly prohibit attacks against cultural sites and prescribe obligations for combatants to distinguish cultural objects from military targets unless used for hostile purposes. 

Despite these legal safeguards, the documented destruction of cultural heritage in Gaza raises serious issues of breaches and accountability. There has been systematic targeting and reckless disregard for cultural sites during Israeli military operations, violations that contravene established international norms (Hawari, 2024). The recurrent damage to non-military targets raises critical concerns over compliance with the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity under international law. Accountability for such violations is hindered by political complexities, lack of effective enforcement mechanisms, and the ongoing nature of the conflict. The challenge of attributing responsibility, coupled with geopolitical dynamics, often results in impunity, undermining the deterrence effect of international law (Australian Institute of International Affairs, 2024). 

In such events, UNESCO and other international organizations play crucial roles in safeguarding cultural heritage. One of its initiatives is to ensure that cultural heritage protection is integrated into broader humanitarian frameworks (UNESCO, 2024b). Complementing this work, bodies such as ICOMOS, Blue Shield International, and various NGOs provide specialized expertise, emergency response support, and legal advocacy. Together, these actors strengthen documentation and preservation mechanisms while emphasizing the strategic importance of cultural heritage in peacebuilding and post-conflict reconciliation, thereby arguing for its inclusion within negotiation and reconstruction agendas (Tsugorka et al., 2024).

Implications of Heritage Destruction 

The destruction of cultural heritage in Gaza has had far-reaching and devastating implications for Palestinian identity, social cohesion, and the broader prospects for reconciliation. Beyond the immediate physical loss, the targeting and damage of cultural heritage sites constitute a systematic assault on the collective memory and identity of the Palestinian people, significantly impacting their sense of belonging and community. Palestinians in Gaza have themselves articulated this loss. Asem Alnabih, spokesperson for Gaza Municipality, described the destruction of his neighbourhood in terms that resonate far beyond a single locality: "What we have lost is not just property, but identity... it is a calculated erasure, not only of lives, but of memory, heritage, and belonging" (Alnabih, 2025). Isber Sabrine, president of an INGO documenting cultural heritage, drew an explicit connection between physical destruction and the severing of identity: "Israel is trying to erase the connection of the people with their land. It's very clear and intentional. Gaza's heritage is part of its people, its history and their connection" (Saber, 2024). The targeting of such heritage during conflict, therefore, operates as a form of symbolic violence intended to fracture not only physical spaces but also the identity and memory of those who claim it (Viejo-Rose, 2011). The attack seeks to sever a group's living connection to its past, a direct assault on the shared historical consciousness of a community. Palestinian academic Refaat Alareer, writing from Gaza City before his death by an Israeli airstrike on December 6th, 2023, warned that the destruction carried "repercussions that will shape life for generations to come" (Aljamal, 2023). This approach aligns with theories of "cultural cleansing" or "cultural genocide" (Tiemessen, 2023), where the destruction surpasses material loss to strategically erase the cultural presence of a group, thus weakening its morale and continuity (Turku, 2017). 

The destruction of cultural heritage functions on a dual level: as a potent tactic to demoralize populations and as a strategic tool to erase cultural markers that define group identities, ultimately reinforcing exclusion and control. Contemporary armed conflicts increasingly reveal that combatants use this strategy to rewrite historical narratives and undermine perceived enemies’ legitimacy by targeting their cultural and religious symbols (Kila, 2019). It imposes a new, dominant narrative on the landscape, symbolically declaring the "other" group's history and identity as illegitimate. By destroying the tangible evidence of a group's history and cultural continuity, group cohesion and identity formation are disrupted, leaving a lasting psychological wound that can undermine future social and political organisation in the long term.

The destruction of entire neighbourhoods, such as Gaza’s Old City, has further displaced families and dismantled the cultural fabric embedded in traditional urban environments. The damage to architectural heritage, including centuries-old homes, markets, and communal spaces, erodes the cultural landscape that shaped daily life and social relations (BBC, 2024). The impact of such widespread urban destruction extends to the erosion of intangible cultural heritage, local crafts, oral traditions, and communal activities that thrive within these spaces. Psychologically and socially, the targeting of cultural heritage exacerbates trauma and dislocation. Communities lose more than physical structures; they lose symbols of resilience, continuity, and identity. The destruction amplifies feelings of cultural dispossession and injustice, deepening social fragmentation and mistrust (Aliyeva & Akhundov, 2025). Intangible heritage, including festivals, arts, and practices supported by cultural centers, was also curtailed as these spaces were destroyed or rendered inaccessible, limiting community cohesion and intergenerational cultural transmission (UNA-OIC, 2025).

Adding to this, the obliteration of museums such as the Museum of Qasr al-Basha and the Rafah Museum, which housed extensive archaeological collections and heritage artefacts spanning centuries, has led to an irreplaceable loss of tangible heritage (Museums Association, 2024). Tens of thousands of artefacts, some dating back to the Mamluk and Roman periods, were buried under rubble or looted amid the hostilities. The destruction and looting of storage depots for antiquities constitute a critical loss to historical knowledge and cultural transmission, threatening to sever links between past and present generations (Wright, 2018). This loss severely hampers the community’s ability to narrate and preserve its own history. Furthermore, marginalized communities struggle to reclaim and narrate their identity when their heritage is destroyed or erased. The act of destroying these cultural sites can be considered a political statement about a perceived enemy's right to exist in a particular region, as well (Gerstenblith, 2016). Additionally, religious cultural heritage sites traditionally function as sanctuaries. Bombardment of these spaces, where hundreds of thousands seek refuge, demonstrates the erosion of safe spaces for civilians in times of conflict, leaving civilians exposed and vulnerable.

Cultural Heritage and Reconciliation

Cultural heritage holds profound significance in peacebuilding and reconciliation processes, serving as both a symbol and a resource through which communities can rebuild identity, foster dialogue, and heal social divisions after conflict. The tangible and intangible elements of heritage offer key platforms for acknowledging shared histories and nurturing mutual respect among divided groups. In conflict-affected societies such as Gaza, cultural heritage can be mobilized to support social cohesion by reconnecting communities to their past and their present, restoring dignity, and creating inclusive narratives that embrace complexity and diversity. However, when heritage destruction is systemic and ideologically driven, it complicates reconciliation processes by eroding shared reference points necessary for mutual recognition and coexistence in post-conflict settings (Saldin & Forbes, 2018). 

As stated, one primary importance of cultural heritage in reconciliation lies in its capacity to serve as a neutral or shared ground where adversarial groups can meet symbolically and physically to engage in dialogue. Heritage sites and cultural activities provide spaces that transcend immediate political contestations, enabling interpersonal and intergroup encounters that promote trust-building. For example, cultural performances, rituals, and commemorations can facilitate the expression of grief, memory, and forgiveness, address the emotional and psychosocial wounds of conflict while reinforcing a common humanity (Kappler and Selimovic, 2016). This process can contribute to breaking cycles of hostility and fostering empathy, which are essential foundations for sustainable peace. Without shared landmarks or collective cultural references, efforts to promote dialogue, acknowledge past harms, and foster empathy become harder. Survivors are left with fragmented histories and fewer neutral, safe spaces where post-conflict conversations can take place. This erosion of cultural memory not only weakens social bonds but also prolongs feelings of loss, resentment, and disconnection, ultimately complicating any attempts at long-term reconciliation and peaceful coexistence. The obliteration of sacred sites, communal spaces, and historic urban fabric can spawn feelings of cultural dispossession and injustice, intensifying mistrust between communities. Moreover, when heritage recovery processes are politicized or exclusionary, they risk perpetuating divisive narratives rather than healing societal rifts (Heritage Management, 2024).

Recommendations

Given these complexities, potential strategies for cultural recovery and rebuilding identity after conflict require a holistic and inclusive approach. 

Documentation and preservation efforts, both during and after conflict, must be prioritized to safeguard remaining cultural assets and prepare for future restoration. Integration of local community stakeholders in these efforts ensures that recovery initiatives align with lived cultural experiences and respect diversity. Cultural heritage initiatives should be incorporated into broader peacebuilding frameworks and transitional justice agendas, encompassing broader socio-economic, cultural, and political dimensions. This may involve community-based heritage education programs that promote multi-layered histories and respect for plural identities, helping to deconstruct divisive propaganda and fostering intercultural understanding. It is also important to leverage intangible cultural heritage, which can be particularly powerful in reconstructing identity and social cohesion. These living traditions adapt and survive through active community participation and serve as dynamic vehicles for reconciliation by reinforcing connections across generations and social groups. Artistic collaboration projects, cultural exchanges, and inclusive commemorations can create meaningful shared experiences that transform heritage from a contested symbol into a reconciliatory asset. Further, international support and partnerships are crucial for sustaining cultural recovery. Working with local communities and experts, these entities can provide technical expertise, mobilize resources, and facilitate dialogues that reinforce the protective and reconciliatory roles of heritage. In particular, efforts should emphasize gender-sensitive and intersectional approaches, recognizing the diverse impacts of conflict on different community members and ensuring equitable participation in heritage-based reconciliation.

Conclusion

The deliberate destruction of cultural heritage in Gaza represents far more than the loss of historical monuments or artefacts; it constitutes a profound assault on collective identity, memory, and social continuity. As this article has demonstrated, cultural heritage is intimately tied to the lived experience of communities. It anchors their sense of belonging, shapes intergenerational knowledge, and offers tangible sites through which dialogue, resilience, and healing can emerge. Its erasure, therefore, inflicts deep symbolic and psychological harm, fragmenting the historical consciousness of a people and widening the fissures left by protracted conflict. Such losses resonate long after military operations cease, complicating social reconstruction, deepening mistrust, and undermining the foundations required for meaningful reconciliation. Within this context, the destruction of Gaza’s cultural landscape must be understood not as mere collateral damage but as a tactic that disrupts community cohesion and weakens the cultural resilience necessary for recovery. Severing ties to the past impedes the formation of inclusive narratives and diminishes the neutral platforms needed for dialogue in post-conflict settings. The resulting vacuum of shared memory and space heightens feelings of dispossession and injustice, reinforcing divisions and obstructing long-term peacebuilding. 

Addressing these challenges requires sustained and collaborative efforts. Documentation, preservation, and restoration initiatives must be supported by both local stakeholders and international actors, ensuring that recovery is community-driven and culturally informed. Moreover, cultural heritage should be embedded within broader transitional justice and peacebuilding frameworks, recognizing its capacity to foster empathy, re-establish communal bonds, and promote mutual recognition. By valuing both tangible and intangible heritage, post-conflict strategies can help rebuild the social fabric and empower marginalized voices often silenced during war. Ultimately, safeguarding cultural heritage in Gaza is not solely an act of preservation but a commitment to the future. Protecting and restoring these symbols affirms the cultural legitimacy of Palestinian identity and offers pathways toward collective healing. As the international community continues to grapple with the humanitarian and political dimensions of the conflict, prioritizing cultural heritage becomes essential for ensuring that reconciliation is rooted in dignity, memory, and cultural continuity. Only by acknowledging the cultural dimensions of warfare can societies move toward a peace that is not merely the absence of violence, but the restoration of shared humanity.

---

Glossary

• Collateral damage - A term used in military and legal discourse to describe unintended civilian or civilian-property harm incidental to a lawful military operation. 

• Collective Memory - The shared body of narratives, symbols, and historical knowledge through which a community constructs and transmits a sense of common identity across generations. 

• Colonial - Of or relating to the structures, logics, and legacies of colonialism, the political, economic, and cultural domination of one people by another.

• Conservation - The practice of protecting, preserving, and maintaining cultural heritage in its physical, documentary, and intangible forms. 

• Contravene - To act in direct conflict with or in violation of a legal norm, treaty obligation, or normative standard. 

• Cultural dispossession -The forcible removal or destruction of a community's cultural property, practices, or heritage, resulting in alienation from the symbols and spaces that anchor identity. 

• Deterrence effect - The premise that a credible threat of legal sanction or accountability will discourage potential perpetrators from committing violations of international law. 

• Focal points - Sites, figures, or concepts that concentrate analytical attention within a broader argument or framework. 

• Heritage recovery - The processes by which communities seek to reclaim, restore, or reconstitute cultural heritage that has been damaged, destroyed, or looted during conflict. 

• Marginalised communities - Groups systematically excluded from political, economic, and cultural power, including on grounds of ethnicity, religion, class, or geography. 

• Non-state actors - Armed groups, militias, insurgencies, and other organised entities that operate outside the formal structures of state authority. 

• Patrimony - The inherited cultural, historical, and material wealth of a people or nation, encompassing built environments, artefacts, archives, and intangible practices. 

• Peacebuilding - A broad set of processes aimed at preventing the recurrence of violent conflict and building the structural, institutional, and social conditions for sustainable peace.

• Perceived enemy - A constructed category through which a belligerent or state designates a population or community as an opposing or threatening force.

• Protracted conflicts - Armed conflicts characterised by extended duration, cyclical escalation, and resistance to resolution.

• Qualitative, interpretive method - A research approach that prioritises depth of understanding over statistical generalisation, drawing on methods such as textual analysis, ethnography, interviews, and discourse analysis to interpret meaning, context, and social experience.

• Reconciliation - A process through which divided or conflict-affected communities work toward restored or reimagined relationships.

• Social cohesion -The degree to which members of a society are bound by shared values, mutual trust, and a sense of common belonging across lines of difference. 

• Subaltern - The term refers to those who are excluded from hegemonic structures of power and denied meaningful representation in dominant discourse. 

• Transitional justice - A field of practice and theory concerned with how societies emerging from conflict or authoritarian rule address past atrocities.

• Triangulating - A methodological strategy of cross-referencing multiple sources of evidence, data types, or analytical frameworks to strengthen the validity of a claim or finding. 

• Urban morphology - The study of the physical form, structure, and evolution of cities.

---

References

1. Ahmad, N. N. (2011). Gaza: A case study of urban destruction through military involvement (Doctoral dissertation). Temple University.

2. Alnabih, A. (2025, August 28). My neighbourhood in Gaza is gone, reduced to rubble and silence. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2025/8/28/my-neighbourhood-in-gaza-is-gone-reduced-to-rubble-and-silence

3. Aljamal, Y. (2023, December). In Gaza, Palestinians are running out of water and tears. In These Times. https://inthesetimes.com/article/from-ashes-gaza-rise-palestine-genocide-ethnic-cleansing-nakba

4. Al Jazeera. (2024). A cultural genocide: Gaza’s heritage sites destroyed. Retrieved November 4, 2025, from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/14/a-cultural-genocide-which-of-gazas-heritage-sites-have-been-destroyed

5. Aliyeva, Y., & Akhundov, A. (2025). Social and psychological consequences of the destruction of historical monuments during armed conflicts. Conference Proceedings: Rivne, Ukraine, 207–216.

6. Atabay, Z. E., Macedonio, A., Teba, T., & Unal, Z. (2024). Destruction, heritage and memory: Post-conflict memorialisation for recovery and reconciliation. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 14(4), 477–496.

7. Australian Institute of International Affairs. (2024). Rule of law & destruction of culture. Retrieved November 4, 2025, from https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/rule-of-law-international-law-and-destruction-of-culture/

8. BBC News. (2024). Destruction of Gaza's cultural heritage. Retrieved November 4, 2025, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-e26c73 57-09f8-42af-81ae-42cbaf04b593

9. Bhagwat, H., & Arekar, M. (2018). On the margins: Theorising Spivak’s ‘Can the subaltern speak?’. Ars Atrium, 6, 38–44.

10. Bleibleh, S., & Awad, J. (2020). Preserving cultural heritage: Shifting paradigms in the face of war, occupation, and identity. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 44, 196–203.

11. Brosché, J., Legnér, M., Kreutz, J., & Ijla, A. (2017). Heritage under attack: Motives for targeting cultural property during armed conflict. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23(3), 248–260.

12. Filiu, J.-P. (2014). Gaza: A history. Oxford University Press.

13. Gerstenblith, P. (2016). The destruction of cultural heritage: A crime against property or a crime against people? John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, 15, 336.

14. Graham, B., & Howard, P. (2016). Heritage and identity. In The Routledge Research Companion to Heritage and Identity (pp. 1–15). Routledge.

15. Hawari, M. (2024). Israel destroys Palestinian cultural heritage sites in Gaza. Institute for Palestine Studies, 28. 

16. Heritage Management. (2024). Cultural heritage as a catalyst for peace. Retrieved November 4, 2025, from https://heritagemanagement.org/cultural-heritage-catalyst-for-peace/

17. Jacobin. (2024). Israel–Gaza war: Cultural heritage. Retrieved November 4, 2025, from https://jacobin.com/2024/03/israel-gaza-war-cultural-heritage

18. Johannot-Gradis, C. (2015). Protecting the past for the future: How does law protect tangible and intangible cultural heritage in armed conflict? International Review of the Red Cross, 97(900), 1253–1275.

19. Kappler, S., & Mannergren Selimovic, J. (2021). Working with the cultural heritage of conflict for peacebuilding: Lessons learned from the Western Balkans. Retrieved June 3, 2026 from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1628210&dswid=2730

20. Kastenberg, J. E. (1997). The legal regime for protecting cultural property during armed conflict. AFL Review, 42, 277.

21. Kila, J. D. (2019). Iconoclasm and cultural heritage destruction during contemporary armed conflicts. In The Palgrave Handbook on art crime (pp. 653–683). Palgrave Macmillan.

22. Lostal, M., Hausler, K., & Bongard, P. (2017). Armed non-state actors and cultural heritage in armed conflict. International Journal of Cultural Property, 24(4), 407–427.

23. Mahmood, W., Rashid, A., & Mehran, S. A. A. (2024). Cultural identity and its role in shaping community resilience. Kashf Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 1(01), 9–16.

24. Museums Association. (2024). Destruction of cultural heritage in Gaza. Retrieved November 4, 2025, from https://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/2024/01/widescale-destruction-of-cultural-heritage-in-gaza/#

25. NPR. (2023). Gaza heritage sites destroyed. Retrieved November 4, 2025, from https://www.npr.org/2023/12/03/1216200754/gaza-heritage-sites-destroyed-israel

26. NPR. (2023). Transcript: Gaza heritage sites. Retrieved November 4, 2025, from https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1216200754

27. Ruggles, D. F., & Silverman, H. (2009). From tangible to intangible heritage. In Intangible heritage embodied (pp. 1–14). Springer.

28. Saber, I. F. (2024, January 14). A 'cultural genocide': Which of Gaza's heritage sites have been destroyed? Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/14/a-cultural-genocide-which-of-gazas-heritage-sites-have-been-destroyed

29. Saldin, M., & Forbes, C. (2018). The role of cultural heritage in building peace and reconciliation: Conflict, disaster and the future of heritage. Historic Environment, 30(3), 76–83.

30. Shabanirad, E., & Marandi, S. M. (2015). Edward Said’s Orientalism and the representation of oriental women in George Orwell’s Burmese Days. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 60, 22–33.

31. Techera, E. J. (2007). Protection of cultural heritage in times of armed conflict: The international legal framework revisited. Macquarie Journal of International and Comparative Environmental Law, 4, 1.

32. The Art Newspaper. (2025). Gaza heritage experts begin reconstruction effort. Retrieved November 4, 2025, from https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2025/03/10/gaza-heritage-experts-huge-reconstruction-effort

33. Tiemessen, A. (2023). Cultural genocide in law and politics. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies.

34. Tsugorka, O., Byrkovych, T., Denysіyuk, Z., Kravchenko, A., Boyko, V., & Kotviakovskyi, Y. (2024). The role of international organizations in the protection and restoration of the cultural heritage of Ukraine in the conditions of armed aggression: Financial, economic and legal aspects. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 8(6), 1430-1444.

35. Turku, H. (2017). When cultural property becomes a tool of warfare: Law, politics, and international security. Inter Gentes, 1(2), 3–23.

36. Umar, A. D., & Lawan, N. (2024). Critical review of postcolonial theory of Homi Bhabha’s hybridity: A study of "The Location of Culture". Middle East Research Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 4(1), 15–19.

37. UNA-OIC. (2025). Two years since the cultural genocide in Gaza. Retrieved November 4, 2025, from https://una-oic.org/en/palestinians/2025/10/07/Two-years-since-the-cultural-genocide-in-Gaza/

38. UNESCO. (2026). Assessment of damage to cultural heritage in Gaza. Retrieved November 4, 2025, from https://www.unesco.org/en/gaza/assessment?hub=102070

39. UNESCO. (2024). Gaza cultural heritage. Retrieved November 4, 2025, from https://www.unesco.org/en/gaza

40. Veronese, G., Hamamra, B., Mahamid, F., & Bdier, D. (2025). Heritage fractured: Violence, displacement and the disintegration of cultural identity. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 1–14.

41. Viejo-Rose, D. (2011). Destruction and reconstruction of heritage: Impacts on memory and identity. Heritage, Memory and Identity, 4, 53–69.

42. World Monument Fund (2025). Gaza Historic Urban Fabric, Palestine. Retrieved June 6, 2026, from https://www.wmf.org/monuments/gaza 

43. Wright, E. A. (2018). Cultural heritage destruction in Middle Eastern museums: Problems and causes.