That seems pretty crazy, although I suppose to play devil's advocate the ongoing, erm, 'conflict', was clearly interfering with his ability to output work ("I can't work. I code for 5 minutes before their bodies come back")
I bet that average homeless person does too. 2% seems ridiculously low. $15 a month total on drugs? That only makes sense for someone who does no opioids, no stimulants, and just smokes 1 pack of cigs and has a single beer across an entire month.
Technically they killed more than 28 total people, although I agree with the notion that whether it's 28 or 40 doesn't really move the needle very much.
I don't really feel like clearing up all the half-truths or outright lies here, but I wanted to just call out one:
> with the ultimate goal of reclaiming land from the river to the sea, per their own charter.
The "from the river to the sea" is the language in the Likud charter, the party ruling Israel and dropping thousands of 2-ton bombs on Gaza right now. The popular chant "from the river to the sea palestine will be free" is a direct response to that. I'm unaware of Hamas' charter using the "from the river to the sea" language, although I'm open for correction here because I have not read the entire charter.
Are you claiming ignorance of the fact that the Hamas charter originally called for the liquidation of Israel? This is common knowledge. Granted, they have revised it recently to tone down the genocidal language, but I don't think anybody should be deceived about what their intentions are.
"The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
> There is no land dispute between Isreal and Gaza
Of course there's a land dispute! Something like 70% of Gazans are direct descendants of refugees, or refugees themselves, of the original 1948 Nakba, which was literally when the Palestinians were violently forced out of their homes and driven into perpetual refugee status. Now those that live in Gaza, even before October 7, live under a perpetual blockade which quite literally restricts the calories entering the region, along with every other necessary resource (gas, steel, etc).
How could one, knowing that context, characterize it as "not a land dispute"? Really what you mean is that there are no Israeli settlements in Gaza right now. Which is true but besides the point, and also ignores that there quite literally were settlements, but Israel forced the zionist* settlers out when they withdrew their physical occupation of Gaza all those years ago (replacing the physical occupation with the blockades, border restrictions, policies of shooting anyone approaching the border wall with sniper rifles, etc)
* I know this term is loaded with a lot of baggage, in part because many seem to think it's a dogwhistle for "the jews", but it's the most accurate descriptor for the philosophy motivating these settlers. Settling the west bank is wrong, but settling gaza is next-level crazy. You have to be extremely ideologically possessed to want to establish an Israeli settlement there because it sure as hell isn't a nice place to live.
I have no love for Islam (nor hatred) but Jews have always been considered a protected class under Islamic law. Which I mention to bring up the point that if we had an organic Jewish state that arose naturally (i.e. via voluntary accumulation of land via purchases, etc, as opposed to theft which is how the state of Israel was formed), I see no reason why they couldn't maintain healthy relations with the surrounding states.
I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that the modern phenomenon of violent Islamic terrorism did not exist a century ago. In my view it's basically a direct result of Israeli & Western foreign policy. It's really hard to take land from people and in some cases commit literal massacres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre) and not end up with a significant portion of the affected population turning to terrorism.
> I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that the modern phenomenon of violent Islamic terrorism did not exist a century ago.
That is incredibly untrue. The roots of this conflict don't go back to 1948 or 1967. They go back to 1918 when the Ottoman empire fell. Prior to that jews and arabs lived in relative peace in the same area-- until the allies overthrew the Ottomans leaving a power vaccuum and uncertainty about the future, which lead to frequent civil violence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots
What happened in 1948 to trigger all its famous events? The British finally withdrew from the area they called Mandatory Palestine and left the inhabitants to figure it out for themselves. But by then both sides had a lot of distrust for each other from decades of tension. And the British knew they were living a shitshow behind since dealing with said shitshow as precisely what they had bored of.
> On 7 and 8 March [1920], demonstrations took place in all cities of Palestine, shops were closed and many Jews were attacked. Attackers carried slogans such as "Death to Jews" or "Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs!"
It is really important to note that the roots of this conflict are over 100 years old, and the reason it didn't exist before is there was a authoritarian empire operating the area keeping the peace and keeping self determination totally off the table for everyone but the Ottoman's Turks.
Islamic terrorism has roots in Arab nationalism that has risen after collapse of Ottoman Empire. Sure, you can see the fall of Ottoman Empire as a result of Western foreign policy, but even late Ottoman Empire was not such a peaceful place, and committed several well-described genocides.
Since then every country in Middle East existed in one of two modes:
> but there is no right whatsoever to blockade Gaza's access by sea
This by the way is an important fact to bring up when the claim that "Israel left Gaza many years ago and the problem didn't improve". In actuality, they withdrew their occupying army but still kept up a blockade, including a literal cap to the number of calories allowed to enter the country, which I can only interpret as a population control measure. That's of course in addition to all the other stuff they kept doing, but that's probably a discussion for another day.
I'd note that the GP was careful to specifically mention Israel having withdrawn its military from Gaza which is true, so I'm not disputing the veracity of their claim on that specifically.
That is a weird tangent to take. The population size in Gaza nearly doubled in the last 20 years, reaching approximately 2 million (). If the sea blockade is a population control measure, it's a highly ineffective one. Did ever you stop to consider that it's, maybe, I don't know, to stop them from bringing in stuff to shoot at us?
Did the UK blockade Ireland when the IRA was routinely conducting terror attacks in Northern Ireland? Did Spain institute controls on the amount of calories that could be imported into its Basque region when the separatists there were routinely committing acts of terror?
Some behaviors are simply unacceptable - and the current blockade has been found to be illegal by the UN time and time again, or at least would have been without US vetos.
declassified documents revealed how in a 1987 meeting British officials raised the prospect of erecting a physical border along the entire frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic
The IRA is a good example of how to deal with terrorism. You don't compromise. You don't have Northern Ireland back to the Irish and bow to terrorism. Instead you strike hard and eventually they'll make peace.
The Gaza blockade is not about the border wall. It's about preventing any access into or out of Gaza over sea or over the Egyptian border.
The equivalent would have been to erect a border wall, then send the British navy to intercept any ship going into or out of Ireland, and signing agreements with other EU countries to ensure they enforce the same terms for air travel. This is what Israel is doing to Gaza.
> The IRA is a good example of how to deal with terrorism. You don't compromise
I'm Irish. That's not an accurate description. There very much was a compromise, on all sides. One that both sides in the current conflict could learn from.
Well they starved them during the potatoe famine. All this who started the tit for tat is futile.
Stable government in power is needed. Which then can reduce violence by agreements stepping back in lockstep from violence.
Pre requisite for that are stable societies not ramping up for loopdeformation showdowns.
The IRA was a terrorist group, not the official government of Ireland. During WW2 the Allies did in fact blockade Germany.
The blockade is legitimate and justified. The Palestinians do things like take water pipes sent as aid - which were allowed to be imported - dig them up and turn them into rockets. What do you think they'd do if they were able to import more freely?
> take water pipes sent as aid - which were allowed to be imported - dig them up and turn them into rockets
This is not true. They did dig up pipes to make rockets, but they were the pipes from Israeli settlements. Settlements that Israel destroyed so Palestinians couldn’t inhabit them
> What do you think they'd do if they were able to import more freely?
Be more at peace, feel like they matter, like the world cares about them and that they can be a part of it without having to ask for permission from Israel
If anything, the end of the blockade would probably bring more peace and stability to everyone in the region
The IRA was also not being fought by the Irish government.
Blockades are an act of war, so yes, it's not unexpected or illegal that the Allies were blockading Germany while at war. But Israel is claiming not to be at war with Palestine (or at least was before the current invasion). They in fact keep claiming that military occupation of Palestine ended 20 years ago.
The fact that Hamas can turn water pipes into rockets is somewhat irrelevant. The obvious fact is that, as long as it is impossible for Palestinians to live a prosperous life because of this occupation, some part of their population will want to retaliate. Peace in the region can't start without ending this blockade. Israel's Iron Dome can already protect from huge numbers of Palestinian rockets. It is generally the Palestinians who are defenseless in the face of Israeli attacks (as can be seen in the current invasion, as well as past protests and retaliation).
So instead of Hamas digging tunnels to protect themselves they could be digging bomb shelters? Or should they not have a duty to protect their own people. They don’t even provide education or healthcare to their own population instead they use that money to line their pockets and build pipe bombs. How many Hamas billionaires are there?
In this context the UN is simply the governing body of international law. It holds no mechanism of enforcement and is wowed to non-interference and impartiality. When the UN finds a blockade illegal it simply means that it violates the international laws it self has set. You can think of this like a supreme court ruling inside your own jurisdiction, just between states as opposed to people.
There is no bias here, just law and interpretations on these laws.
If this were the security council that would be another issue however.
The "blockade" was Israel protecting its borders once Hamas seized control. And it's not a blockade as one side borders Egypt.
For much of the time, Israel allowed goods through the tough restrictions on what types of materials were allowed in started once Hamas started tunneling into Israel to commit attacks.
Very recently, Israel increased significantly the number of work permits for Gazans to work in Israel in the mistaken belief that Hamas and Gazans were getting comfortable with improved economy and this would gradually lead to deradicalisation and eventual peace. The other estimated the humanity of Hamas who it turns out were actually planning barbarism.
> And it's not a blockade as one side borders Egypt.
The fact that Israel has an agreement with Egypt governing that border crossing and preventing imports other than as approved by Israel undermines the "its not a blockade because one border touches Egypt" argument.
