The Israeli Actions In Gaza

No, it's Israel. Look at what it says at the top of the map, stupid:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#/media/File:Israel_-_Location_Map_(2012)_-_ISR_-_UNOCHA.svg

Only half of Israeli Jews trace their ancestry to Europe. All Israeli Jews have a right to live in Israel just as much all American Jews have a right to live in America.

Now, give me an answer to my question that doesn't totally suck. In the context that there's only 32 Jews among the 4 Arab countries bordering Israel and next to one of those countries is Saudi Arabia, which is 830,000 square miles and completely bans non-Muslims, why would it actually be so terrible if the Jews kept the entire land of Israel?

Remember, in order to properly answer my question you have to actually address the important context I included in the question.

What Volker Turk said doesn't prove anything. I was talking about the Israeli blockade of Gaza prior to the Hamas attack. He was talking about the new blockade of Gaza that began after the attack. You obviously can't use the Israeli response to the Hamas attack to justify the Hamas attack. And the "total siege" of Gaza that Volker Turk was talking about was lifted after a few days.

If you're so certain that the blockade at the time of the Hamas attack was illegal then why are you asking me to provide a non-biased source proving otherwise? If you're so certain that the blockade was illegal then you obviously assume that such an explanation proving otherwise is completely impossible. Why are you so certain that the blockade was illegal when you can't even explain to me why that is? I can explain to you why it was legal.

During the blockade, Israel allowed the flow of basic humanitarian supplies such as food, medicine and water to Gaza. Article 23 of the 4th Geneva Convention requires parties to certain conflicts to permit transit to enemy civilian populations of a limited number of items and under a limited set of conditions. However, the fighting in and around the Gaza Strip is not covered by the 4th Geneva Convention because the conflict is not one between state parties to the Convention and Gaza was not occupied territory. Therefore, Israel is not bound by Article 23.

Even if it were bound by the 4th Geneva Convention, Israel would be acting in full compliance with international law. Article 23 of the 4th Geneva Convention permits states such as Israel to cut off fuel supplies and electricity to territories such as Gaza. Article 23 only requires a party to permit passage of food, clothing and medicines intended for children under 15, expectant mothers and maternity cases. Were Article 23 to apply, Israel would still be under no obligation to permit the passage of electricity, fuel or any items other than food, clothing or medicine. Moreover, under Article 23, Israel would be under no obligation to provide anything itself. Israel would only be required not to interfere with consignments of food and so forth sent by others for the benefit of children under age 15, mothers of newborns and pregnant women. Finally, under Article 23, a party can block passage even of food, clothing and medicine even for these population groups if it has serious grounds for suspecting that the items will be intercepted before reaching their destination or that the items may benefit the enemy’s economy by substitution.

Article 70 of the 1st Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 creates a slightly broader duty regarding the provision of food, medical supplies, clothing, bedding, means of shelter and "other supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population." Israel, however, is not a party to the 1st Protocol and is therefore not bound by the provisions of Article 70.

If you're so sure that the blockade was illegal then that must mean that you can easily explain to me why everything I just said is completely wrong. The 2 authors of the JCPA article, Justus Reid Weiner and Avi Bell, are both legal scholars. They are NOT “amateurs” or “laymen”. If you read the article you would know they did extensive study to reach their conclusion about the blockade. You never told me why you think they're biased and you never told me why you think the JCPA itself is biased. How do you know it's biased? Can you actually explain that to me?

You talk about the United Nations and Amnesty International as if they're not totally biased. That's the biggest joke of all. The UN is notorious for its anti-Israel bias. In 2006, the UN Human Rights Council made a review of the "human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories" a permanent feature of every council session. No other country in the world has its human rights situation reviewed at every council session. In 2022, the UN General Assembly passed more resolutions against Israel than against all other countries combined! And that was the year that Russia invaded Ukraine! The UN is unavoidably biased. It's nothing more than the sum of the biases of all its members, who all have their own political agendas. And Amnesty International has its own well-documented anti-Israel biases. In 2013 the Amnesty International Secretary General falsely accused Israel of murdering Yasser Arafat. Last year the Amnesty International USA director said the organization is opposed to the very existence of Israel.

Calling the blockade illegal is completely asinine because your whole point in doing so is to justify the 10/7 attack. That argument doesn't work because the attack didn't end the blockade and wasn't even designed to do so. That argument also doesn't work because Hamas wants to completely destroy Israel, meaning that ending the blockade would clearly NOT have ended the conflict between Hamas and Israel.

imo this is a large evaluation that Israel is missing. They consider that everyone, like them, draws a large distinction between Israeli & Palestinian lives, that a 30:1 kill ratio doesn't impugn their moral compass in the eyes of the larger world.

imo, again, they are wrong about that. One of the hazards of living inside an ideological hot house of unquestioned superiority & authority.

why would anyone believe what a terrorist organization is saying? hamas is using social media to spread fake news and ignorant people are believing it. its a good thing social media didnt exist during WWII because people would be sympathetic to Hitler and Japan. all I know is that our World has gone mad.