Hamas sometimes takes it a bit too far, I'll definitely admit that, but I think resistance is a valid approach to their conundrum. When you are outgunned and outnumbered, does that mean you just give up?
Gaza is not surrounded on all sides by a wall. They have a long border with Egypt that's been relatively porous until fairly recently when Egypt has begun to construct obstacles, they have the sea (under naval blockade but they're allowed to fish) and even the border with Israel is not 100% walled. You might be confusing Gaza with the wall that was erected between Israel and parts of the West Bank. It's true they are isolated which again is what happens when you piss off your neighbors. There are border crossings and people and goods do cross.
Their living conditions do improve, but slowly, and tend to regress when a conflict flares out. Again, partly by their choice of what to invest in.
Resistance is the cause of their (well Hamas or a portion thereof) conundrum and it's going to get them nowhere. What are they resisting? They're resisting the existence of the state of Israel.
As long as they continue "resisting" in the form of tunneling under the border, investing all their resources in arming themselves to the teeth, building and using an arsenal of rockets, supporting the ISIS contingency in Sinai, indiscriminately attacking civilians, inciting hate and racism, etc. they are going to find themselves in a bad spot. The answer to your question for most people is yes, if you're outgunned and outnumbered by many of orders of magnitude you "give up" or at least try and avoid outright war. They could get an agreement tomorrow if all they cared about was living peacefully in Gaza and improving their condition but they want to get territorial ownership of the entirety of Israel which they claim to be the rightful owners of from before 1948 when Israel was created. That's is closer to (but still not the complete, it's more complicated) root of the conflict.
If they stuck to peaceful forms of protest they'd have some chance of having their voice heard while at the same time improving their conditions vastly. If they seek a peaceful solution they must convince Israelis that peace is possible in some form. It seems they are thinking about taking Israel by force eventually and are willing to wait it out as long as it takes (at least the leaders, not necessarily the man on the street who has no say).
Not when stopping likely means your enemy is willing to help.
So the isolation and security came up because of violence, the terror against civilian Israelis is not an original reaction to the wall.
But I suspect you know this.
Looking at the whole picture, I maintain that resistance is justified.
If e.g. Finland or Estonia started to shoot rocket artilleri towards St Petersburg, the reaction would certainly be much worse than Israel's at Gaza...
(And because of Karelia etc for Finland and generations of slavery for Estonians, they have as good reasons as the Gazans.)
The situation is:
Side A attack side B's civilians. You only complain about side B's quite moderate defense against A's attacks. (Again, installed to stop the attacks.) Then you motivate that further attacks from A are understandable, because of B's defense.
It is such a sad case of hypocritical and hateful circular logic I get vertigo. :-(
Your analogy is incorrect.
When a sovereign nation attacks another, war ensues. That is very clear. But when resistance elements arise within a city that is supposedly part of a sovereign nation, you don't build a wall around the city. That's how you would handle it in the Middle Ages.
But the issue is even more complex than that, since the resistance aims to gain independence from the state. So I would say that the Gaza situation is somewhat similar to that of the IRA and the UK.
I don't recall the UK building a wall around Ireland and carpet bombing it every few years?
Woah woah woah man... quite moderate? The destruction of a third of Gaza and the death of thousands of people is quite moderate?
I give up. This discussion is going nowhere :(
You had no problem with that description in your previous comment.
But good references to non partisan sources would be interesting?
(AGAIN: If the ones controlling an area -- including doing elections, defense, police and taxes -- put all their economy into rocket artillery against another country's civilians, the reaction will not be mild... And Gaza is not part of a city, it was a free area.)
Arafat got at least two offers for a Palestinian state (at Camp David and once later), with about 91% of the West Bank iirc.
The later offer was when Barak needed Arafat's support of a peace agreement before an election (so the Palestinian side had a good negotiating position).
Arafat didn't accept either -- which was one thing. But there was no counter offer like "Give us XX and YY and customs advantages ZZ and ...". Instead Arafat started a terror campaign.
But there is no blame for all that refusal to even give a counter proposal; it is all a big Israeli conspiracy.
(Seriously, I feel a bit sick when I chat with hateful people.)
The lies you are talking about are just part of a long term negotiation until Hamas recognizes the right of Israel to exist and live in peace. Once this milestone is achieved, Israel will not have any excuse to move forward with the peace process because the Israelis, and the jewish people will not tolerate more excuses.
This is carpet bombing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phzRY0DdRXk
This is a typical Israeli strike: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAT1uBNcOHU
And while we're at it, this is indiscriminate bombing of an Israeli town of Sderot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRz3nHwgjHY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqAmIcIpq_4
The "knock on the door" technique employed by the IDF seems very considerate by the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Oqo_wmuGo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcrWy3PT6zc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPU4UN03t7E
And yes, I agree with you that knocking on the roof is a very considerate "last warning". Which other country goes to such lengths to minimize civilian loss of life? There are early warnings, too, though: by phone, text and leaflets. That's why you don't see any people running out of that house: it is already empty.