I dispute that, even if they were, that their actions constitute in any way a viable way to blockade Israel
so their actions are bad because you don't think they'll be effective? honestly, pressuring global trade has historically been a pretty good way of achieving goals in capitalism
I dispute that attacking civilians, a war crime, is morally acceptable.
again, sanctions on russia have definitely killed people
so you're fine with people dying, just so long as they do it from freezing to death in their homes rather than by direct military action?
what's your position on western sanctions on russia? innocent russians have definitely died as a result of the sanctions
do you agree with the notion of a blockade but not with the specific group doing it? can an action be bad solely because of the party that's enacting it?
if in some bizzare, hypothetical fantasy world, isis somehow invaded israel and stopped the ongoing genocide there and delivered a perfect two state solution overnight, would you be morally against specifically that action because it was isis who did it?
to be clear, i'm not asking whether you'd be against isis as a whole: just whether you'd be against isis ending the current israel-palestine situation peacefully
so their actions are bad because you don't think they'll be effective? honestly, pressuring global trade has historically been a pretty good way of achieving goals in capitalism
again, sanctions on russia have definitely killed people
so you're fine with people dying, just so long as they do it from freezing to death in their homes rather than by direct military action?