[bjourne]

Connecting what I wrote with anti-semitism, that's just.. no I wont respond to that.

Afaik, the blockade maintained by Egypt and Israel is almost "complete. " As in the amount of imports/exports are only a few percent of the pre-blockade levels. Computers and batteries are among the blockaded goods so the laptop the girl in the photo is using, is almost certainly smuggled through using one of the tunnels.

Now waxing on what I think about the blockade, that's pretty useless I agree. But stating that it is there, and it has a huge detrimental impact on the people of Gaza that's pretty useful to know, don't you think?

[ecommercematt]

I didn't "connect what you wrote with anti-semitism." I asked if you can understand how something you said could make some people uneasy because it resembles a narrative frequently used to malign them. You "just.." "won't respond to that," which is a shame.

While it might be "pretty useful to know," about the blockade, you weren't helpfully stating a fact that someone might not know in order to be "useful." Given the blockade's prominent role in the article (the word "blockade" is in the title and it occurs 3 other times throughout the article), you weren't informing anybody; you were editorializing. Why didn't you mention Egypt's role in the blockade in your comment, singling out Israel as the lone offender?

If someone were relying on your comment to learn about the situation as you seem to be suggesting was your intent, they would be under-informed about the major actors in the situation and perhaps misinformed about the nature and severity of the blockade. Your use of the term "complete" to describe the blockade ranges from subjective to incorrect, depending on one's perspective.

Is the conversation we're having ideal for HN? I don't think so, but I think it is the inevitable consequence of "talking about politics." Talking about politics is quite different than merely informing people of facts requisite for understanding a given situation, despite your attempts to conflate the two.

[bjourne]

The conversation is not great because you are talking about me and guessing my motives, not about the subject. Afaik, everything from computers, cell phones, livestock, canned fruit and of course people are blockaded. Maybe that doesn't make the blockade "complete" but how would you characterize it then?

[ecommercematt]

You haven't done me the courtesy of answering my direct questions, which is a shame. Nonetheless, I'll answer yours. The term blockade itself without a modifier seems like the best term for it without going into details (you modified it twice in less than accurate ways: 1) labeling it as Israel's without mention Egypt's role in it and 2) calling it complete).

The restrictions on shipments of goods into and out of Gaza vary pretty regularly, which is the main reason I found that term to be an instance of editorializing rather than informing.

Since what can cross into and out of Gaza changes so frequently, is it only sometimes a complete blockade? When massive shipments are allowed in, would the blockade have exited its status as a "complete" blockade? Then what level of restriction needs to be met before it resumes its status as a "complete" blockade?

If you aren't aware of the varying policies, exceptions, and pretty regular massive shipments of goods allowed during the blockade, you should be able to find plenty of instances with minimal Googling.

Note that I'm not calling it a "mild blockade" or a "partial blockade" or anything like that and I might even call it a "restrictive blockade" or even "very restrictive blockade." I don't seek to minimize the blockade, just to accurately represent it.

[aidos]

You're arguing against the loaded language used in discussing the blockade, that's fair. So let me just leave this link here [0] for anyone who wants to understand it themselves. I think we can at least all agree that it makes for a tough time for people trying to create a startup.

Regarding the anti-semitism - you really did make that connection to bjorne's comment, unfairly and dangerously, I would say. Bjorne said 'if you are not allowed to mention Israel's ___', which I took to relate to the restriction I imposed on discussion of politics. You made the leap that it was "bigoted, anti-Jewish narratives about Jewish control of speech". I see that you've technically distanced yourself from the actual accusation, but even raising it is implication enough.

I'd suggest that your comment provides a far more dangerous narrative; the one in which any criticism of a state is labelled as racist. I think that America's____(treatment of untried prisoners) is a total disgrace, that doesn't mean I'm anti-christian or anti-american. Let's leave race and religion out of it.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

ps I know I said we shouldn't talk politics, so it's hypocritical of me to get involved, but I feel it's not as big of a deal now this is off the front-page.

[ecommercematt]

I didn't say that he was coming from a place of bigotry, in fact I said that he almost certainly wasn't. This isn't a technicality, it is explicit in the text of my comment. What I did was ask a question, which he never answered and I'll now ask you: can you understand why to some people particularly sensitive to anti-Jewish prejudice, this would make them a little bit uneasy? Please don't project a narrative we both disagree with onto me and the question and do me the courtesy of simply answering it.