You stated an opinion. It is neither inherently right or wrong, and there's no need for an argument to refute it.
Don't give me epistemic nihlism as an answer. Its horsepucky.
In addition, it is not the burden of the one who disagrees to disprove it. It is up to you to prove the claim first, giving examples that can be proven true or false.
Which is why I asked what legal standard you wanted to use.
That's exactly what the Hamas charter reads like. I don't see this the same way you do, but I can understand why you would have those concerns. Even if they are falsifiable, it's still good to have those concerns to keep the eye of scrutiny on the subject at all times.
I'm more concerned with actions than political rhetoric.
Considering the "Palestinian Territories" are adjacent to other nations through which they can evacuate (nevermind all the tunnels), I wouldn't call it 'imprisonment'. Unless, you know, those other nations also built walls and enforced them to keep the population in. But none of them do that, of course.
I cannot reconcile this position with the massive amount of death and suffering Israel is causing, both with their military strikes and daily economic deprivation.I can.
Now, the economic situation? That's a different story altogether. Does it make what either side does in a shooting conflict 'better' on a sliding scale of morality? No.
Of course it does. If someone is making your life a living hell you have a right to fight against them. A few rocket attacks don't qualify. Denying someone something as basic as concrete for a building material in an environment where thats the ONLY viable building material? Does.