Now, let's put your feelings aside. Instead, let's focus on morality. But before we do, I suppose it's important to note that these are the pictures of the border between Israel and Gaza. These formidable walls - miles in length and rising tens of feet towards the sky - were created and are maintained by Israel (with our assistance of course). The goal of these walls is to "protect" the people within it; specifically, Israelis (it's a side benefit I suppose that it could also possibly "protect" Palestinians in Gaza).
In addition to these walls, Israel began a blockade on Gaza in 2007 to stop Hamas - the Palestinian elected government in Gaza or the "terrorist group" (it depends what "side" you are on) - from bringing weapons into Gaza (whether for self-defense or offensive purposes). But Israel didn't stop with just a prohibition of weapons. It also included a ban of a plethora of normal everyday materials (for example, cement, glass, and even toys - you never know just how dangerous a Tickle Me Elmo doll is). In fact, the prohibitions are so great that only about three dozen or so items are permitted into Gaza.
Now, to be fair, Hamas has called for the destruction of Israel. But it's important to point out that the reason behind this isn't necessarily that the people of Hamas feel they are superior than the people in Israel (in contrast to Hitler and Nazi Germany). Instead, it seems to be mainly about self-defense (though it could be more about other reasons). In its charter, Hamas states that "Palestine is an Islamic land." Accordingly, it is the "duty of every Moslem" to conduct a "jihad" against Israel.
Unfortunately, peaceful discussions are likely not a possible solution for Hamas. But this isn't because they are "evil" (though their conduct is often immoral and criminal); rather, it is because other countries (including Israel, Egypt, and likely the United States) have consistently intervened in its territory claiming "peace" but then responding with violence (either through warfare or the theft of land). And Hamas makes one good point - especially in lieu of President Obama's declaration of destroying ISIS - "There is no war going on anywhere without them having their finger in it."
Again, Hamas isn't exactly innocent here. According to the Israel Defense Force (so it may be just a bit bias), Hamas fired over 12,000 rockets and mortars into Israel from 2000 to 2008 (and more since then). But the death toll for Israelis is "only" 30 during this time frame, compared to the thousands that have died as a result of Israeli "defensive" attacks in Gaza.
Before continuing on, let me make the analysis below a bit simpler by applying the golden rule (treat others the way you would want to be treated) to the facts discussed above (though many are missing due to numerous factors). If you were in Gaza, would you want to live with giant walls surrounding your land? Would you want to be under constant watch by drones, with a heavy military presence surrounding your home? Would you want to be allowed to only buy from the local store a few selected items? Of course, if you killed someone, then maybe your opinions would change. But what if you were innocent? Before you continue, look again at the pictures found at the top of this blog post. I can't imagine any situation where I would want to live under these living conditions. What about you?
Let's apply the NAP to the situation discussed above. Specifically, to the images of the formidable walls that Israel has established around Gaza (without the consent of Palestinians). To make things a bit easier, let's assume two things: First, that both Hamas and Israel are legitimate State authorities (thus, an attack on one is an attack on all); and second, that both States are the homesteaders (or true owners) of the territories they control (minus the Israel settlement expansions). Thus, the discussion below isn't even the real situation of the whole Israel/Hamas conflict (I apologize, but I just don't have time for such a discussion).
Of course, any analysis would depend entirely on who was the initial aggressor. So, let's split the discussion into two scenarios: A (Israel as first aggressor) and B (Hamas as first aggressor).
A (Israel as first aggressor).
The expansion of settlements into Hamas territory would definitely violate the NAP. Such an act is the use of physical violence against another. When Israel (whether through government support, protection, or influence) expands its territory into Hamas, it is an act of physical violence. In response, Hamas is justified in using self-defense. The best response would be for Hamas to reclaim its land and then possibly invade Israel and claim a similar amount of land in compensation. In this outcome, Hamas would actually own double the amount of land it originally had. However, Hamas doesn't necessarily have the military capability for such a response; so, instead, Hamas could fire some rockets into Israel (though the effects would be minor). While this conduct may not be proportional (as it is not an invasion), it would most likely be reasonable. Thus, the use of rockets would be justified as self-defense.
Now, let's assume attacks continue between the two States, increasing in damage and threat to both parties. To prevent Hamas from using additional rockets against Israel, it builds a system of walls around Hamas, with an accompanying military presence and the prohibition of numerous materials. In such a situation, what recourse would Hamas have? It seems it could be reasonable to use almost any amount of force against Israel, but with a GDP of just a few billion and in an economy where unemployment is basically universal (about 70% live on less than a dollar a day), the options are limited. Indeed, the blockade forbids certain weapons from entering into Gaza as well as all the materials necessary to make weapons. So, the options are really limited. Hamas could build tunnels and procure weapons that way, but a few scattered rocket attacks aimed at Israel are nowhere near proportionate to the blockade of Gaza by Israel. In other words, Hamas is screwed.
Is the blockade a violation of the NAP? It seems it would be as it is likely not justified as self-defense in response to rocket attacks by Hamas (made in response to Israeli aggression). Moreover, It's definitely not proportional. Could I build a wall around your house if you fired a gun into my house? Well, to be honest, it wouldn't just be a wall. I would also control when and if you can leave and enter your property as well as the items you could bring.
Are the walls and blockade reasonable? The walls may be; after all, the goal is to protect Israel from attacks by Hamas (though it's important to note the first initial use of aggression). But the prohibition of materials would definitely not be reasonable (especially because only 33 items or so are allowed). In conclusion, it seems the blockade of materials and the walls surrounding Gaza would both be considered violations of the NAP.
B (Hamas as first aggressor)
If Hamas just suddenly fired a few rockets into Israel, killing three people, how could Israel justifiably respond? A similar rocket firing back into Gaza is one answer. But what about invading lands owned by Palestinians and building settlements there? (As a note, the settlement expansions usually occur in the West Bank, a Palestinian territory; however, Israel has expanded its territory into Gaza as well, so the analysis remains the same).
Well, would the invasion be reasonable or proportional? I think neither. Creating homes and businesses has nothing to do with security or protection. Indeed, it may invite even more attacks - on civilians nonetheless. So, it doesn't seem to be reasonable. It's also not proportional, unless, possibly, the attacks by Hamas caused the same amount of damage as the lands are worth. Thus, it's likely not justified as self defense.
Furthermore, the blockade and walls would also be violations of the NAP for the same reasons in scenario A. Of course, the initial aggressor in scenario B is Hamas and are thus themselves violaters of the NAP. However, Israel, too, through the blockade, walls, and settlements expansion are also violaters of the NAP.
In the end, it doesn't really matter who is the first aggressor (even assuming one could establish the first act of aggression); the actions of Israel - the settlement expansion into Gaza territories, the building of walls surrounding Gaza, and the blockade - are all violations of the NAP.
So, what happens next? Does Hamas win something? Maybe restitution? Or a lifetime award of olive oil? It seems nothing happens. In fact, more destruction and violations of the NAP will likely occur. Is this a weakness of the NAP? Or a weakness of State authority?
Would the end result be any different if the two parties to these scenarios were private parties instead of States? Would a private entity or individual really have the capital to spend on huge walls and military enforcement of a blockade? Mind you, both are cost prohibitive and make zero profits. Now, maybe the settlement expansion could have similarly occurred in a world without States, but wouldn't the private parties be effected by reputation? Additionally, would they even have the capital to force its inhabitants to follow the new rules and rights of ownership or to kick them out in the first place?
It seems to me this whole situation is a mess; Indeed, it seems that this whole situation could have been prevented by simply discarding the notion of the State. Specifically, the idea that "an attack on one is an attack on all." But the notion isn't going anywhere; and neither, unfortunately, is the consequences of death and destruction in that region.