That is an interesting statistic, but India is a subcontinent while Gaza is one marathon long. I would anticipate need to travel to vary inversely with area. Wouldn't it be queer if, at most, 6% of Manhattanites stepped foot off the island each year?
Two clarifications. First, I’m talking about exits, not unique people. Pre-war Gaza logged ~500k documented exits/year (via Israel and Egypt) out of ~2 M residents; India logged ~21.6 M departures out of ~1.4 B. Both are trip counts, so repeat travelers are included.
Second, area is a red herring. Cross-border mobility is driven by policy, permits, visas, income, and border agency capacity—not square kilometers. Manhattan is integrated into a national customs/transport network; Gaza isn’t. Despite severe restrictions, Gaza still had hundreds of thousands of recorded border crossings annually.
That’s why the literal “open-air prison” claim fails. Prisons don’t run departure counters. If the term is metaphorical for harsh movement controls, say that. But if it’s meant literally, the exit data contradicts it.
I think we disagree on a great many things and it probably will not be resolved through an accounting of facts or reasoned argument. I will mention that as far as 'red-herrings' go, the OP did not mention 10/7 when they called Gaza an open air prison.
Indeed, I can see facts won't sway you, or most people in the pro-Palestine camp.
Also, I didn't mention the 10/7 attack either. The narrative that gaza is an open-air prison has existed for years, and it has been manifestly wrong for years; that hasn't stopped anyone from claiming it.
Indeed, I wrote "prior to 10/7" in my completely accurate statement that prior to 10/7 Gaza was not an open-air prison. I pointed out that there were roughly 500,000 exits per year from Gaza to Egypt and Israel in this period. The reason I mentioned this is because people justify the 10/7 massacre as some sort of freedom fighting operation where people were breaking out of a prison.
Thanks for defining the word "mention," brother, knowing this definition really addresses the central issue and refutes my central point.
I think @chaps was quite justified in defining "mention", given that you just talked about 10/7 and then immediately insisted you never mentioned 10/7. That suggests that you either don't know what "mention" means, or you don't take any care with your words. And if you aren't being careful with your words, why should we trust them?
Yes, of course you think that, but it's also rather silly. I said "prior to 10/7", to point out that people claimed there was an open-air prison before that date. I wasn't talking about the attacks; I was talking about before the attacks. Do you want me to define "prior" for you?
