My guess is that those were considered luxury goods by the Defense Ministry, and were banned because Israel's goal was to economically weaken Gaza and deter Hamas from firing rockets, so it let in crucial food and medical supplies, while banning selected items to send a message. Still, food aid was allowed in, and there was no starvation epidemic. Y'know, this list is small peanuts when compared with the Iraq sanctions.
The blockade has since been heavily eased, so these things are probably allowed in now.
I've bolded selected phrases to bring home to you the arbitrary hopelessness of your assertions. Surely, you realize that your post doesn't make a lick of sense.
First, you're asserting a position of ignorance. You 'guess' the intent and characterization, you assert that 'probably' these things are no longer covered. Prohibiting chocolate and mules is to 'deter' or 'send a message' or 'economically weaken', but which is it? You don't know. You're just guessing or speculating or desperately throwing something out there in hopes it will stick.
And in the end, you're unable to justify or explain at all, which leaves you floundering with 'not as bad as Iraq', and 'we've eased the blockade.' This is sad, sad, sad.
No offense, but at some point you just have to stop making excuses and fess up when something is simply atrocious. Otherwise, the rest of your argument is undermined.
If you don't understand and cannot justify the blockade, I would just say admit it, and make your stand somewhere else where you've got a snowball's chance of making a case. That, or go back and examine your premise, do the research and put forward a proper defense. It seems to me that your defense of the blockade is, at best, poorly thought out and reflexive. I don't think you've thought much about the blockade, or made any effort to assess it in any meaningful sense. Someone attacks the blockade, you defend it, but you're not actually putting anything in.
It seems to me that the Israeli/Palestine conflict is a difficult one, and one that requires consideration, reflection and nuanced assessment. I think that for better or worse, your approach to this issue seems to be 'my team yay! other team boo!' Fair enough as a starting point, you're entitled to pick your favourite. But its hard to take your argument seriously if you don't actually proceed from the starting point because all you've brought to the game is partisanship and wishful thinking.
I don't mean to be critical or to attack you. I just think you need to take the discussion more seriously.