This comment fails to distinguish clearly the differing situations and attitudes in re West Bank vs Gaza. Israel (including Likud) is far along a path of disengagement from Gaza
The International Criminal Court still recognizes Israel as the occupying power in Gaza "based on the scope and degree of control that it has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement."[1]
The linked article which is not a court ruling, it's a report from the "Office of the Prosecutor", says:
"While Israel maintains that it is no longer
occupying Gaza, the
prevalent view within
the international community is
that Israel remains an occupying power
under international law,
based on
the scope and degree of control that it has retained over the territory of Gaza
following the 2005 disengagement.
In accordance with
the reasoning
underlying this
perspective, the Office
has proceeded
on the basis that the
situation in Gaza
can be considered within the framework of an international
armed conflict
in view of the continuing
military
occupation by Israel.
The analysis conducted
and the conclusions reached
would
generally
not be
affected
and
still be
applicable,
if
the Office
was
of the view, alternatively,
that
the law applicable in the present context
and
in light of
the Israel-Hamas
conflict is
the law of
non-international
armed conflict.
Given the crimes of
possible relevance to the present situation, which are substantially similar in
the context
of
both international and non-international armed conflicts, it is
not necessary at this stage to reach a conclusive view on the
classification of
the conflict.
Additionally, as
the protection accorded by the rules on
international armed conflicts is broader than those relating to internal
conflicts, it seems appropriate,
for the
limited
purpose of a preliminary
examination,
in cases of doubt,
to
apply those governing international armed
conflicts."
So they're basically just discussing the context for this (whether the situation meets some legal criteria to get to the next stage, by the way it didn't). They say it's not really necessary to reach a conclusive view (i.e. at least the prosecutor has no conclusive view, not to mention the court) because it doesn't affect the outcome of this legal analysis.
In his statement on the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur wrote that international humanitarian law applied to Israel "in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war."[41] Amnesty International, the World Health Organization, Oxfam, the International Committee of the Red Cross, The United Nations, the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, international human rights organizations, US government websites, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and a significant number of legal commentators (Geoffrey Aronson, Meron Benvenisti, Claude Bruderlein, Sari Bashi and Kenneth Mann, Shane Darcy and John Reynolds, Yoram Dinstein, John Dugard, Marc S. Kaliser, Mustafa Mari, Iain Scobbie, and Yuval Shany maintain that Israel's extensive direct external control over Gaza, and indirect control over the lives of its internal population mean that Gaza remained occupied.
My point was not to debate the legal status of Gaza in international law. I'm sure there are various opinions and various agendas. My point was the statement made in the comment was false and the ICC has not ruled on this topic and I didn't want that false statement to stand and then possibly be repeated.
The situation on the ground is clear. The Palestinians (Hamas) control the internal area of Gaza. Israel is imposing a naval blockade. Israel controls the Israeli side of the Gaza-Israeli border and restricts traffic of people and goods. Egypt controls (for the most part) the Egyptian side of the Gaza/Egypt border and restricts traffic of people and goods.
For humanitarian and I guess legal reasons Israel provides some services and goods to Gaza, unlike what we've seen in Syria where a total siege is routinely used in warfare. This article itself is evidence that Israel does not maintain absolute control over the lives of the internal population of Gaza.
I think that anyone looking at the facts of the matter should be able to see that once Israel withdrew from Gaza the Palestinians had enough control over their own destiny. They certainly had enough control to build thousands of rockets and shell Israel. Or is the claim that Israel shelled itself?
I can also see why the exact legal situation is complex. Gaza used to be under Egyptian control before 1967. It's not recognized as a state by any country. Israel withdrew unilaterally without any agreement covering the transition.
[1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-COM-Article_53(1)-Re...