[throw310822]

> completely vacated the gaza strip of any occupation

What's Gaza? Gaza is just a region of Palestine. Gazans have the full right to fight against the occupier of Palestine. Besides, Gaza was still considered occupied due to the complete control Israel exercised in it (you confuse occupation with colonisation).

> whenever Israel downsized its occupation, it has been attacked by the Palestinians

Israel doesn't need to downsize its occupation. It needs to end it. Whatever consequences it suffers while still occupying land that it doesn't have a right to, are just consequences and it can't complain. How is this not clear?

[breppp]

> What's Gaza? Gaza is just a region of Palestine. Gazans have the full right to fight against the occupier of Palestine. Besides, Gaza was still considered occupied due to the complete control Israel exercised in it (you confuse occupation with colonisation).

No I do not, I don't know anywhere else in the world where occupation was defined as a blockade. Occupation is troops on the ground. Gaza was only considered occupied by Hamas and related propaganda, internationally it was not considered occupied, in fact it was the only time and place in history where Palestinians had full sovereignty

Israel previously had civilian population settled in Gaza, military bases and military government (hence occupation). It then retreated to the internationally recognized borders and removed all civilians from their homes, in a deeply expensive internal political effort.

Naively expecting the international community to give it the needed backing. However as was discovered it was never about occupation all along.

> Israel doesn't need to downsize its occupation. It needs to end it. Whatever consequences it suffers while still occupying land that it doesn't have a right to, are just consequences and it can't complain. How is this not clear?

Oslo accords was a process of progression towards Palestinian independence. This was derailed by Hamas suicide bombings in Israeli towns and PLO rejecting peace offers and initiating the second intifada. Just as the Gazan independence was removed due to Palestinian actions. It is quite clear to me that the Palestinians are ironically doing anything within their power to prevent independence.

[throw310822]

> Gaza was only considered occupied by Hamas and related propaganda, internationally it was not considered occupied

This is false, all relevant international organisations (the UN, the ICC, the ICJ, the WHO, the Red Cross, all the human rights organisations), an overwhelming majority of legal experts considered Gaza still occupied because of the amount of control Israel exercised on it. What you think in this respect, or your ignorance of the facts, has no relevance on the matter.

> Oslo accords was a process of progression towards Palestinian independence

There is no "process of progression" (LOL). Israel has to abandon all its settlements and East Jerusalem and retreat within the 1967 borders. They are free to build a steel wall 100 metres high between them and the Palestinians, if they so desire- within their own territory of course. What is not clear about this?

[breppp]

> Gaza still occupied because of the amount of control Israel exercised on it. What you think in this respect, or your ignorance of the facts, has no relevance on the matter.

So can you please tell me what control Israel exerted? I see a land where Palestinians had an elected government, police, health system, army and so forth. That's exactly the definition of independence. What I do not see is Israeli troops anywhere in Gaza, which is the meaning of the English word "Occupation".

I think this is a perfect example of how Palestinian propaganda works. In order to ignore facts so egregiously you have to redefine words: Therefore you get occupation without troops, apartheid without racism, genocide with a majority of militant casualties and colonizers who are the original population

> They are free to build a steel wall 100 metres high between them and the Palestinians, if they so desire- within their own territory of course. What is not clear about this?

As was tried word for word in Gaza and ended in a bloodbath, mass executing Israeli citizens by death squads within the 1967 borders. While the occupied part of Palestine is relatively peaceful, so why do you think Israel should try what was just tried and so hopelessly failed?

I believe that a just solution is a two state solution, but it doesn't seem like your idea of complete withdrawal tomorrow (as was done) is workable

[throw310822]

> So can you please tell me what control Israel exerted?

Haha, no. The international community, international organisations and law experts have already established the consensus that Gaza was still under occupation. If you have a problem with this, it's a problem between you and, well, reality- I'm not wasting my time discussing it here.

> As was tried word for word in Gaza

No. I said "retreat within the 1967 borders"- did Israel retreat within the 1967 borders? No. It still occupies the West Bank and Gaza, expanding illegal settlements in the West bank, occupying East Jerusalem, implementing apartheid, periodically bombing Gaza and killing, displacing, imprisoning people in the West Bank.

> While the occupied part of Palestine is relatively peaceful

No. Dated September 2023:

"2023 marks deadliest year on record for children in the occupied West Bank"

"At least 38 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank so far in 2023, making it the deadliest year since records began, said Save the Children."

https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/...

And this is- the murder of children- just the tip of the iceberg.

[breppp]

> Haha, no. The international community, international organisations and law experts have already established the consensus that Gaza was still under occupation.

I'm sorry, you can quote the UN human rights commission claiming that the sky is red as everyone perceive color differently but that doesn't change anything.

Quoted from the 1907 Hague Convention

Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

> No. I said "retreat within the 1967 borders"- did Israel retreat within the 1967 borders?

And when this happens again who will prevent a massacre? Would you come help?

I know debating this conflict is worldwide entertainment by now, but seriously do you think that is acceptable to anyone living there?

> "2023 marks deadliest year on record for children in the occupied West Bank"

Surely hundreds of dead is more peaceful for both sides than the 10ks in Gaza, and you are focusing on a specific very bloody outlier year, you can compare other years (how many died in 2020?)

Like it or not, but the west bank has been far less dangerous for both Israelis and Palestinians even though both live in sometimes extreme proximity and with some very extreme elements on both sides

The reason is that because Israel has troops on the ground (occupation) it is able to prevent attacks and the extreme Palestinian organizations could never muster an army-sized force like in Gaza.

When Israel started retreating in Oslo is exactly when mass-killings started in Israeli towns. A sacrifice Israelis were willing to make, until it was proven that the Palestinian leadership was hardly interested in peace (repeated rejections of peace offers and initiation of hostilities)

[cherry_tree]

> Israel still maintains direct control over Gaza's air and maritime space, six of Gaza's seven land crossings, a no-go buffer zone within the territory, and the Palestinian population registry

[breppp]

A maritime blockade or a no-fly zones are still not an occupation, and if there is an actual state with all the apparatuses of a state including a standing army in said territory, that argument goes down the drain pretty fast

[cherry_tree]

>are still not an occupation

>if

Please provide evidence for your conclusion that it’s not an occupation;

My source was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_the_Gaza...

Full quote being:

>The United Nations, international human rights organizations,[1] International Court of Justice, European Union, International Criminal Court, some of the international community and some legal academics and experts regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel, as Israel still maintains direct control over Gaza's air and maritime space, six of Gaza's seven land crossings, a no-go buffer zone within the territory, and the Palestinian population registry.[2][3] Israel, the United States, and other legal,[4] military, and foreign policy experts otherwise contend that Israel "ceded the effective control needed under the legal definition of occupation" upon its disengagement in 2005.[3] Israel continues to maintain a blockade of the Gaza Strip, limiting the movement of goods and people in and out of the Gaza Strip.

None of the Wikipedia reference links support the idea that Israel has stopped occupying Palestine; they simply comment on whether that affects the conflicts international legal status and argue that it doesn’t.

The importance from Israel’s perspective of them officially “not occupying “ Palestine is that they are then justified in more ruthless offensive attacks. Are you taking this position in order to defend Israel’s continued offensive against civilians in Palestine?