[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?

[breppp]

Your comment talks about occupation in Gaza and then switches to Palestine, if you reread what I said above, I agree the west bank is mostly occupied (Area A isn't). What I am talking about is Gaza.

Your appeal to authority does not matter as this is a matter that was not never resolved in courts, and the reasons Israel has withdrawn in the first place was due to international support, which also included the western countries you mention.

Generally, Anyone who can read the definition of occupation in both international law and English knows it will be very hard to prove what went in Gaza previous to the war was occupation.

The fact that this, similar to other axioms in the conflict are considered truism while no one stops to thinks on whether they even make sense, is a good example of prejudices at play.

Another recent example, the UN having to redefine famine in order to declare famine in Gaza. Do you see the pattern?

[cherry_tree]

Is Ukraine occupied by Russian troops or no?

[breppp]

Russian troops are currently and since 2014 inside land internationally recognized as part of Ukraine.

In 2005-2023, which is the time I was talking about:

1. Israeli troops were not anywhere inside Gaza

2. There was Hamas, a force that actually controlled Gaza, with its police, army, hospitals, schools, public servants and tendency to shoot opposing Palestinians in the knees

[dlubarov]

The Wikipedia article you quoted is misconstruing things. For example the actual ICJ finding was

> the Court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip.

Clearly "regard[ing] the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel" is not an accurate characterization of the court's finding. Marko Milanovic had a nice post [1] about possible interpretations of the court's ambiguous wording.

There's no way the court would have had a consensus for a finding that Gaza was plainly occupied; even this advisory opinion was opposed by 3 of 15 judges.

There have been plenty of attempts to correct inaccurate info like this on Wikipedia, but in the last few years it's become rather futile since editors with an anti-Israeli agenda are a strong majority. (See e.g. the updated definition of Zionism they pushed through: "as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible".)

[1] https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-occupation-of-gaza-in-the-icj-p...