[bawolff]

How so?

There are troops there, The troops are not present with the consent of the local governing powers, the area has not been annexed (has not been integrated into normal civil law of the country with the troops)*.

That is a textbook definition of what an occupation is.

* except for East Jerusalem, which would normally be considered annexed, but the UNSC has decided (with the binding force of international law) that it is de jure occupied. However Palestinians in east Juruselum can apply for citizenship and get voting rights.

[SilverElfin]

> The troops are not present with the consent of the local governing powers

Are the governing powers legitimate? Hamas banned elections after they won the 2006 election. Why should they be considered any more of a governing powers than Israel? Especially when literally the entire broader region was historically Jewish, long before the modern state of Israel, long before Islamic Arabs (now calling themselves Palestinian) were in the area?

What I see is that the Islamic Arabs in Israel are living peacefully and are integrated into the “normal civil law”. But the residents of Gaza have been pro terrorism - which is why they voted for Hamas on a charter of committing genocide against all other beliefs.

[ikr678]

Why is 'legitimate' local government the hurdle here? Surely the presence of foreign troops killing civillians and destroying infrastructure counts as an occupation.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Surely the presence of foreign troops killing civillians and destroying infrastructure counts as an occupation

The closest comparison would be domestic counter-terrorism, i.e. if one assumes Gaza is part of Israel. (Which, de facto, it is.)

[jhanschoo]

Gaza was de facto administered by the civilian arm of Hamas on the eve of Oct 7, and throughout while there was still infrastructure to speak of, and this is the only sense I understand the term "de facto" to mean when used unqualified; what entity performs the day-to-day administration and security.

[bawolff]

It probably doesn't matter much. I agree that both the PA and especially Hamas are despotic dictatorships. So are a lot of countries. That's tragic for Palestinian citizens but ultimately doesn't matter much for determining if a piece of land is independent, occupied or annexed.

Much of it just comes down to drawing a line in the sand at roughly the start of when the United Nations started, and saying this is what the borders are and no one is allowed to change them by force (one of the conditions of joining the UN is to give up the right to acquire territory by force). So from that view, it was egyptian and jordan territory who in turn, supported by the UN, gave it to the palestinian people as respresented by the PA. In a certain way that's pretty arbitrary but i guess its sort of an, it is what it is, sort of thing.

[tzs]

> But the residents of Gaza have been pro terrorism - which is why they voted for Hamas on a charter of committing genocide against all other beliefs

The last election was in January 2006 and to vote you had to be 18+. That means anyone now alive who voted for Hamas has to be over 37. That's less than 20% of of the Gaza population. Furthermore, Hamas got a plurality in the 40-45% range, not a majority.

That means it is very likely that under 10% of people who lived in Gaza at the start of the current war voted for Hamas. Probably closer to 7% because the turnout in 2006 was around 80%.

[SilverElfin]

That’s not relevant. Polls tell us the Gaza population supports Hamas today, after October 7. Even without elections, we know what the population stands for - the principles and goals that Hamas practices.