The United Nations, international human rights organizations and many legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel. This is disputed by Israel and other legal scholars.
Is blockading a hostile territory the same as occupation? Israel asserts it isn't. Generally, occupied lands means the occupying force installs the leadership, like in Vichy France, or has their military in charge. Israel didn't do this after they withdrew. They removed their troops from within Gaza's borders, forcibly relocated their settlers, and let Gazans elect their own leadership, (they chose Hamas, who as cited above is dedicated to Israel's complete destruction.) Giving Gaza more leeway and freedom by withdrawing didn't seem to work out well for Israel, and they understandably have refused to lift the blockade while Hamas remains in power there.
While it's true that the IDF remains in control of many things in Gaza due to the blockade and Gaza's reliance on Israel for power and supplies, if one sees Gaza as an unyielding belligerent that remains hostile rather than an already conquered foe, it changes the situation somewhat. This isn't punishing those who have already surrendered. They have lost every war yet keep killing Israelis, militarizing to the best of their abilities, refusing to concede, despite being aware of these dependances on Israel and the obvious consequences of attacks. If one sees Gaza as a hostile enemy that refuses to surrender in a war that has been ongoing for over a century now then blockades, sanctions, and all manner of economic carrots and sticks are acts of self-defense, tactics that are common in wartime. While they undoubtedly lead to civilian suffering that's not the point. Pacification with carrots and sticks is the point, like other nation-states often do.
According to Eyal Benvenisti, occupation can end in a number of ways, such as: "loss of effective control, namely when the occupant is no longer capable of exercising its authority; through the genuine consent of the sovereign (the ousted government or an indigenous one) by the signing of a peace agreement; or by transferring authority to an indigenous government endorsed by the occupied population through referendum and which has received international recognition". source
What's happened in Gaza certainly seems to be a loss of effective control, and Israel has transferred authority to an indigenous government endorsed by the occupied population through referendum and which has received international recognition, (Hamas.)
And that is quite some revision to the 1948 arab israeli war. It was palestinian territory and israel were the invaders
They didn't like the UN partition plan, so they declared war on their Jewish neighbors, then lost spectacularly:
The United Nations resolution sparked conflict between Jewish and Arab groups within Palestine. Fighting began with attacks by irregular bands of Palestinian Arabs attached to local units of the Arab Liberation Army composed of volunteers from Palestine and neighboring Arab countries. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and armed forces. The Jewish forces were composed of the Haganah, the underground militia of the Jewish community in Palestine, and two small irregular groups, the Irgun, and LEHI. The goal of the Arabs was initially to block the Partition Resolution and to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state. The Jews, on the other hand, hoped to gain control over the territory allotted to them under the Partition Plan. source
blazera@kbin.social 1 year ago
to the extent Israel does it, yes. This isn't like US border patrol with Mexico, Palestine is split in two and Israel does not allow movement between them. Imagine Canada blockading all travel to and from Alaska, including international trade. Now imagine that Alaska has much of its infrastructure destroyed by Canada, to a degree causing humanitarian crisis. Then imagine that even humanitarian aid is prevented from entering. Now you have an Alaska occupied by Canada, America does not have control of that Alaska anymore. Throw in some actual land capture over time as well.
DarkGamer@kbin.social 1 year ago
It's hard to make that analogy work given the relative sizes, distances, geographies, and geopolitical conditions in North America, but let's try to make it fit:
Alaska would have to be mounting raids against Canadian citizens and regularly firing rockets blindly at their cities, after having staged a bloody coup against the rest of the US government, so the president in D.C. supports the Alaskan blockade.
Actually I think this analogy might work better with Native American reservations broken up and separated geographically within the US. They too are sovereign territories but not generally recognized as nations. They too had their lands occupied and were forcibly moved. Is the US still occupying these territories? After all, all goods that flow to reservations must go through US territory and are generally subject to US laws.