With what is taking place in Gaza I keep seeing the usual statements of Israel invading "occupied Gaza". But is Gaza really an occupied territory? The next time you hear someone make this statement, ask them why they think Gaza is "occupied". After all, Israel essentially completely withdrew in 2005.
If the person making the claim can muster an answer at all (which I have found to be unlikely in personal conversations) you will hear the usual talk that even though Israel has withdrawn from Gaza they continue to exercise complete control over airspace, the borders (ignoring that Egypt controls the Rafah Crossing), and have instituted a "blockade" essentially from land and sea - thus creating an "occupation" under international law.
But what international law? What is this claim even based on? Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations? No. The Geneva Conventions maybe? Nope. Far as I can tell it is based on nothing meaningful. To make this argument and assert it amounts to an "occupation" of Gaza, one must view the blockade of Cuba as the United States "occupying" Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. One must essentially view border controls as an "occupation", because you control who is able to cross your border. It just doesn't make any sense.
Even more laughably one might look to the recent UNSC Resolution in regards to action in Libya and see how an "occupation" was defined - for a glaring example of the double standard the Anti-Israeli types want to employ. It authorized military force, froze assets, created a no-fly zone over Libya, yet specifically rules out "occupation". Based on claims from those arguing Gaza is occupied for this reason, that is the very definition of an occupation - but it is clearly not the case.
Pro-Hamas types like to blame Israel for everything bad taking place in Gaza, so let us back up to see just how Hamas has run Gaza into the ground and attempted to blame Israel for their own actions. In 2005 Israel left Gaza and at the time Israeli PM Sharon stated, “We desire a life living side-by-side, in understanding and peace. Our goal [in disengaging] is that the Palestinians will be able to live in dignity and freedom in an independent state, and, together with us, enjoy good neighborly relations.” You might recall that Hamas (not the main power in Gaza at the time) reacted by calling for more Jihad against Israel.
Despite this, Israel and the Palestinian Authority signed the Agreement on Movement and Access which gave Palestinians control over their borders, allowed imports and exports, and included construction of a seaport and possible airport. Unfortunately Hamas rose to power and purged Gaza of their Fatah rivals and declared that Gaza would be a base to destroy Israel.
After this, Israel responded in 2007 with a blockade (which a 2011 UN inquiry found to be legal by the way) to keep weapons out of the hands of Hamas, while letting through humanitarian items and food. Hamas negated all of the previous agreements in Gaza which would have been clearly beneficial to the people living there - and for what? Essentially for the ability to attack Israel.
Even now, they continue to reject the Egyptian truce deal, which even the governing body in the West Bank is urging them to accept. I had a conservation with a friend the other day that I think was fairly telling, I will summarize it below:
Friend: Israel will never be able to get a lasting peace if they constantly overreact like this and continue to bomb civilians.
Me: What, in your opinion, is the appropriate reaction against an entity that denies your right to exist, and in fact was founded on a charter that calls for your destruction and death of your people, and launches thousands of indiscriminate rocket attacks against your civilian population?
My friend did not have an answer - do you?
If the person making the claim can muster an answer at all (which I have found to be unlikely in personal conversations) you will hear the usual talk that even though Israel has withdrawn from Gaza they continue to exercise complete control over airspace, the borders (ignoring that Egypt controls the Rafah Crossing), and have instituted a "blockade" essentially from land and sea - thus creating an "occupation" under international law.
But what international law? What is this claim even based on? Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations? No. The Geneva Conventions maybe? Nope. Far as I can tell it is based on nothing meaningful. To make this argument and assert it amounts to an "occupation" of Gaza, one must view the blockade of Cuba as the United States "occupying" Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. One must essentially view border controls as an "occupation", because you control who is able to cross your border. It just doesn't make any sense.
Even more laughably one might look to the recent UNSC Resolution in regards to action in Libya and see how an "occupation" was defined - for a glaring example of the double standard the Anti-Israeli types want to employ. It authorized military force, froze assets, created a no-fly zone over Libya, yet specifically rules out "occupation". Based on claims from those arguing Gaza is occupied for this reason, that is the very definition of an occupation - but it is clearly not the case.
Pro-Hamas types like to blame Israel for everything bad taking place in Gaza, so let us back up to see just how Hamas has run Gaza into the ground and attempted to blame Israel for their own actions. In 2005 Israel left Gaza and at the time Israeli PM Sharon stated, “We desire a life living side-by-side, in understanding and peace. Our goal [in disengaging] is that the Palestinians will be able to live in dignity and freedom in an independent state, and, together with us, enjoy good neighborly relations.” You might recall that Hamas (not the main power in Gaza at the time) reacted by calling for more Jihad against Israel.
Despite this, Israel and the Palestinian Authority signed the Agreement on Movement and Access which gave Palestinians control over their borders, allowed imports and exports, and included construction of a seaport and possible airport. Unfortunately Hamas rose to power and purged Gaza of their Fatah rivals and declared that Gaza would be a base to destroy Israel.
After this, Israel responded in 2007 with a blockade (which a 2011 UN inquiry found to be legal by the way) to keep weapons out of the hands of Hamas, while letting through humanitarian items and food. Hamas negated all of the previous agreements in Gaza which would have been clearly beneficial to the people living there - and for what? Essentially for the ability to attack Israel.
Even now, they continue to reject the Egyptian truce deal, which even the governing body in the West Bank is urging them to accept. I had a conservation with a friend the other day that I think was fairly telling, I will summarize it below:
Friend: Israel will never be able to get a lasting peace if they constantly overreact like this and continue to bomb civilians.
Me: What, in your opinion, is the appropriate reaction against an entity that denies your right to exist, and in fact was founded on a charter that calls for your destruction and death of your people, and launches thousands of indiscriminate rocket attacks against your civilian population?
My friend did not have an answer - do you?
