Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support.

Click here to help us keep going

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Is Gaza still occupied? New video aims to settle the debate

What do you call a situation in which one country’s army controls a foreign population’s imports and exports, border crossings and airspace, population registry, and even how much electricity it can produce?

Israel pulled its troops and settlers out of the occupied Gaza Strip in 2005, during what became known as “the disengagement.” As a result of the disengagement most Gazans have almost no contact with Israeli soldiers these days. But does that mean the strip of land many call “the world’s largest open-aired prison” is no longer occupied?

Al Jazeera, with the assistance of Israeli human rights organization Gisha, which specializes in helping Palestinians with issues of freedom of movement, produced the following video examining the question:

Gisha noted that the video mistakenly asserts that Israel permits Palestinian fisherman to travel and fish only three nautical miles off the Gaza shore, but that is only part of the story.

As a result of various ceasefires negotiated during Israel’s wars with Gaza in recent years, fisherman are technically allowed to go six nautical miles off the shore, although there have been documented cases when the Israeli navy fired on — and in some cases killed — Palestinian fishermen inside permitted six-mile zone.

The Oslo Accords, however, stipulate that Israel allow Palestinian fishermen to operate up to 20 nautical miles off the coast. Israel uses the restrictions as one of many types of collective punishment levied in response to militant activity in the Gaza Strip, and even as an attempt to thin out democratic support for Hamas.

Boats line the shore at Gaza’s seaport. (Basel Yazouri/Activestills.org)

Boats line the shore at Gaza’s seaport. (Basel Yazouri/Activestills.org)

But I digress. Is Gaza still under Israeli occupation?

Writing in Jadaliyya last year, Lisa Hajjar explained:

“Occupation” is a legal designation of an international nature. Israel’s occupation of Gaza continues to the present day because (a) Israel continues to exercise “effective control” over this area, (b) the conflict that produced the occupation has not ended, and (c) an occupying state cannot unilaterally (and without international/diplomatic agreement) transform the international status of occupied territory except, perhaps, if that unilateral action terminates all manner of effective control.

Another explanation comes from the United Nations, which takes a more technical approach, arguing that the Occupied Palestinian Territories as a whole are still occupied by Israel, Gaza is a part of the OPT, and therefore Gaza is still occupied.

But the key to the answer lies in Hajjar’s explanation — effective control.

A Palestinian man from Gaza walks down an open air corridor at the Erez Crossing terminal, the northern checkpoint leading from the Gaza Strip to Israel, in the area of Beit Hanun, February 14, 2012. (Photo by Anne Paq/Activestills.org)

A Palestinian man from Gaza walks down an open air corridor at the Erez Crossing terminal, the northern checkpoint leading from the Gaza Strip to Israel, in the area of Beit Hanun, February 14, 2012. (Photo by Anne Paq/Activestills.org)

Israel controls life in the Gaza Strip in an astoundingly diverse array of ways. The Israeli Air Force controls the airspace over Gaza. Israel’s navy controls sea travel to and from the coastal strip. The Israeli army controls all of the currently accessible land crossings and decides who can travel through them.

Israel’s army controls the only terminals for commercial imports and exports and it decides what goods, including food items, can be imported and exported through them. Israel controls Gaza’s population registry, and it even controls freedom of movement inside the Gaza Strip. In some cases the army even controls the right to protest inside Gaza.

Military occupation can also be seen in the inherent uncertainty and arbitrariness it suspends over its subjects. For instance, by conditioning medical care on providing intelligence information or the letterhead your request is printed on. Or take Israel’s ban on most agricultural exports — except when it is beneficial or convenient for the Israel market. Or the limits and restrictions Israel places on imports of fuel for electricity and construction materials for rebuilding.

If that level of control isn’t occupation, perhaps somebody should come up with a new term to describe it.

Newsletter banner

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Ginger Eis

      You are WRONG, Mr. Michael Omer-Man!

      The assertion that Israel “occupies Gaza” is flat-out incorrect – both on the facts as well as on the law.

      Reasons:

      AS TO THE LAW

      Pursuant to SECTION III, Article 42 of the Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, (The Hague Rules), “occupation” is defined as:

      “Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

      Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country”.

      AS TO THE FACTS

      a. There is NO single Israeli soldier in Gaza
      b. There is NO single Israeli citizen in Gaza on behalf of the Jewish State;
      c. There is NO SINGLE Jew living in Gaza. Gaza is Judenrein/Cleaned of Jews!
      d. Gaza is ruled by Hamas in accordance with the intentions, wishes, laws, goals of Hamas. Israel does not and cannot dictate to Hamas how it rules Gaza. Israel has no say in how Hamas rules Gaza. In fact the laws made by Hamas, the practices and goals of Hamas in Gaza are the direct opposites of what Israel would want.
      e. Israel is currently enforcing a ‘naval blockade of Gaza’, but it is utterly foolish to confuse “naval blockade” with “occupation” (both of which are legitimate instruments of self-defense under international law).

      ACCORDINGLY, there is no “occupation of Gaza by Israel” within the meaning of International law. The reasons advanced by Lisa Hajier and other political pundits as well as the UN-employees (with no judicial authority) are neither supported by the law nor the facts. It is not just dishonest, but also destructive of International law to try to re-invent international law – just so it can fit the anti-Israel narrative and make Jews look bad. Nothing is more destructive to the law than this kind of attitude.

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, Right

        Ginger actually quotes the sentence that proves her thesis wrong.

        Here: “The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority HAS BEEN established and CAN BE exercised.”

        Note the importance of the phrasing: the sentence isn’t saying that an occupation extends to territory where authority IS BEING exercised.

        No.

        It is saying that an occupation exists where that authority CAN BE exercised, which is the yardstick that is referred to as “effective control”.

        Sooooooo, what that means is this: if an army of occupation seizes authority over a territory (“HAS BEEN established”) then this is an occupation that continues for as long as that army continues to hold that authority in its own hot little hands (“CAN BE exercised”).

        It says nothing – absolutely nothing – about whether that army **is** exercising that authority (e.g. it can sit on its hands and let the territory descend into anarchy by… oh…. by redeploying to the edge of that territory. Doing that doesn’t end the occupation, though that is very clearly a grave violation of Article 43 of the Hague Regulations).

        Now, let’s ask two simple questions:
        Q1: Did the IDF seize authority over this territory?
        A1: Oh, yeah, no question: in June 1967.

        Q2: Did the IDF ever hand over that authority to anyone else?
        A2: Nope, and to this day Israel insists that it has a “right” to reimpose any restrictions that it wants, for whatever reason it cares to name.

        Queue Ginger……

        GE: “There is NO single Israeli soldier in Gaza”

        Irrelevant. The issue isn’t wether the IDF’s authority IS BEING exercised, but wether that authority CAN BE exercised.

        And there is no question that the IDF *can* exercise any and all authority at any time it chooses, and for any reason it cares to give.

        GE: “There is NO single Israeli citizen in Gaza on behalf of the Jewish State;”

        Irrelevant. It is illegal for any occupier to colonize an occupied territory, so pointing to the absence of Israeli carpetbaggers and army camp followers tells us nothing about the legal status of this territory.

        GE: “There is NO SINGLE Jew living in Gaza. Gaza is Judenrein/Cleaned of Jews!”

        Again, irrelevant. The laws of belligerent occupation do not give a rat’s arse about ethnicity nor religion.

        GE: [blah] [blah] [blah]…”Israel has no say in how Hamas rules Gaza” [blah] [blah] [blah]

        Ginger’s spray is quite incorrect:
        Israel has a say on how Hamas “rules” the airspace above Gaza.
        Israel has a say on how Hamas “rules” the fishing offshore.
        Israel has a say on how Hamas “rules” the electromagnetic spectrum.
        Israel has a say on how Hamas “rules” the popln registry.
        Israel has a say on how Hamas “rules” the import/export of goods.
        Israel has a say on how Hamas “rules” the disbursement of levied taxes.
        Israel has a say on how Hamas “rules” the movement of people in/out of Gaza.
        Israel has a say on how Hamas “rules” movement in the “buffer zone” inside Gaza.

        In each and everyone one of those circumstances the answer is the same: Israel decides, alone, and Hamas has absolutely no say in the matter.

        GE: “Israel is currently enforcing a ‘naval blockade of Gaza’, but it is utterly foolish to confuse “naval blockade” with “occupation” (both of which are legitimate instruments of self-defense under international law).”

        Ginger has just tied herself into a legal knot.

        Naval Blockade is, of course, something that is allowed within the legal regime known as “armed conflict”.

        As in:
        If there is an “armed conflict” then you can enforce a “naval blockade”.
        If there isn’t an “armed conflict” then you can’t “blockade” anything or anyone.

        Now, this is axiomatic: the last “armed conflict” between Hamas and the IDF was Operation Protective Edge, and it was ISRAEL that ended that operation by declaring a ceasefire.

        You can’t have it both ways, Ginger: either Netanyahu declared that ceasefire or he didn’t.

        And if he did (and he did) then that declaration of a ceasefire ended that “armed conflict”. Because – du’oh! – That. Is. What. A. Ceasefire. Is.

        And once an “armed conflict” ends then no “naval blockade” can be legal.

        If you don’t believe me then mull the full title of the San Remo Manual i.e. the “San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to ARMED CONFLICTS at Sea”.

        You really are full of it, Ginger.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          “Here: “The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority HAS BEEN established and CAN BE exercised”. Note the importance of the phrasing: the sentence isn’t saying that an occupation extends to territory where authority IS BEING exercised. No. It is saying that an occupation exists where that authority CAN BE exercised, which is the yardstick that is referred to as “effective control”

          Take your garbage to someone else! I have neither the patience nor the civility to deal with your breathtaking confusion and ineptitude.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            *chortle*

            I can’t be the only one to notice that Ginger didn’t, you know, actually refute anything I wrote. Ad hom’s are like that, I suppose.

            Article 42: ….”The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority HAS BEEN established and CAN BE exercised”….

            The plain meaning of that sentence is indisputable i.e. once a foreign army seizes authority over a territory (“has been established”) then that territory is under a belligerent occupation, and so long as that authority “can be exercised” then that territory will, indeed, continue to be regarded as occupied.

            And there is no dispute – none whatsoever – that the IDF established its authority over the Gaza Strip in June 1967.

            So the only question is this: did the IDF relinquish its authority over that territory when it “disengaged” from the Gaza Strip?

            Well, no, it didn’t. Even now it continues to exercise its authority over:
            a) the airspace above Gaza.
            b) the sea lanes around Gaza.
            c) the movement of goods into and out of Gaza.
            d) the collection of all taxes on imports/exports.
            e) the movement of people into and out of Gaza.
            f) the entire population registry.
            g) the electromagnetic spectrum in Gaza.

            Those are, of course, all things that should not be the business of any foreign army w.r.t. territory that it *isn’t* occupying.

            [The IDF doesn’t tell Lebanon how to run its mobile phone network, nor does it tell Syria what shipping can dock at Latakia, nor does it tell Egypt who can fly into Cairo, nor does it collect Jordanian import/export taxes].

            Yet in this case that foreign army insists that it has a RIGHT to control all those things, and what the locals might happen to think about that is JUST TOO BAD FOR THEM, THEY DON’T GET A SAY.

            How odd. How very, very odd.

            This is an occupation, Ginger, and all that “disengagement” amounted to was an attempt by Israel to pretend that Article 43 of the Hague Regulation could be ignored because, heck, Israel really does want to turn Gaza into a hell-on-earth.

            Think of it this way: a prison warden orders his prison guards to stop patrolling the prison grounds. They are to move up into the watchtowers, and there they are to shoot any prisoner who so much as glances at the barbed-wire fence that keeps them penned in.

            Q: Has that ceased to be a prison?
            A: No, that’s a crazy argument.

            So is your argument, and for exactly the same reason.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            1.There is NO SINGLE Israeli soldier in Gaza.

            2. It is NOT in dispute that Hamas – having thrown many of some Fatah members to their horrific deaths from the widows of high-rise buildings in Gaza, while the rest fled to Israel begging for protection – placed Gaza under “the actual authority of” ONE power: Hamas!

            3. It is equally NOT in dispute that there is only ONE law, ONE government, ONE legislature/lawmaker, ONE judiciary and ONE Judge “that exercises its authority” INSIDE Gaza: Hamas!

            4. It is most evidently NOT in dispute that Hamas takes orders from only ONE lord and master: Hamas!

            5. IHL treaties and their travaux préparatoires, scholarly literature, military manuals, and judicial decisions all give proof of the pre-eminence accorded to THREE, and I mean ONLY three elements in the occupation equation, namely:
            (a) the unconsented-to presence of foreign forces,
            (b) the foreign forces’ ability to exercise authority over the territory concerned in lieu of the local sovereign, and
            (c) related inability of the latter to exert its authority over the territory.
            All together, these elements constitute the so-called ‘effective-control test’ used to determine whether a situation qualifies as an occupation for the purposes of IHL.

            If there is NO military presence (condition a), you don’t even get to the rest of the test. See above nrs. 1- 4. ’nuff said.

            End Of Story!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            “There is NO SINGLE Israeli soldier in Gaza”

            Well, gosh, whoop-de-dooooooo.

            And if a prison warden tells his guards to move up into the watchtowers and shoot anyone who moves then – gosh, whoop-de-dooooo – it can also be said that there is NO SINGLE prison guard inside the perimeter of that prison.

            Q: Does that mean that this is no longer “a prison”?
            A: No, that’s a nonsense.

            So is your point of order, Ginger, and precisely for exactly the same reason.

            “It is NOT in dispute that Hamas – having thrown many of some Fatah members to their horrific deaths from the widows of high-rise buildings in Gaza, while the rest fled to Israel begging for protection – placed Gaza under “the actual authority of” ONE power: Hamas!”

            Here is a prison.
            Here are the prisoners.
            Here are the prison guards.

            Watch as the prison guards move up into the watchtowers, and watch as they shoot at any prisoner who attempts to approach the prison fence.

            Q: Will those prisoners just sit there and quietly accept their lot?
            A: No, they will organize themselves in some way, however brutal that might be.

            But the place still remains a “prison”, just as they remain “prisoners”, however well-organized those prisoners might be.

            Just as it remains true that the prison warden remains the custodian of that place of incarceration, regardless of his refusal to actually carry out his duty of care towards those that he is incarcerating.

            Nothing has changed, except that the warden is being criminally-negligent.

            Honestly, Ginger, you have no idea what you are talking about.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            “3. It is equally NOT in dispute that there is only ONE law, ONE government, ONE legislature/lawmaker, ONE judiciary and ONE Judge “that exercises its authority” INSIDE Gaza: Hamas!”

            Except…. of course, for that little business of:
            a) the airspace above Gaza.
            b) the sea lanes around Gaza.
            c) the movement of goods into and out of Gaza.
            d) the collection of all taxes on imports/exports.
            e) the movement of people into and out of Gaza.
            f) the entire population registry.
            g) the electromagnetic spectrum in Gaza.

            Ginger, luvvie, there is no question that an occupying power Does Not Have To Exercise Its Authority.

            The occupier can, without question, refuse to live up to its obligations under Article 43 of the Hague Regulations by simply sitting on its hands, even though those are the very same hands into which it seized “authority” over that territory.

            And if an occupier does that (as Israel is doing exactly that) then you have to be Some Kind Of Stupid to think that those who are subjected to that occupation will simply sit around on their arses bemoaning their fate.

            Of course they will attempt to organize themselves, and of course they will attempt to keep some semblance of civic order going.

            But “authority” still resides with the occupying power, even if/when he refuses to exercise that authority.

            “5. IHL treaties and their travaux préparatoires, scholarly literature, military manuals, and judicial decisions “……

            I’m going to stop you right there and point out that Denmark’s parliament (the Folketing) continued to sit throughout the period 1940-1943.

            So, my question to you: in your opinion was Denmark occupied by the German Army in 1940?

            I’d say “yes”, regardless of the continuation of the Folketing.
            But what do you think?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            No, YR, you are not the only one to notice the flagrant copout, the equivalent of capitulation.

            “This is an occupation, Ginger, and all that “disengagement” amounted to was an attempt by Israel to pretend that Article 43 of the Hague Regulation could be ignored because, heck, Israel really does want to turn Gaza into a hell-on-earth.”

            Yes, well I mean why else would a neighboring country (Israel) busy itself with the sick business of calculating absolute minimum caloric requirements per capita for its neighbor (the people of Gaza) and subjecting them on that basis to restrictions on basic foodstuffs that they are allowed (by Israel) to import? Hello? (I had thought Bibi was determined to let free markets decide such economic issues.) Except to make that neighboring population miserable. And to commit blatant IHL violations while doing it.

            I suppose one could argue that the Israelis had an overriding emergency security imperative in carefully controlling the importation of those known bomb making materials, rice, chickpeas, and coriander leaf…..

            Reply to Comment
          • SkyHawk

            Ben is hyperventilating again trying to save YR from the claws of destruction.

            Just a curious question, Ben, what, if anything at all, do you understand from the loooong rowdy rants of YR?

            Would you, Ben, kindly explain to us what this gibberish means: “This is an occupation, Ginger, and all that “disengagement” amounted to was an attempt by Israel to pretend that Article 43 of the Hague Regulation could be ignored because, heck, Israel really does want to turn Gaza into a hell-on-earth.”

            What do you, Ben, think “Article 43 of the Hague Regulation” is saying?

            Pls. answer the questions, Ben, based on the law. Let start exposing you once again for the little street thug you are. Start answering the questions now, Ben.

            The clock is ticking….

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            I find YR quite clear, logical, easy to follow. It’s a snap, really. He makes it quite easy. I’m sorry it is more challenging for you, HimmelHabicht. Now you, on the other hand, are not so easy to follow…

            Reply to Comment
          • SkyHawk

            Oy, Ben, did you not even notice the numerous internal contradictions in “yeahright” numerous looong tiresome rants, or are you too dumb, blind and hateful to realize that? You see, Ben, just as dogs eat brownies, while thinking that they are the most delicious food ever, so you swallow the brownies of “yeahright”, while thinking they are “logical” even as you do not understand what he rambles about.

            In any case, Ben, you still have not answered the questions. Pls. answer those simple questions.

            We are waiting….

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Skyhawk: “Would you, Ben, kindly explain to us what this gibberish means:”

            *chortle*

            Apparently Skyhawk either has not or can not read the Hague Regulations, even though Ginger has been kind enough to quote both Article 42 and 43 in full.

            Here, let me help you out:
            Article 42 explains how and when and under what circumstances “an occupation” is said to exist.

            Article 43 says that *if* such an occupation has been imposed *then* the army that has imposed it is under a legal obligation to, you know, actually use that authority to ensure “public order and safety”.

            Otherwise, of course, an unscrupulous occupying power could create anarchy by the simplest of means:
            a) seize that authority in its hot little hands
            and then
            b) just sit on its hands.

            Which is exactly what the IDF has done, and continues to do.

            It is, indeed, all that “disengagement” is, and all that it was intended to achieve i.e. to drive the Gaza Strip into anarchy.

            Reply to Comment
          • SkyHawk

            Now, neither Ben nor this donkey-head called “yeahright” understands what Article 43 is saying! Anyways:

            “1.There is NO SINGLE Israeli soldier in Gaza.

            (…)

            3. It is equally NOT in dispute that there is only ONE law, ONE government, ONE legislature/lawmaker, ONE judiciary and ONE Judge “that exercises its authority” INSIDE Gaza: Hamas!

            4. It is most evidently NOT in dispute that Hamas takes orders from only ONE lord and master: Hamas!

            5. IHL treaties and their travaux préparatoires, scholarly literature, military manuals, and judicial decisions all give proof of the pre-eminence accorded to THREE, and I mean ONLY three elements in the occupation equation, namely:
            (a) the unconsented-to presence of foreign forces,
            (b) the foreign forces’ ability to exercise authority over the territory concerned in lieu of the local sovereign, and
            (c) related inability of the latter to exert its authority over the territory.
            All together, these elements constitute the so-called ‘effective-control test’ used to determine whether a situation qualifies as an occupation for the purposes of IHL.

            If there is NO military presence (condition a), you don’t even get to the rest of the test. See above nrs. 1- 4. ’nuff said.”

            That, unlike you rowdy CONTRADICTORY ramblings, is a succinct Legal argument. What part of it is too hard to get thru you donkey-skull?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            I’m sorry, Skyhawk, I thought that you were asking what Article 43 meant.

            You know, seeing as how you were asking what Article 43 meant…………

            And I am perfectly correct to point out exactly what Article 43 means i.e. it states that ****if***** there is a belligerent occupation ****then**** the occupying power is under a legal obligation to ensure “public order and safety”.

            That’s exactly what it says, and so that is exactly what it means.

            Skyhawk: “If there is NO military presence (condition a), you don’t even get to the rest of the test. See above nrs. 1- 4.”

            Except, of course, “(condition a)” is incorrect, since it leads to a result that is manifestly absurd i.e. the occupier is able to abrogate its responsibilities by the crudest of sleight-of-hands.

            As in: the occupying power can order his troops to redeploy to the edge of that occupied territory and from there squuuuuueeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze the life out of the people who are stuck inside.

            That is, indeed, a manifestly absurd proposition, but it is – indeed – precisely the proposition that Ginger has spouted and which you insist on regurgitating.

            I’ll repeat this, because it never gets old: sending the prison guards up into the watchtowers does **not** turn a prison into a hotel. It remains a prison, and that remains true even though there are no longer any guards patrolling the grounds.

            You can’t get around that point, and neither can Ginger.
            Not only that, but neither of you even try.

            Reply to Comment
          • SkyHawk

            No one asked you anything, and no, you did not know what Article 43 says. You just realized that from Ginger’s posts. Anyways:

            “Skyhawk: “If there is NO military presence (condition a), you don’t even get to the rest of the test. See above nrs. 1- 4.”
            Except, of course, “(condition a)” is incorrect, since it leads to a result that is manifestly absurd i.e. the occupier is able to abrogate its responsibilities by the crudest of sleight-of-hands.”

            You should FIRST read the posts you respond to, SECOND understand what you read and BEFORE third, responding! That is not at all difficult, is it? If you read Ginger’s post, you would have noticed that “(condition a)” is based on “IHL treaties and their travaux préparatoires, scholarly literature, military manuals, and judicial decisions”! All of these legal sources, which I have fact-checked, but YOU did not even bother to fact-check, are – ACCORDING to YOU – “incorrect” and “manifestly absurd”. Ya know, only a complete imbecile would make such idiotic claims!

            And, tell me this: What has your prison-mumbo-jumbo got to do with the very clear legal conditions re “the elements of occupation” posted by Ginger? Is Gaza a prison in which Israel writes the local laws, enforces the local aw, maintains local public order, tells the male inmates when they can have conjugal visits with their wives and knock them up, etc.? Is it the same Hamas that is the government, the lawmaker, the judge, the police, the military, etc. in Gaza also the Hamas that is Israel’s prison guard, while killing Israeli soldiers and civilians and trying its best to annihilate the Jewish state? I think it is time for you to shut down this imbecility and quit making a fool of yourself!

            Reply to Comment
      • Noevil9

        Ginger, Who are you fooling with that lack of logic and translation of International law/ Geneva convention? I hope that you are aware of what this kind of dishonest explanation does to your and Israel credibility , which there nothing left of it in the real/ rest of the world . So, please try some honesty and integrity ,it might give you and Israel some legitimacy. If you are blinded by the brain washing effect, that most Zionists suffer from, not all are, some people do see the reality and its very clear to them, so save yourself the trouble and see the light in the danger that you are posing to the legitimacy to the Israeli narrative .

        Reply to Comment
    2. Yeah, Right

      Skyhawk: “If you read Ginger’s post, you would have noticed that “(condition a)” is based on “IHL treaties and their travaux préparatoires, scholarly literature, military manuals, and judicial decisions”! ”

      No, actually, if you read Ginger’s post you’d notice that Ginger *claimed* that her “(condition a)” is “based on” a pile of mumbo jumbo that she strings together in a way that she thinks will sound impressive to the impressionable.

      But here’s the thing: don’t rely on Ginger’s pontifications being, you know, self-evidently true.

      They never are, dude.

      Skyhawk: “What has your prison-mumbo-jumbo got to do with the very clear legal conditions”….

      *sigh*

      A prison is a prison is a prison. The prison warden orders his guards up into the watchtower, there to shoot at anyone who approaches the fence.

      Q: Has that prison *ceased* to be a prison by that action of that warden?
      A: No, that’s a nonsensical claim.

      An occupation is an occupation is an occupation. The army commander orders his troops to deploy to the edge of that occupied territory, there to shoot at anyone who approaches the border.

      Q: Has that territory *ceased* to be an occupied territory by the action of that commander?
      A: No, and for exactly the same reason.

      Get it now?

      Occupation doesn’t *just* bring with it “effective control” over the territory. It *also* brings with it a “legal responsibility” to maintain law and order and public safety i.e. the occupier doesn’t just get the goodies of Article 42, he also gets the responsibilities of Article 43.

      All that “disengagement” was ever intended to do was to evade the latter, while retaining the former.

      Honestly, if you can’t see that then you are not being honest with yourself.

      Reply to Comment
      • SkyHawk

        Knock off this your prison-idiocy that make sense only in your donkey-mind. Sheesh, YOU don’t even know what is meant by “authority” in Article 42 of the Hague Regulations!

        Anyways, In case you missed it, I will post it again to you:

        “3. It is equally NOT in dispute that there is only ONE law, ONE government, ONE legislature/lawmaker, ONE judiciary and ONE Judge “that exercises its authority” INSIDE Gaza: Hamas!

        4. It is most evidently NOT in dispute that Hamas takes orders from only ONE lord and master: Hamas!

        5. IHL treaties and their travaux préparatoires, scholarly literature, military manuals, and judicial decisions all give proof of the pre-eminence accorded to THREE, and I mean ONLY three elements in the occupation equation, namely:
        (a) the unconsented-to presence of foreign forces,
        (b) the foreign forces’ ability to exercise authority over the territory concerned in lieu of the local sovereign, and
        (c) related inability of the latter to exert its authority over the territory.
        All together, these elements constitute the so-called ‘effective-control test’ used to determine whether a situation qualifies as an occupation for the purposes of IHL.

        If there is NO military presence (condition a), you don’t even get to the rest of the test. See above nrs. 1- 4. ’nuff said.”

        “condition a”, “condition b” and “condition c” are the ONLY standard mentioned in the LEGAL SCIENCE, moron. They are not “pontification”. Don’t let your jealousy get the best of you! AGAIN, fact-check it and quit ranting and making a fool of yourself ranting about “prison” in an effort to find a face saving way out.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          OK, I think it is fair to say now that Skyhawk has shown himself to be utterly incapable of independent thought, much less critical reasoning.

          Obviously so, since he is naught but a regurgitator of Ginger-nonsense.

          Skyhawk: “Knock off this your prison-idiocy that make sense only in your donkey-mind.”

          The analogy is perfectly apt, and it makes perfect sense to anyone who can think for themselves.

          That’s why it flies over you head i.e. you prefer Ginger’s meaningless gobblygook.

          Skyhawk: “3. It is equally NOT in dispute that there is only ONE law, ONE government, ONE legislature/lawmaker, ONE judiciary and ONE Judge “that exercises its authority” INSIDE Gaza: Hamas!”

          That is, of course, equally-true inside those areas of the West Bank where the Palestinian Authority was nominated by the Oslo Accords as the sole “law, government, legislature, judiciary and judge”. Yet nobody would argue against the notion that all of the West Bank is still under the belligerent occupation of the IDF.

          Just as that was, of course, equally-true of the Gaza Strip prior to “disengagement”, where the Oslo Accords also nominated the PA as the sole etc., etc., etc. Yet nobody would pretend that the Gaza Strip *wasn’t* under the belligerent occupation of the IDF prior to “disengagement”.

          That’s the problem with your argument i.e. an occupying power doesn’t have to “exercise its authority” directly. It is perfectly at liberty to let the locals administer the territory and, indeed, International Humanitarian Law shows a strong preference for the occupier to do exactly that.

          That’s why Article 42 is very, very careful to use the phrase “can be exercised” rather than the phrase “is being exercised”.

          I’ve already mentioned that, right at the beginning. Apparently you missed that bit.

          Reply to Comment
          • SkyHawk

            You are still all over the map with your rowdy, kitchen-sink mumbo jumbo. All you need to do is fact-check “condition a”, “condition b” and “condition c” posted to you by Ginger as the ONLY constitutive elements of what is “occupation” under international law. Your personal feelings and conjectures may satisfy your emotional needs and those of your ilk such as Ben, but academically they amount to nothing.

            See also my post below. That might clear things up for you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Skyhawk: “All you need to do is fact-check “condition a”, “condition b” and “condition c” posted to you by Ginger as the ONLY constitutive elements of what is “occupation” under international law.”

            That statement happens to be factually incorrect, which means that your (well, Ginger’s, actually) conclusion is faulty.

            Still, repeat it again if you want – though not even Ginger is still listening.

            Reply to Comment
          • SkyHawk

            “That statement happens to be factually incorrect, which means that your (well, Ginger’s, actually) conclusion is faulty”.

            Based on your underbelly instincts and feelings, I suppose? I have fact-checked what Ginger posted and it is pure LEGAL SCIENCE. I will leave it up to her to provide you with her own source, since all the known authoritative legal sources are saying what she says and I do not know which one of them she relied on.

            Anyways,

            Did you miss my post below, or are you on the run?

            Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        Seems crystal clear to me, YR. In every respect. That wraps it up. No further explication necessary. Thanks.

        Reply to Comment
        • SkyHawk

          Oh boy… for once in his life Ben finds a very diplomatic, face saving exit for “yeahright” and save him from the claws of destruction. Kudos!

          I hope “yeahrigh” heeds your advice, Ben, and quit making a fool of himself.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            *chuckle*

            I meant quite the opposite, HimmelHabicht. You’re really not the brightest bulb are you, kid? Is there anything you do grasp in these pages? I’ve seen no evidence of it. I meant that YR has made it crystal clear what he wanted to say, that what he says is quite correct, and that he has shown with clarity that neither Eis nor you have the slightest idea what you are blathering about with such appalling aggressiveness and rudeness. Hope that clears that up. Thanks.

            Reply to Comment
          • SkyHawk

            Of course, Ben, we understand that you do not want to hurt the feelings of “yeahright”. In any case, you tried as best as you could to provide him a good face saving way out. I hope he appreciates it and quits ranting.

            Also check out my post below, Ben. Ginger is completely supported by science, unlike the rowdy, kitchen-sink, all over the map moronic tales of “yeahright”.

            Quit providing face-saving-exit for “yeahright” who is too foolhardy to listen.

            Reply to Comment
    3. SkyHawk

      The Elements Of Occupation

      The experts discussed the cumulative constitutive elements of the notion of effective control over a foreign territory, which underpins the definition of occupation set out in Article 42 of the Hague Regulations of 1907.

      1) The presence of foreign forces: this criterion was considered to be the only way to establish and exert firm control over a foreign territory. It was identified as a prerequisite for the establishment of an occupation, notably because it makes the link between the notion of effective control and the ability to fulfil the obligations incumbent upon the occupying power. It was also agreed that occupation could not be established or maintained solely through the exercise of power from beyond the boundaries of the occupied territory; a certain number of foreign “boots on the ground” were required.

      2) The exercise of authority over the occupied territory: the experts agreed that, once enemy foreign forces were present, it was their ability to exert authority in the foreign territory that mattered, not the actual and concrete exercise of such authority. Using a test based on the ability to exert authority would prevent any attempt by the occupant to evade its duties under occupation law by deliberately not exercising authority or by installing a puppet government. It was also agreed that occupation law did not require authority to be exercised exclusively by the occupying power. It allows for authority to be shared by the occupant and the occupied government, provided the former continues to bear ultimate and overall responsibility for the occupied territory.

      3) The non-consensual nature of belligerent occupation: absence of consent from the State whose territory is subject to the foreign forces’ presence was identified as a precondition for the existence of a state of belligerent occupation. For occupation law to be inapplicable, this consent should be genuine, valid and explicit. The experts felt that because occupation law does not provide for any criteria for evaluating it, consent should be interpreted in the light of current public international law. Eventually, the existence of a presumption of absence of consent when foreign forces intervened in a failed State was approved.

      Got it now?!

      Reply to Comment
    4. Click here to load previous comments