> I think a reasonable person who sees the actual reality would conclude that Israel does not have effective control over the entirety of the Gaza strip.

This is not a precondition to being an occupying force and by arguing this way you really do not show good faith, but rather a desire to cloud the discourse with a discussion about definitions.

Don't worry, you could show the world just how unoccupied Gaza is by traveling there without interacting with either the Isreali side or some other Western military. But that is not going to happen for some reason. And that reason is that Isreal is occupying the territory and you can't go there (or leave from there) without interacting with them.

Part of the political circus here is around the definition of occupation.

Not just the ICC but the UN as a whole, and the EU consider Gaza to be occupied due to the fact that it controls air and maritime space, along with all 7 border crossings, along with its oft-exercised ability to enter the strip forcibly at will, which take precedence over the 2005 withdrawal of permanent internal forces.

To the extent that there's a "circus", it's in the minds of those who prefer to allow themselves to be soothed and distracted by the government's narrative of the situation.

> "In international law, occupation is when a foreign power gains effective control over a territory during an armed conflict, even without armed resistance. The territory under control is called occupied territory, and the foreign power is called the occupant."

Where did you get that definition? The source your parent gave you has a completely different definition (which cites the original Hague Convention of 1907 [Part IV article 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

Wikipedia has a similar definition:

> temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a sovereign territory that is outside of the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory

Nowhere in current international law does occupation require an active armed conflict. And your definition even contradicts it self when it states “even without armed resistance”. How can it be during an armed conflict when there is not armed resistance?

I suspect this definition has been Frankensteined from the original Hague Conference of 1907 which defines occupation (as cited above) and later additions from the Fourth Geneva convention of 1949 (Article 2):

> The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Then your definition sort of sandwiched an additional requirement of “during and armed conflict” seemingly from thin air. I can’t find this requirement in any treaties of intentional law.

I don't believe international law effectively solves the problems it is intended to solve, but if we are discussing whether a country was acting the right or wrong way how do you suggest we judge that?

Right of the strongest? Follow the opinion of the warlord of the day? Follow our gut? Be so kind and bless us with your maxime that should guide the day in your opinion.

Sure many people are blindingly naive about the geopolitical realities involved, but that does mean only thinking about what is is sufficent. If we want to improve things there needs to be some ruler to measure the conduct of nations.

Do you think the world would be better without them?