Part of the political circus here is around the definition of occupation. The ICC essentially claims that Gaza has always been and is currently occupied. The ground truth is that Gaza stopped being occupied when Israel withdrew in 2005 and that Israel at this time is not actually occupying most of Gaza. It is occupying portions of it and blockading other parts.

The argument is more or less around: "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." and whether Israel is in effective control of all of Gaza or not. 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. Therefore Israel does not bear the responsibility of the occupying power according to international law. The claims that Israel does occupy Gaza are political in nature, not factual.

> 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.