4 ms·
> There is disagreement on this from legal point of view its not a settled legal question. The disagreement is Israel says there is no occupation while the res
by runarberg 3y ago
> There is disagreement on this from legal point of view its not a settled legal question.
The disagreement is Israel says there is no occupation while the rest of the world says there is. This is hardly a disagreement as much that one party is simply wrong. It is like Iran stating it does not have a nuclear weapons program or Russia claiming their elections are fair.
- vasilipupkin 3y agono, the disagreement is about whether the fact that Israel exercised some control over Gaza strip after it withdrew can count as "military control over Gaza strip" In plan English, it's plainly absurd. If I own 10% of the stock of a company, nobody would say I have control over this company But even if these arguments had any merit before Oct 7th, it's clear after that they make no sense. You can't claim with a straight face that Israel had military control over Gaza strip. It plainly did not, which is why Hamas was able to build a tunnel network and succesfully execute these attacks. And if it didn't have military control, that means it wasnt an occupation by definition of what an occupation is.