A maritime blockade or a no-fly zones are still not an occupation, and if there is an actual state with all the apparatuses of a state including a standing army in said territory, that argument goes down the drain pretty fast
>The United Nations, international human rights organizations,[1] International Court of Justice, European Union, International Criminal Court, some of the international community and some legal academics and experts regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel, as Israel still maintains direct control over Gaza's air and maritime space, six of Gaza's seven land crossings, a no-go buffer zone within the territory, and the Palestinian population registry.[2][3] Israel, the United States, and other legal,[4] military, and foreign policy experts otherwise contend that Israel "ceded the effective control needed under the legal definition of occupation" upon its disengagement in 2005.[3] Israel continues to maintain a blockade of the Gaza Strip, limiting the movement of goods and people in and out of the Gaza Strip.
None of the Wikipedia reference links support the idea that Israel has stopped occupying Palestine; they simply comment on whether that affects the conflicts international legal status and argue that it doesn’t.
The importance from Israel’s perspective of them officially “not occupying “ Palestine is that they are then justified in more ruthless offensive attacks. Are you taking this position in order to defend Israel’s continued offensive against civilians in Palestine?
Your comment talks about occupation in Gaza and then switches to Palestine, if you reread what I said above, I agree the west bank is mostly occupied (Area A isn't). What I am talking about is Gaza.
Your appeal to authority does not matter as this is a matter that was not never resolved in courts, and the reasons Israel has withdrawn in the first place was due to international support, which also included the western countries you mention.
Generally, Anyone who can read the definition of occupation in both international law and English knows it will be very hard to prove what went in Gaza previous to the war was occupation.
The fact that this, similar to other axioms in the conflict are considered truism while no one stops to thinks on whether they even make sense, is a good example of prejudices at play.
Another recent example, the UN having to redefine famine in order to declare famine in Gaza. Do you see the pattern?
Russian troops are currently and since 2014 inside land internationally recognized as part of Ukraine.
In 2005-2023, which is the time I was talking about:
1. Israeli troops were not anywhere inside Gaza
2. There was Hamas, a force that actually controlled Gaza, with its police, army, hospitals, schools, public servants and tendency to shoot opposing Palestinians in the knees
The Wikipedia article you quoted is misconstruing things. For example the actual ICJ finding was
> the Court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip.
Clearly "regard[ing] the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel" is not an accurate characterization of the court's finding. Marko Milanovic had a nice post [1] about possible interpretations of the court's ambiguous wording.
There's no way the court would have had a consensus for a finding that Gaza was plainly occupied; even this advisory opinion was opposed by 3 of 15 judges.
There have been plenty of attempts to correct inaccurate info like this on Wikipedia, but in the last few years it's become rather futile since editors with an anti-Israeli agenda are a strong majority. (See e.g. the updated definition of Zionism they pushed through: "as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible".)
