MM: "There is no continuing military presence of Israel in Gaza proper" Correct. MM: "therefore Israel is not occupying Gaza." Incorrect. Occupation is defined in Article 42 Hague Regulations 1907. That says nothing about the presence of troops being the defining factor. An army has to establish AUTHORITY over the land, and that AUTHORITY is what defines occupation. If it can have that AUTHORITY without actually having it's troops on the ground then it is still the Occupying Power. THAT was put to the test by the Nuremburg Tribunal in 1946. The "Hostages Case" established quite clearly that the permanent presence of troops is *NOT* necessary. What is required is "effective control", which means retaining the AUTHORITY to move back in to reestablish control at any time of your choosing. Which is exactly how Tosefta describes Gaza, and Tosefta does so because that's how it is described in the DISENGAGEMENT PLAN itself. Tosefta is right, and you are very wrong.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Attempted stabbing reported near Hebron's Tomb of the Patriarchs; assailant shot at scene (Haaretz)
from the article: Let Gaza live