SDHD insists that the definition of an occupation is "boots on the ground" i.e. no "boots" = no "occupation". I insist that the definition of occupation refers only to AUTHORITY, and so the manner in which an occupying power deploys its troops is immaterial. Q: Is there any authoritative ruling on this? A: Why, yes, there is. Wilhelm List vs. The USA a.k.a "Hostages Case", 1947. List used the SDHD-argument as his defence, and it was ruled to be a nonsense i.e. that List had deployed his "boots" outta there did NOT mean he had relinquished his authority over it and, therefore, that troop redeployment did not mean it had ceased to be "occupied territory". Now, SDHD, read the Disengagement Plan. Sharon insisted that the IDF was being "deployed to the border", and that is a VERY different thing to them being "withdrawn". In fact and IN LAW that's List all over again, as everyone but you (including Sharon) understood perfectly well.
U.S.-led coalition conduct 23 air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria (Reuters)
from the article: Four Gaza factions halt rocket fire, in bow to Hamas