Thank you for clarifying. So a country's occupation of a territory is fully dependent on a third party declaring it so? In other words, Israel can not "unoccupy" Gaza until the UN says so, correct?
Though TF disagrees, I agree. Or, at least, some international body with authority would have to agree.
ETA: depending on how your comment is understood. Israel doesn't need the UN's permission to end the occupation, it needs recognition that it has done everything necessary.
So you believe it is a black or white issue. That's fine. I don't consider Israel's occupation of Gaza to be on the same level as, say, Germany's occupation of Poland during WWII. You may feel differently, and again, that's fine.
Again, not addressed to me. But I agree that occupations are different. Some of them are good and some of them are bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations
Occupation of Japan, by the United States, 1945–1951
A damn lot better than leaving them to fend for themselves at the end of the war.
For the record, I believe that there is no black and white here, and that Israel's occupation of Gaza is further toward the "unoccupied" end of the spectrum. But an argument could be made that Israel still occupies Gaza.
Then perhaps you can explain what else Israel can do, unilaterally, to end the "occupation" of Gaza, besides remove all troops and civilians from the territory.
I'm not sure your position is consistent here. The earlier responses didn't lead me to suspect you would be one of the 'boots on the ground' crowd.
I've come up with an analogy. The intent is to illustrate that, once you get yourself into some situations, there are particular things you have to do to get yourself out.
Consider marriage -- Yes, Wildcat, I know marriage isn't occupation. People agree to get married, for one thing.
Marriage can be good, it can be bad. But the main thing is that there is a legally recognised procedure for ending a marriage.
Here's some UK advice:
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/family_parent/family/ending_a_marriage.htm#judicial_separation
You can divorce even if your partner doesn't want to divorce. But you can't simply declare the marriage is over. For one thing, you wouldn't be allowed to re-marry until your first marriage is formally over.
Living apart is not sufficient for a marriage to be officially over. If you have been seperated for more than 5 years, a court will, very likely, grant a divorce even without the agreement of your partner. But the seperation on its own isn't a divorce. You might argue that you are 'futher towards the "not married" end of the spectrum' -- but if you marry without a formal end to the first marriage you could get in trouble.
Living together doesn't mean you are married. Living apart doesn't mean you are divorced.
In short: marriage isn't about booties on beds. Just like occupations are NOT about boots on the ground.
America still has troops in Iraq. Occupation over.
America still has troops in Japan. Occupation over.
America still has troops in Germany. Occupation over. From the wiki page:
"Berlin remained under formal military occupation until September 12, 1990 when the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany was signed."
There are particular things you have to do to end an occupation. Javier Solana said:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3135368,00.html
YNET said:
Only an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians regarding the control over the land, air and sea passages in Gaza will permit the international community to acknowledge the end of Israel’s occupation in Gaza, Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for EU Common Foreign and Security, said Tuesday during a meeting with Meretz-Yahad Party leader Yossi Beilin in Jerusalem.
The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/25/israelandthepalestinians.egypt
Like the BBC, they fail to find (or have found and fail to list -- you choose) any body in the international community who agrees with Israel:
Guardian said:
Israeli officials have often spoken of their intent to separate themselves completely from the Gaza Strip, which Israel captured and occupied in 1967. In 2005 Israel withdrew its settlers and soldiers but the international community still regards Gaza as occupied territory because Israel has effective control over the Palestinians there. It controls the population register as well as Gaza's sea space and air space, prevents large-scale use of the harbour and any use of Gaza's one airport, conducts frequent military operations in Gaza and controls all crossings into Israel.
Israel is also responsible for delivering electricity, water and medicine to Gaza.
Not all those things will change automatically with the end of an occupation. But Israel got these responsibilities via its occupation of Gaza. And they are responsibilities. For instance: Israel cannot withhold electricity if the Palestinians don't pay their bills, or if they launch rockets.
Removing troops isn't sufficient. That is why the CIA says:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html
CIA said:
West Bank and Gaza Strip are Israeli-occupied with current status subject to the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement - permanent status to be determined through further negotiation; Israel removed settlers and military personnel from the Gaza Strip in August 2005.
)