> The one thing that strikes me about the debate though is that it is
> all based on the premise that the attack on Gaza was in the nature of
> a war between states. [...] But Gaza isn't a separate state, it is for
> all intents and purposes part of lsrael [...] It follows that the
> responsibility of the Israeli government is more extensive than it was
> in Lebanon, where it was at war with another state. [...] It is akin
> to the British government bombing the city of Leeds in response to the
> July 2005 London bombings. If that had happened, one would not be
> splitting hairs about whether the RAF had taken adequate care to
> distinguish legitimate military objectives, or to avoid excess
> civilian casualties. The whole idea would be ridiculous.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is the same as the RAF bombing Leeds, it is true that as an occupying power, Israel does have more responsibilities towards the population in Gaza then it did, say during the Lebanon war. International law stipulates that as an occupying power, Israel has certain rights and obligations, namely: "restoring and ensuring, as far as possible, public order and safety; providing the population with food and medical supplies; agreeing to relief schemes undertaken by other States or impartial humanitarian organizations if the population is inadequately supplied; maintaining medical facilities and services; ensuring public health and hygiene; and facilitating the work of educational institutions." (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5LMM37) And as article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" (a.k.a. Settlements).
However, what the Israeli hasbara (propaganda) wanks are now arguing is that since the disengagement from Gaza, Israel no longer occupies Gaza and therefore Israel is not any more under the obligations of an occupying power regarding the welfare of the population. For instance, NGO Monitor writes in its critique of the Goldstone Report:
"Promotion of the false legal claim invented by the PLO Negotiation Affairs Department (and promoted by NGOs such as B’tselem, HRW, Amnesty <http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amnesty_international>) that Gaza remains “occupied” after the 2005 disengagement (p. 9). The political objective of this distortion is to manufacture humanitarian obligations that do not exist under international law. (The ICRC, in contrast, had acknowledged that Gaza is an “autonomous territory <http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:NDbrK04-u7oJ:www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/israel+autonomous+site:icrc.org&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=il>.” However, after the release of the Goldstone report, the ICRC changed its website <http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/israel> to promote the biased conclusion of the Mission.)" http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/goldstone_report_pages_of_ngo_cut_and_paste_
The funny thing is, defining Gaza as still occupied by Israel isn't as controversial a position as NGO Monitor would like us to believe.... EVEN the US government defines Gaza as such. Just take a look at the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html): "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."
(For any interested, I remember that Valentina Azarov, who is with HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual, goes somewhat into the legal determination of occupying power in the interview I did with her a while back: http://www.alternativenews.org/news-from-within:-palestine/israel-podcasts/1631-news-from-within-podcast-role-of-the-israeli-high-court-in-the-occupation-focus-on-the-gaza-strip.html)