Dead beats can't even pay for their own utilities.

[Hollie]

Of course Israel occupies Gaza. One just has to refer to the Nuremberg Trials as did the the OTP of the ICC which determined:

"..........the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. In general, this view is based on the scope and degree of control that Israel has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement – including, inter alia, Israel’s exercise of control over border crossings, the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip, and the airspace of Gaza; its periodic military incursions within Gaza; its enforcement of no-go areas within Gaza near the border where Israeli settlements used to be; and its regulation of the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency and control of taxes and customs duties. The retention of such competences by Israel over the territory of Gaza even after the 2005 disengagement overall supports the conclusion that the authority retained by Israel amounts to effective control.

28. Although it no longer maintains a military presence in Gaza, Israel has not only shown the ability to conduct incursions into Gaza at will, but also expressly reserved the right to do so as required by military necessity. This consideration is potentially significant considering that there is support in international case law for the conclusion that it is not a prerequisite that a State maintain continuous presence in a territory in order to qualify as an occupying power. In particular, the ICTY has held that the law of occupation would also apply to areas where a state possesses “the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt.” In this respect, it is also noted that the geographic proximity of the Gaza Strip to Israel potentially facilitates the ability of Israel to exercise effective control over the territory, despite the lack of a continuous military presence.

29. Overall, there is a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that Israel continues to be an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. The Office has therefore proceeded on the basis that the situation in Gaza can be considered within the framework of an international armed conflict in view of the continuing military occupation by Israel."

http://opiniojuris.org/wp-content/uploads/2014-11-03-Final-Report-on-Situation-ICC-01.13.pdf

Yes, the ICC, a toothless, arbitrary and capricious entity has an opinion.

 

[Boston1]

What a pack of lies.

Gaza is not occupied in any way and the restrictions on it are international in nature and due to Arab Muslim terrorist activity within the Gaza elected government

None of which has anything to do with these fools not paying their electric bills.

 

[Phoenall]

Ironic --- because the PA was negotiating a deal to exploit GAZA owned nat gas right off their coastline.

Reality is -- the PA was getting screwed on the deal and the inter-Pali war DESTROYED the chance of Gaza being self-sufficient for power.

But ---- by NOW --- it would be ISRAEL owing THEM money for nat gas to run electrical generation..
Another bullet in the list of HORRIBLY BAD Pali decisions..

Then the research companies who had more to gain by having the gas in gaza waters found that there was none there at all and it was all too the north of the shores of Israel.

There IS a confirmed source off of Gaza.. It was not impressive. But it WOULD have been a major boost to the Gazan economy being self-sufficient for electrical generation and having a bit left to sell to Israel or Egypt...

They were being throttled tho in the deal and needed Donald Trump to come negotiate it for them..
British Whatever was offering them some SMALL royalty for the rights.

Natural gas of Gaza to profit Palestinians

They could always pay the costs themselves and see how much they would need to hand over. They would soon agree a licence fee for drilling the wells that is guaranteed income as opposed to fluctuating wholesale prices. A fee of $10billion is not to be sneezed at when the market is flooded and you cant sell the gas. This is what happened to North Sea Oil and Gas that would have put Scotland in debtors jail if they had voted yes

 

[Phoenall]

Does the occupying force have the obligation to provide basic human needs?

That will be hamas as under International law gaza is not occupied, and the only person that says it is does not have that authority

 

[Shusha]

Does the occupying force have the obligation to provide basic human needs?

The prevailing attitude is that, yes, an occupying force has the obligation to provide for the basic human needs of the population during an occupation..

That obligation extends only so far as the occupying force has effective control over the population and has both the authority and the ability to act on those obligations.

The question at hand here is whether or not the "occupying force" continues to have an obligation towards a population which has achieved its own governance and self-rule and where the "occupying force" no longer has the ability to assert effective control.

The answer has to be "no". The obligation transfers along with the effective control.

IF you want to assert that Israel has the obligation to provide for the population -- you must relinquish control. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Boston1]

Which is another reason Israel should immediately begin the application of the Geneva conventions and determine who is eligible for repatriation and who is eligible for citizenship.

Any not eligible for repatriation should be granted full citizenship. If they refuse they can have say 60days to vacate the country.

As for the Gazan's its a no brainer, they are their own little country whether they want to admit it or not and as such Israel owes them nothing.

 

[Boston1]

Maybe the Israeli's will apply the money to the electric bill
IDF confiscates terror funds in Ramallah; PA up in arms