Thread by @Aizenberg55

🧵CRITICAL: ICJ advisory opinion DOES NOT assert Gaza is "occupied" by Israel. Contrary to media reports actual language of ICJ opinion does not state that Israel occupies Gaza. Opinion supports claim that a "physical presence" is required for an actual "occupation." Analysis: 1/

Clause 92 discusses the concept of a “physical presence” required for an occupation. ICJ asserts that Israel “may still bear obligations under the law of occupation” due to certain authority over Gaza – but not that Gaza is therefore “occupied.” 2/

Clause 93 states that Israel is “capable of exercising… key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip” despite its withdrawal. But this alone does not mean “occupation.” ICJ’s conclusion on Gaza is in Clause 94, the final say on the matter in this ICJ advisory opinion --> 3/

Clause 94 and the entire opinion DOES NOT claim Gaza is occupied! Simply that Israel is "not entirely released of its obligations under the law of occupation" and this obligation is only to degree of such "effective control" -- which ICJ does not assess! 4/

ICJ opinion is a severe blow to claims Gaza is occupied. ICJ does not say Gaza is occupied. It simply claims that based on an unspecified level of "effective control" Israel may still have obligations under “law of occupation”; quite different than saying “Gaza is occupied.” END

To be clear, the ICJ opinion only covers the status of Gaza pre-10/7, the reality of Gaza since then and going forward is and will be different. But the notion that Gaza was occupied by Israel pre-10/7, one of the so-called "justifications" for 10/7, is harmed by ICJ opinion.