Fair enough, I personally would also favor this interpretation. However this means that Israel is doing certain things outside the current war that are considered problematic (to put it mildly) between two independent sovereign states. And while you and I might agree on this interpretation, does Israel recognize the sovereignty of Gaza? What is the position of the Israeli government as to which country this territory belongs to?
Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 is the de facto recognition of Gaza as an independent entity and whomever ruled it as its sovereign. Between 2005-2007 it was Fatah. Since then Hamas. Israel's refusal to enter, reoccupy, and and remove Hamas from power, is a de facto recognition of this status quo.
There is no act of Israeli policy toward Gaza that has no precedent or basis in international law and therefore the agreed-upon customs.
Don't be silly. Of course the UK and Germany can host Chinese bases if they so choose. They would face some political unpleasantness, but they absolutely have the right to do this as a sovereign country. It might be incompatible with their NATO membership, but their NATO membership is a voluntary surrender (as are all treaties) of some of their sovereignty. And they can exit NATO if they so wish. Even UN membership is a voluntary surrender of some sovereignty in order to be part of the organization. However any country can leave the UN if it so chooses.
So they can theoretically host Chinese bases but not practically due to their voluntary NATO membership?
Well what if I said Hamas could theoretically host Chinese bases but not practically because the IDF would see them as a threat due to Hamas's voluntary attacks on Israel?
But if Hamas had the military capability, they could host them nonetheless.
Mongolia doesn't have a coastline. There are existing norms for how bordering separate countries handle territorial waters and what distance from their coast constitutes their territorial waters. Does Israel respect the territorial waters of the independent country of Gaza? You understand my point very well and are actively dodging it
The subject of international waters is not decided on technicalities written somewhere. Rather it is the function of some agreement between one party vs the international community and its neighbors.
This is demonstrated in the Israeli-Lebanese EEZ dispute which was recently settled, the ongoing disputes between Greece and Turkey, and China and Taiwan.
Gaza has an EEZ which is untouched. It also has its own territorial waters. However there is currently a blockade. A blockade which is handled according to international laws and norms.
During times of peace, Israel eases the naval blockade as a mechanism to promote calm.
I will point you to the encyclopedia Brittanica's article on sovereignty, specifically the part about sovereignty and international law. I don't agree about the unique mix. Countries surrender of sovereignty in regards to the imposition of external rules is generally voluntary. There are some vague exceptions to this mostly having to do with very strong historical precedent, but on the whole if Gaza is sovereign then Israel doesn't get to dictate things like control of their borders or territorial waters.
There are rules that describe when a blockade is justified and how to handle it. Israel acts within these norms. There is no law that says a sovereign country cannot come under a blockade. Israel itself was under blockade for many years and still is. Yet none would question its sovereignty.
Gaza's independence began in 2005. Back then, there was no blockade whatsoever. It only occurred because of voluntary actions Hamas took, i.e. launching a war against Israel.
I don't believe this is an accurate analogy by any means. Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. were from the outset in a very different situation from Gaza
Gaza's situation is indeed very unique - its starting point was absolutely amazing. It had all the economical assets left by the displaced Israelis, infrastructure like water desalination and treatment, energy, telecom, provided by Israel. It had access to an international airport and a local one of its own. It also had access to Israeli sea ports, proximity to the Sinai tourism sites, and labor access to Israel with jobs that pay far higher than the Palestinian average.
Hamas has systematically destroyed all that. Doesn't mean they didn't have it though.
Israel is also a small nation that only really had its coastline to begin with, and surrounded by enemies. 0 natural resources. It succeeded. In the end, all you need is good people and you can succeed as well. Or at least, if not prosper, then at least be much better than they are today.
If Gaza is independent, their prosperity or lack thereof is their own problem and nobody else's. And any aid they receive is a gift, not an obligation of any kind, and can be rescinded at any time, for any reason, and for no reason at all. Nobody is required to help a neighboring country if they don't wish to.
That is exactly the point. I have no idea why so many believe the aid Israel, the EU, and the US provide, is obligatory.
It seems to me that Israel likes to operate in a grey area, generally not respecting the sovereignty of certain neighboring states when it doesn't suite Israel. This is reciprocated by many of them (arguably even provoked by many of them) but in general it is not acceptable for one country to bomb the territory of another country because that country hosts armed forces from a third country. That would be an act of aggression. If Belarus wants to host Russian troops, and Poland decides this is a good reason to bomb them, Poland would be the aggressor and in violation of the UN Charter, a voluntary agreement they signed. Yet Syria, Iran, Israel, the example above.
Part of one's sovereignty is the ability to make decisions of their own. In accordance with international laws, as well as unwritten natural laws, every country is eligible to wage war on anyone. However, under the same laws, it is equally eligible to find out the consequences of said war. Scholars refer to it as FAFO.
Since 1948 Israel and Syria are in a state of war which flared up and calmed down many times over. The closest they ever got to calm is ceasefire agreements. Egypt and Jordan took up the peace offers, Syria didn't.
So Syria used its sovereignty to declare and wage war on Israel. Israel used its sovereignty to help Syria find out the consequences. The current situation is just a continuation of that paradigm.
It is worth noting that Israel and Iran are also in a state of armed conflict.
Had Syria agreed to make peace with Israel, or Iran made peace with Israel, Israel would not bomb Iranian assets in Syria. Russia is no longer in an open state of war with Israel. Therefore Israel does not bomb Russian assets there.
I don't think that when international norms clearly permit and provide frameworks for warfare, it is right to accuse a warring party of disrespecting another warring party's sovereignty.
It is also not a good analogy IMO. Russia is hostile to Ukraine which is a partner of Poland. Belarus is Poland's neighbor. But neither Russia nor Belarus have taken offensive actions against Poland. In the Israel-Syria-Iran context, Syria chose in 1948 to invade Israel. It made that same decision until 1973, and since then has allowed foreign actors to do the same thing on its behalf. It actively refused peace and continues permitting mercenary and foreign militants to attack Israel from its territory.