Now as we discussed, Ms. Erekat believes that because Israel is blockading Gaza, that means they are continuing to occupy it. In other words, because Israel controls Gaza's borders they control it:
"The confluence of its ongoing control, its continuous military operations, as well as its capacity to redeploy its troops within a reasonable time, demonstrate that Israel remains in effective control of the Gaza Strip."But on the other hand, she also claims that Israel's attempts to control the borders of Gaza are illegal because (as determined above) they already occupy it.
"However, specifically because Israel remains an Occupying Power, its blockade is illegal even if Israel were to ensure the welfare of Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants."But she also believes that a blockade is an act of war:
"As a blockade amounts to an act of war under international customary law, its imposition on Gaza both breaches the limitation on Israel's permissible use of force as well as flagrantly challenges the definition of Article 51 self-defense."What Ms. Erekat has set up is a logic trap in which Israel would never be legally allowed to control the borders of Gaza. If they occupy Gaza, they can't blockade it, but if they blockaded it they would immediately become an occupier...at least according to her.
In other words, if Israel were to stop controlling the borders of Gaza (i.e. blockading it) they would cease to be an Occupying Power and then would (legally) be able to control the borders through a blockade. Except they wouldn't, because they would become an Occupying Power again just by forming that blockade.