Hmmm. Interesting. I believe this speaks to the difference between an occupation and a blockade.
An occupation assumes that the occupier has some level of control over the conditions of the occupied. As examples: an occupier could prevent the use of water pipes being used as weapons; an occupier could prevent the misuse of medical supplies; an occupier could ensure fertilizer was used for agricultural purposes, rather than making bombs.
On the other hand, a blockade intends to withhold, as much as possible, the materials that could be used as weapons. And yes, even some luxury items as a deterrent. But a blockade does not prevent misuse of material.
It is my opinion that holding one party RESPONSIBLE while that party does not have CONTROL is not only grievously unfair, but is in direct opposition to the definition of "occupation".
Israel does not occupy Gaza. It hasn't since 2005. Israel can't be held responsible for things it has no control over. If you want to argue for Israel having responsibility over Gaza, you have to also offer Israel control over Gaza. Which translates to re-occupation or to annexation, both of which seem to be in opposition to your main argument that Israel needs to "end the occupation". Which is why I believe your argument is inconsistent.