Actually all nations control the passage of people through their borders in exactly the same way as Israel does. There is no legal right of passage into or out of any sovereign nation. They only control the air and sea to stop the smuggling of illegal weapons which is not illegal.
Guess you fail again
Trying to be clever hand having a 'go' at me for agreeing with you is priceless!
The occupation continues through the control of air and sea of Gaza by a foreign power...
Phoney poops and phails again!
NOPE the leaders of gaza say you are wrong, so take it up with them
Hamas demands end of Israeli occupation of Gaza and West Bank The National
And a hamas leader is on record as saying that gaza has not been occupied since August 2005
Advertisement
"Gaza is not occupied, so why should Israel have any role [at the Gaza-Egypt border crossing] when it has no presence on the border between Egypt and Gaza?" argued Mohammed Nuseir, a member of Hamas' political bureau, on Saturday.
Gaza Not Occupied Says Hamas So Where Is The UN
GAZA NOT OCCUPIED, SAYS HAMAS, SO WHERE IS THE UN?
In a stunning about-face, and after decades of violence justified by excuses of being under occupation, Hamas recently admitted that Gaza is not occupied by Israel. And yet, the United Nations, which has long been reluctant to acknowledge Gaza’s change in status, is still silent on the issue.
In response to a statement by Hamas Politburo Chief Khaled Mashaal that Hamas will hold mass demonstrations against Israel inside Gaza to parallel those organized by the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, Hamas Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar declared such a protest to be irrelevant. Al-Zahar stated that while the West Bank is “still under occupation” and that all forms of resistance, including armed resistance, should be used in that territory, “popular resistance is inappropriate for the Gaza Strip.”
“Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip?” al-Zahar asked. “When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable.”
The Hague Conventions definition of 1907 is
the only legal definition of occupation. That's it. The Fourth Geneva Conventions does not define it at all.
And
here it is:
Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
Amnesty International
expanded on this definition when the US invaded Iraq:
The sole criterion for deciding the applicability of the law on belligerent occupation is drawn from facts:
the de facto effective control of territory by foreign armed forces coupled with the possibility to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national governmental authority in effective control. If these conditions are met for a given area, the law on belligerent occupation applies. Even though the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory, the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders applicable the law protecting the inhabitants. The occupying power cannot avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a position to carry out its normal tasks.
The international legal regime on belligerent occupation takes effect as soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control over a territory that is not its own.
It ends when the occupying forces have relinquished their control over that territory.
.. 
