These nuances don’t translate well into my language where the word for occupation implies actually occupying something (“boots on the ground”).

That’s the same in English, but the idea is that there’s not much difference between what’s going on in Gaza and having boots on the ground. When whether you can eat for the day or whether your children can get treated for some illness is dependent on someone other government, that dependence is enforced at gunpoint, and the local government having no say in the matter, that’s an occupation.

The blockade was the consequence of their neighbour being taken over by a terrorist organization.

That’s what Israel would like you to think; the blockade started in 2005, before Hamas even won the election.

Just a little nitpick: The article you posted recites the position of Human Rights Watch at the UN Human Rights Council. It is not the position of the UN. Still, thanks for the link and your otherwise helpful response!

Amnesty International, the World Health Organization, Oxfam, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations, the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, international human rights organizations, US government websites, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and a significant number of legal commentators (Geoffrey Aronson, Meron Benvenisti, Claude Bruderlein, Sari Bashi, Kenneth Mann, Shane Darcy, John Reynolds, Yoram Dinstein, John Dugard, Marc S. Kaliser, Mustafa Mari, and Iain Scobbie) maintain that Israel’s extensive direct external control over Gaza, and indirect control over the lives of its internal population mean that Gaza remained occupied.