To be fair, I agreed several times that the MFA had said that Israel wasn’t in a state of belligerent occupation in Gaza, but that I thought that the Iraeli Supreme Court hadn’t certified that decision and was aware of only the 2004 SC decision where Israel certified that it was in a state of belligerent occupation WRT the West Bank and I’d assumed that since it had maintained control over Gaza, that the decision extended to Gaza as well.
When the 2008 verdict was brought up, I immediately responded and admitted that I’d been unaware of it. (Although not before Amanset waited a whole 32 minutes after his post, when I hadn’t responded to anybody in the thread, to demand that I respond and talk about how they were all “waiting for me” to get back to him.)
He then brought it up, I think, close to have a dozen times in two or three other posts, up to the point where he claimed that my being unaware of the 2008 verdict meant I was totally unaware of the basics of the situation. Except while he, himself had been unaware of the verdict until about 1 hour before I was, that he wasn’t going to claim that he was totally unaware about the basic facts of the matter.
Now he’s bringing it up again. It seems that pointing out the one factual error he’s found from me, that I immediately agreed was an error and retracted, is a very big deal. 
Exactly, so should you be moderated?
You were ignorant of the exact same issue, and yet you claimed that it only made me totally unaware of the basic facts while you, being unaware of the very same ruling, hadn’t been totally unaware of the basic facts.
Should the moderators have Warned you for that?
That’s a blanket statement. It does not become a non-blanket because you meant to imply “is not the occupying power in Gaza” rather than “is not an occupying power”. Should you be Warned for this too?
No, you don’t. But if you make a claim that Israel says it is not an “occupying power” when, in fact, Israel says it is an occupying power but that it is not occupying Gaza then that can be pointed out. As I brought to your attention, an occupying power is an occupying power as long as they occupy something, even if they don’t occupy the territory in question.