What is the status of Gaza Is it still under occupation by Israel or not ?

Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy recounts the day in November 1989, during the peak of the first intifada, when Ariel Sharon, then Israel's Minister of Industry and Commerce, escorted him on a tour of the Gaza Strip to convince him—and subsequently the Israeli public—that the Israeli presence there should be permanent.
At that time, Sharon was planning to fragment the Gaza Strip with further settlements. He strongly believed that settlements, in contrast to military outposts, were permanent, and that settlers were the vanguard of Zionism.
Nineteen years later, Sharon has evolved from the father of the settlement movement, earning him the title of "Bulldozer," to the architect of the so-called Gaza Disengagement Plan.
Sharon's strategy rendered him a traitor among several settlers while elevating him to the status of a hero among liberals.
Nonetheless, politics are rarely black and white.
The personalities and belief systems of leaders may fluctuate; however, their fundamental features and convictions stay persistent. Policy deviation does not inherently signify ideological divergence, particularly not for a staunch ideologue and war criminal such as Sharon.
Sharon did not experience a change of heart; he recognized that the concept of Greater Israel was unfeasible with a diminishing Jewish minority amidst a predominant Palestinian majority in Gaza. He did not diverge; he adapted.
The years subsequent to the disengagement demonstrated that Sharon's alleged treachery was, in fact, a significant boon to Zionism, as he facilitated a cost-free occupation for Israel and instituted a lasting regime of collective punishment without the necessity of military personnel on the ground.
Israel and Egypt officially launched the Gaza blockade in June 2007 in response to Hamas's takeover of the Strip, but it had already begun two years earlier with the departure of the last Israeli soldier from Gaza.
For Palestinians in Gaza, Ariel Sharon's departure from Gaza on 15 August 2005 symbolized the closure of the enclave, transforming the 365-square-kilometer strip into the world's largest open-air prison.
The Israeli leadership has constructed two parallel narratives regarding its relationship with Gaza: first, that Israel "withdrew" from Gaza, thereby absolving itself of any legal or moral obligations to its inhabitants; and second, that by offering "concessions" to Palestinians, Israel has paid dearly.
The first narrative overlooks that Israel maintains complete control over the Gaza border, encompassing both air and sea. It continues to control several elements of the Palestinian population's registry, issuance of identification cards, and passports, among other matters. Israel possesses veto authority over the entry and exit of people at the Rafah Crossing with Egypt, scrutinises economic activities, construction, and building materials, and even determines the caloric intake permissible for Palestinians in Gaza.
Immediately following the passage of the Disengagement Plan in the Knesset in October 2004, numerous rights organizations expressed skepticism over the proposal and cautioned about its eventual consequences.
In October of that year, Human Rights Watch stated that the simple repositioning of the Israeli army did not constitute a "withdrawal," highlighting that a territory is deemed occupied when it is effectively under the control of a hostile army. Furthermore, it noted that the occupying force, as defined by international law, retains its obligations to the local populace as long as it maintains control over them.
In March 2005, merely five months prior to the execution of the disengagement, the Israeli human rights organization B'tselem indicated that the plan would exacerbate the stringent limitations already placed on the Strip, rendering Gaza effectively a "one big prison".
Nevertheless, the outcry appeared to be futile.
The United States hailed the plan as historic, despite the absence of the terms "withdraw" and "ending the occupation," and despite the fact that the plan explicitly stated Israel's intention to maintain full control over Gaza and the freedom to execute military operations in the enclave at its own will.
It did not seem to matter either that the Palestinian Authority's request to be involved in the process was denied.
The most remarkable aspect was the inability to recognize that a "unilateral plan" meant redrawing the geopolitical map only to benefit the planner, while the people in Gaza were excluded from the disengagement planning process.
In a second narrative, certain Israelis harbor resentment against Gaza for becoming a "threat" instead of the "Singapore of the Middle East." This language is intentionally crafted to deter any future withdrawals from the West Bank.
Nineteen years after the Disengagement Plan, Israel effectively controls the fate of the Strip without having to spend a penny on the local populace or managing their everyday concerns. For numerous Israeli Jews, the absence of ground forces mitigates any sense of culpability. Gaza is perceived as the undesirable neighbor, acknowledged only when Palestinians launch rockets into adjacent Israeli colonies.
"The Gazans may be poor and frustrated, but that's only because of Hamas. After all, we left there during the disengagement. So, what do they want?" Noa Landau offers a sarcastic commentary in Haaretz.
Even as he paid lip service to the Bush administration's regarding a two-state solution, Sharon's true objective was to undermine the peace process. In 2004, his senior advisor, Dov Weisglass, stated to Haaretz without reservation that the Disengagement Plan signified:

"a freezing of the peace process... And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders, and Jerusalem."

Regardless of being denounced as a traitor or lauded as a hero, one undeniable reality remains: Sharon has established the course for Israel's policy on Gaza and, consequently, the entirety of the Occupied Territories.
Israeli politicians, spanning the political spectrum, have expanded upon Sharon's perspective. They have kept Gaza under siege, severing it geographically and administratively from the larger Palestinian collective.
The formula is clear: The absence of geographical cohesion or administrative unity between Gaza and the West Bank prevents the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

Further reading: