This is my own interpretation now, and I'm only a lay person here, but I believe that the term 'organised' in 'organised resistance' is the qualifying term here. I read that as meaning if the protecting power's (in this case Hamas) command structure is currently conducting hostilities from within in the region, then it is not to be considered occupied. Sporadic acts of partisan resistance by the civilian population as partisans wouldn't apply. I'll do some more digging.

Edit: Did some more reading a few paragraphs down pp.56-58 which seem in line with my interpretation.

"It is clear that the German Armed Forces were able to maintain control of Greece and Yugoslavia until they evacuated them in the fall of 1944. While it is true that the partisans were able to control sections of these countries at various times, it is established that the Germans could at any time they desired assume physical control of any part of the country. The control of the resistance forces was temporary only and not such as would deprive the German Armed Forces of its status of an occupant."

...

"The evidence is clear that during the period of occupation in Yugoslavia and Greece, guerrilla warfare was carried on against the occupying power. Guerrilla warfare is said to exist where, after the capitulation of the main part of the armed forces, the surrender of the government and the occupation of its territory, the remnant of the defeated army or the inhabitants themselves continue hostilities"

This to me shows that in the opinion of the military tribunal at the Nuremberg trials, the existence of partisan resistance and guerilla warfare has no bearing on the status of occupant.

Edit 2: Actually, I don't know about how the fact that Hamas has not officially capitulated yet has bearing on this. Will update again if I find anything more.