This is a complex matter. To simplify it, my understanding is (and again, I already laid this out):

Israel's argument is that the West Bank is not an "occupied territory," and therefore the laws applicable to occupied territories do not apply. Rather, the Israeli government has its own laws and, it has ratified or suggested laws which enforce the notion that what it is doing is legal. I am not arguing on the legality, I am outlining the position.

If you want to dispute/disagree/clarify that, you have your post above doing that.

What this is at the moment is a pivot away from the argument from yesterday and moving back to the notion of debate.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 9 2026 06:33am

I shall, methinks, forbear the present course and instead discourse upon the origins of Likud, Jewish terror, and collaboration. And thou, if it please thee, mayst carry on.

The West Bank (continued)

In 1995 Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo Accord, agreeing to create a five-year plan for Palestinian Home Rule in the West Bank and Gaza. The West Bank was split into three areas: Area A (Palestinian cities), Area B (towns and villages), and Area C (sparsely populated land containing all Israeli settlements and the Jordan Valley). This split exists to this day. Under the agreement, Areas A and B were placed under varying degrees of Palestinian administration, while Area C remained under full Israeli control. The five-year plan was intended as a transitional period, after which a final peace agreement would be reached. In 1996, i.e. one year after Oslo, Benjamin Netanyahu came to power in Israel. Netanyahu had publicly opposed the Accords. Once in power, Netanyahu set about dismantling the peace process his predecessor had built. He halted further Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank and expanded settlements in Area C. Today no Palestinian state exists. The temporary or transitional agreement has simply...persisted. The "interim" arrangement became permanent. Area C — the 60% of the West Bank containing all settlements — remains under full Israeli control while the Israeli settler population has gone from 100,000 to over 400,000. Zone C was and remains predominant the area of conflict.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 9 2026 07:22am

You are moving the goalposts so fast it’s giving me whiplash.
Your original argument was that it is mathematically impossible to stop a radicalized population from producing a loop of endless terrorism unless you kill or ethnically cleanse them all. Now that the historical examples of Germany and Japan completely shattered that theory, you're trying to pivot by saying, 'Well, Germany and Japan were different because we disarmed them.'
Exactly! That is my entire point. Thank you for finally agreeing with me.
You don't achieve disarmament by asking a fascist regime nicely to sign a piece of paper. You achieve disarmament by destroying their military and governing apparatus, taking total security control, and physically stripping away their ability to import weapons or build military infrastructure. That is precisely what 'neutering' a regime looks like, and it is exactly what Israel is doing to Hamas.
Your claim that 'Hamas won't surrender, so it's impossible' is a completely defeatist logic. The Allies didn't wait for every single Nazi holdout in the mountains to formally agree to a surrender before they began demilitarizing Germany. They broke the back of the regime, took control of the territory, and made it physically impossible for them to rearm.
You can call historical facts 'vague propaganda' all you want, but you just explicitly admitted that breaking a regime and enforcing disarmament is how you end a forever war. Israel is doing the heavy lifting of enforcing that exact disarmament on a genocidal terror network, whether Hamas likes it or not.

you're just trying to twist my arguments to fit your narrative. i said specifically you wont be successful because you will invariably pull out of Gaza, i even said specifically you wont make it 10 years in a military occupation post war.

as to surrender its not about chasing down every militant in the mountains, its about the leadership will resume rearming them at the first opportunity. they're not in gaza, as you well know, and they can't be trusted, as you well know.

lets game it out.

war "ends" and occupation begins. israel will look to other nations to help rebuild and feed the people. a lot of aid will come from muslim nations, which will invariably have weapons and bomb materials hidden in them to try and arm guerilla forces in gaza. maybe israel finds 9 out of 10, or even 99 out of 100 caches. some slips in, fighters get it, attack occupation forces. death tolls will be low but blow up the press, costs of occupation will pile up over the years, eventually govt caves to pressure and pulls out just like in 2005. they try and set up some sort of new govt that is opposed to hamas and a puppet to israel. that govt is about as effective at fighting hamas as the US's puppets were in Iraq or Afghanistan. which is not effective at all. Israel enjoys a slight reprieve post-withdrawal, because infighting in Gaza is the focus and terrorist attacks are located there. Puppet govt invariably loses meaningful control, or gets hung in the street, Hamas or the same group under a new name retakes control of Gaza. then you're either in war again, or under threat again.

so you either get a war again, attacked again, or are under threat again. its just a matter of time. but please tell me about all of the guerilla insurgency groups the Allies had to fight in Germany or Japan post-ww2. please tell me about how the unconditional surrenders didn't hold. please tell me about the rich benefactors well out of reach of the allies that were bank rolling Germany and Japan. square the circle.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 9 2026 10:40am

The West Bank (continued)

In 2022 — one year prior to the October 7th Hamas attack — the Government of Israel made an election pledge to "promote and develop settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria (the West Bank)." What the government said explicitly was that the West Bank is not a disputed territory, but rather a part of Israel. Control of Area C was transferred to a civilian authority at this time. From a neutral perspective, what happened here was that Israel was staking its claim on Area C of the West Bank. By transferring authority from military to civilian control, Area C effectively came under the umbrella of Israeli domestic law — rather than Israeli military law applicable in occupied or "disputed" territory. This was basically "The End" of the two state solution noting the viability of a Palestinian state without Area C is simply not credible.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas led a coordinated attack on Israel from Gaza, killing approximately 1,200 people — mostly civilians — and taking over 250 hostages. Israel declared war on Hamas in response. This topic has discussed those events, and we are not going to go into them. Instead, we are focusing on the West Bank. At the time, Hamas urged Palestinians in the West Bank to rise up against Israel. In the weeks that followed, there was a marked increase in terrorist activities in the West Bank — but not to the degree that Hamas had hoped for. Israel responded swiftly, effectively locking down Areas A, B, and C with heightened security measures. Palestinian attacks included shootings, stabbings, and explosives targeting Israeli civilians and soldiers. Israeli forces responded with raids and airstrikes, while settler violence against Palestinians — including arson, assault, and land seizure — also surged. What began in 2022 — the transfer of Area C to civilian control, the election pledge to treat the West Bank as part of Israel — has only deepened since October 7th. Settlement planning has accelerated, land seizures have continued, and a viable, contiguous Palestinian state is no longer possible on the ground. The two-state solution is effectively dead.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 9 2026 11:49am

Let’s absolutely game this out, because your hypothetical timeline just laid out exactly why Israel cannot afford to repeat the catastrophic mistakes of the past.
You asked me to square the circle on three specific points regarding Germany, Japan, and insurgencies. Let's do exactly that:

You imply post-WWII Germany was peaceful from day one. It wasn't. The Allies had to aggressively suppress the 'Werwolf' movement a Nazi guerrilla insurgency intended to launch hit-and-run attacks against occupying forces. How did the Allies defeat them? Not by packing up and leaving because it got tough, but by maintaining a massive, unyielding military occupation, arresting collaborators, and imposing strict martial law until the population fully accepted that the old regime was never coming back.

Please tell me about the rich benefactors out of reach, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union heavily funded, armed, and backed communist insurgencies and terror factions across Europe (including Germany) to undermine Western democratic stability. The Allies didn't throw their hands up and declare victory 'impossible' just because Moscow was out of reach. They built a literal ironclad defense system, locked down the borders, and ruthlessly intercepted the flow of illicit weapons.

Your Timeline Proves My Entire Point, you claim that under a post-war occupation, aid will be smuggled, guerrilla attacks will happen, and Israel will eventually cave to international pressure and pull out leading right back to Hamas 2.0.
That is exactly why Israel cannot and will not do a standard political 'pullout' like 2005.
Your entire doom-loop scenario relies on the assumption that Israel will hand over security responsibility to an ineffective international force or a puppet government and walk away. But the entire lesson of October 7th is that Israel must maintain indefinite freedom of military operation and total security override from the borders and the sea.
When we talk about dismantling Hamas, we aren't talking about a magical transformation where every Gazan suddenly loves Israel. We are talking about destroying their capability to manufacture heavy rockets, dismantle their underground tunnels, and eliminate their industrial-scale military infrastructure.
If Iran tries to smuggle weapons inside aid, Israel will continue to control the entry points and intercept them. If a guerrilla cell forms and launches an attack, the IDF will step in and neutralize it immediately just like the IDF currently does in Area A of the West Bank, preventing it from ever scaling into a massive rocket-launching fortress.
You keep insisting the goal is delusional because it requires long-term, gritty security maintenance. It’s not delusional; it’s an existential requirement. The alternative you are advocating forgiving up on demilitarization because 'smuggling might happen' is just inviting a permanent cycle of massacres. Israel chooses to fight for its security, no matter how long it takes.

you're just talking past me to strawman tbh. you're saying that Israel must maintain full occupational control of Gaza to prevent a terrorist uprising and Hamas retaking control. That's a point i never argued against. What im saying is that you wont. you wont stay there forever. you'll crumble to a combination of international pressure of human rights concerns and internal pressure based on financial strain of what that operation costs and cost of lives because you'll face constant guerilla force attacks.

Germany was by comparison infinitely easier to subdue. The Nazi ideology drew from ideas of what it was to be German, it was nationalistic in it's aims. However previous to the rise of the Nazis people lived under imperial rule for centuries. It was in other words a new direction, Nazism was easy to snuff out because it wasn't a deeply held cultural belief. Also Germans didn't think they were at risk of being ethnically cleansed from their lands, and knew that if they reformed sovereignty would be returned to them. Even if they had to operate as a puppet for the west, they knew they would be able to reindustrialize with investment from the west to do so.

By comparison Gaza represents a 1000+ year old blood feud, the people are at risk (whether real or perceived, it makes no difference because THEY believe it) of being ethnically cleansed, you stated clearly they can never have sovereignty, you stated clearly the occupation will never end, Israel won't invest to reindustrialize the territory, and they're facing down an occupation that will never end. You're talking about changing what was already percieved by many as an open air prison into a literal open air prison by design. And you say a brutally designed concentration camp with no end ever, by design, will stand the test of time? like i said, i give it 10 years max. Once the next war against Iran, Turkey, or some other foe needs those resources and soldiers you're out. And hamas is back in.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 10 2026 08:58am

The West Bank (continued)

One recurring theme in Israeli public discourse after October 7th was that Israel's patience with the Palestinians had run out — and that the two-state solution was now seen as a reward for terrorism. The argument was: How can we talk about a Palestinian state after what they just did? But the factual timeline undermines that argument. As outlined above, Israel had already set in motion, a full year before October 7th, the mechanisms for the complete and effective eradication of a two-state solution: the election pledge to treat the West Bank as part of Israel, the transfer of Area C (60% of the West Bank) from military to civilian control, the appointment of Smotrich's civilian authority, and record settlement expansion. These were not responses to October 7th. They were policies of the government elected in December 2022. October 7th did not kill the two-state solution. It simply provided political and military cover for a process of annexation (even if not formally declared) in the West Bank that Israel was rapidly accelerating.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 10 2026 11:33am

double post. last of the day, promise.

As noted above, after October 7th, Palestinian attacks (against security forces and Israeli citizens) in the West Bank increased, and in response, Israel locked down the West Bank. Zone A (the Palestinian cities) was now regularly entered by the Israeli military. Israel entered Zone A (and carried out airstrikes etc) after the PA had lost control of these areas — leaving a security vacuum that armed groups, supported by Gaza-based militants (terrorists), had exploited. Zone B (towns and villages) experienced near-daily raids by Israel, while Zone C was managed by the "civilian" authorities. Zone C tells a different tale. Zone C — 60% of the West Bank — is under Israeli civilian jurisdiction, not military rule. Therefore, the rules that apply to the IDF in occupied (or disputed) territory do not apply here. Zone C is not occupied or disputed. It is, in effect, already annexed. More on Zone C in the next post.