What matters is that Israel is maintaining their illegal occupation even today, and even expanding it (building new settlements, etc.)
The annexation of the Golan Heights is somewhat justifiable on strategic grounds. The occupation of the West Bank is a land grab, pure and simple.
But you’re mischaracterising the strategic importance of the West Bank. If it was a sovereign nation, the logical thing for the West Bank government to do would be to place artillery on the high ground near Israeli cities. The artillery would be sufficiently protected and would be capable of causing widespread destruction. That’s powerful negotiating leverage, even if the artillery isn’t used. This is similar to the state Seoul is in - within range of NK artillery.
That’s why there is no 2 state solution the Israelis will agree to where the Palestinian state operates its own military. It might be morally right, but it would be a death sentence for Israel.
Source - Prisoners of Geography by Tim Marshall.
That's a massive exaggeration.
It would theoretically be a risk for Israeli citizens living close to the border, but would lead to an overwhelming punitive response from the Israeli army, strongly backed by America.
Israel has by far the most capable military in the region, routinely inflicts casualty ratios of 10-20:1 in its favour in any conflict with Palestinians, and is backed by the most powerful military in the world.
The threat posed by an independent Palestine would be negligible. However the spectre of that threat is used to justify the continued occupation and expropriation of the West Bank.
But artillery still exists. And if the enemy has the high ground and the cities are in the plains, the death toll will be in the tens of thousands before victory is achieved.
This is the reason every citizen in Seoul knows where the nearest bomb shelter is. I can understand (but not condone) someone wanting to avoid that fate.
It's really hard to imagine a two-state solution working, when leading Israeli politicians repeatedly declare that Israel consists of all the land between the Jordan and the sea. And even if it could be agreed, Israel would remain a segregated state. A single state with one-man one-vote would quickly put an end to apartheid, and to many of the most serious complaints of the Palestinians.
The argument against a single-state solution is that it would put an end to the idea of a "Jewish homeland". That is true; but a "Jewish homeland" must necessarily be an apartheid homeland, which discriminates against non-Jews.
Not that my opinion makes any meaningful impact on global scale, but I do at least vote with wallet and don't buy any Israeli products. I respect their military prowess but I have much higher moral expectations from place I will anyhow support with my money.
9/11 didn't happen out of the blue, it was a response to american foreign policy in the middle east.
The troubles didn't happen because the IRA thought British rule was legitimate
Etc.
The vast majority of terrorism is because one group is controlling a region that the other group thinks they should not.
In my opinion, most long running conflicts tend to have both sides doing terrible things over the course of the conflict, so its rare there is one side that is "good" and one that is "evil".
I know, that's exactly what England did under Cromwell; one of my ancestors was such a settler.
If you don't consider the details of the situation, the comparison basically becomes so vauge as to be useless.
If the territory had been annexed and put under civilian law and everyone there had been given Israeli citizenship 60 years ago, I would indeed agree that although that was bad, it’s not worth crying over spilled milk in the present day, much like e.g. the British conquest of Quebec. But that’s not the case. It remains a military occupation and bad stuff continues to happen, today.
A 1:1 scenario would be if Ukraine invaded Russia and then Russia took control over Ukraine territory, which in that case i'd argue the outcry would be minimal.