No...Israel and Palestine are both nations, and they are separate. Do you disagree with that?
If, by 'nation' you mean ethnicity - as with the Arabs - then no. Israel is a nation state, not an ethnicity.
WILL BE. As in, ARE NOT YET.
Yet? Are you saying Area C will be transferred to Palestinian authority in the future? Or did Israel change its position on the area?
Do you admit that Area C is not under Palestinian jurisdiction
Hmm, not sure - legally? Or de facto?
Answering that is a bit complex, because Israel changed its mind from Oslo, as you seem to acknowledge somewhere amidst your bizarre grammar lesson.
In fact, Israel's abilities to constantly change its mind, redraw the boundaries of 'Palestine' and enforce them with its security apparatus quite clearly belies your 'two nations' characterization, and strengthens the notion that Palestine is far more of a bantustan than a separate nation.
Again, this is not an absolute equivalence, it's an analogy. Further support for that analogy is found in your admission:
Area A and B are under Palestinian jurisdiction. But the entire West Bank is still considered occupied by Israel
And when Israel wants to impose road blocks, arrest citizens, etc. - then they're apparently under Israeli jurisdiction. That's much how the bantustans operated, and calling it an 'occupation' doesn't change that fact.
YOU think Area C is occupied Palestinian territory, so you must agree with me that the occupied Germany analogy makes sense.
I have acknowledged the German analogy makes sense - twice now - but fails to recognize significant differences. The bantustan analogy makes sense too.
They are not Israeli territory. I call it occupation
Well, Israel's committee of legal experts on the matter, headed by a former Israeli Supreme Court justice, disagrees with you, as made clear in the [Levy Report]():
The classical laws of "occupation" as set out in the relevant international conventions cannot be considered applicable to the unique and sui generis historic and legal circumstances of Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria spanning over decades.
and
With regard to settlements established in Judea and Samaria on state lands or on land purchased by Israelis with the assistance of official authorities such as the World Zionist Organization Settlements Division and the Ministry of Housing, and which have been defined as "unauthorized" or "illegal" due to the fact that they were established without any formal government decision, our conclusion is that the establishment of such settlements was carried out with the knowledge, encouragement and tacit agreement of the most senior political level —government ministers and the Prime Minister, and therefore such conduct is to be seen as implied agreement.
That's a far more informed and authoritative opinion on the matter, and it doesn't see your occupation analogy as applicable.
similar but not exactly like
Finally we're getting somewhere.
The most glaring difference - using your understanding - is that the 'occupied territory' (or at least Area C) is "legally owned by neither state". Not the case in post-war Germany.
Another critical difference is Israel's extensive settlement of the 'occupied' region. Quite different.
A third might be Israel's mixed statements and actions on that region's sovereignty. Certainly 'not exactly like' the U.S. with post-war Germany.
A related difference is that current Israeli officials assert the right to annex the 'occupied' region under its own sovereignty. U.S. officials didn't claim that - maybe a few crazy nationalists did, perhaps you can research it.
I know you won't acknowledge these differences, but no matter. You've come to understand that analogies are relative, not absolute. Well done.
if the West Bank was part of Israel, it wouldn't be distinct from it.
Heh, 'part of', there's a squishy word. Colonies are 'part of' the ruling state, but are legally distinct - they're also called 'territories', as with Taiwan.
In that sense, the area which Israel claims to be state land, legally distinct but connected to Israel and under its jurisdiction and security control, developed and harvested by Israel, is a colony.
by that definition, Afghanistan is a colony of the US, which no one considers it to be.
If Americans started moving to a section of Afghanistan in droves, funded and encouraged by the U.S. government, applying its own U.S. law to those areas, while electing statesmen based on their promise to annex that section of Afghanistan and place it under U.S. sovereignty, converting all local Afghanis in that area to U.S. citizenship…?
...I imagine they would. What do you think?
(I appreciate your implicit acknowledgement that my definition of colony was accurate, btw. Apology accepted.)