So apparently Israel isn't an occupying force in the West Bank

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are you disputing the 'ruling over it' part or the 'not previously yours' part or both?

The land in question was never the Palestinian's in the first, it was conquered from two countries who have both renounced any claims to the land, so in that sense there is no one is being occupied, since it wasn't anyone's land in the first place.

Having said that, there are a group of people who live on the land who consider themselves to be a nation, and the land theirs. We could call this an occupation against them, however, I still think that it is justified.

Not so.  From Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles.  "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."

Palestine was established as a Class A mandate under this provision, and as far as international law is concerned, the recognition of the nation of Palestine dates to 1 July 1920, when the British transferred control from a military to a civil administration.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

as I previously stated, I am opposed to all international law anyway,so it seems a silly point to argue.

True.  Besides, Israel only has another century or two before it fades away like the Crusader states before them that tried to colonize the region.  Israel will not be able to maintain military superiority forever.  Once the Arabs obtain military parity and unity, Israel is toast.  I just hope it isn't nuclear toast.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Israel doesn't have to maintain military parity or superiority; Israel has to maintain enough strength that if it truly looks like Israel will fall, Israel can look at its opponents and say, "We're taking you with us." Israel's present tech will be sufficient for that until Asimov's nuclear force-field defense is invented.

And Israel's Arab states won't catch up to Israel within the foreseeable future -- I want to say 'our lifetimes' but the history can be weird (see: Fourth Crusade) and many of us are very young.

MAD only works if the other side thinks he will take more damage than destroying you is worth.

That said, even if the Arabs continue to think Armageddon is a bad idea, it won't take a nuclear force-field defense to put them in a position to wipe Israel off the map.  With comparable technology to what Israel has and comparable per capita military spending, the Arabs would have sufficient air supremacy over Israel that the Israeli nukes would not be getting through in sufficient numbers to be a deterrent, especially if the Arabs attack first.  The Arabs are not currently capable of that, but the current state of affairs won't last forever, tho I agree that it won't change anytime soon.

I expect Israel will likely last until the 22nd century unless one of its neighbors decides Armageddon is merely an express pass to Heaven.  Reaching the 23rd century is rather more problematic, and the 24th century is unlikely in my opinion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

(The entire next paragraph is written for the very-long term) The problem is that a coalition of Israel's-Arab-enemies that manages to achieve superiority over Israel, they'll make other enemies fast -- and those may be willing to intervene.

Why should they make those enemies?  Other than the United States, there isn't a single country today that would act to help Israel if the Arabs started to be in a position to push Israel around.  From a realpolitik viewpoint, the only country that might be likely to care would be Iran, and only under a completely different government that what is in control there now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Friends in the US, but not elsewhere.   Their other relationships are more in the nature of business arrangements, and if the Arabs achieve military parity with Israel, I think those others would be happy enough to deal with the Arabs instead of the Jews.  Nor is it inevitable that the current implicit guarantee the US provides Israel will last,  I doubt we'd tilt pro-Arab, but a return to traditional American isolationism to the point that Israel would be totally on its own in an Arab-Israeli war is quite possible, especially in the timeframe I'm talking about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the Haredis take overt control of Israel, I expect that there would be significant emigration of the secular Israelis and a consequent reduction in external support for Israel.  If the Haredis take over, then the final days of the State of Israel will come from war as the region gets to see a replay of Zealots v. Romans, with the Arabs cast in the role of Rome.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, unless either Jews or religious conservatives stop mattering in American politics, America will continue backing Israel -- both groups have enough influence on their own to guarantee it, and taken together it's a certainty.

Fifty years ago religious conservatives didn't matter much in American politics, so their decline in influence in another fifty to hundred years is very much within the realm of possibility.  There's also the chance that the evangelicals and the Jews end up on the same side of the partisan divide in which case they would have no influence when the other side is in power.  Then there's the outside possibility that in another hundred years, the evangelicals stop being as enamored of Dispensationalism as they are now, in which case their devotion to there being a Jewish state would be less.  Then there's the fact that if the US goes broke, then even if we want to help, we might not be able to.