Regardless, a yasher koach for writing it.

1) Thanks for toning down your invective (which I acknowledge was not aimed me), I appreciate that.
2) I will give you the first point but merely comment that your first post to TOIVOS referred to “civil war” which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict most definitely is not. (I don’t think I have seen it referred to that before, or at least not since events of 1948.) But I am not trying to make that a major point.
3)
i) “That Israel has violated the law of occupation in different ways”. You at least seem to be conceding that point. I consider at least 12 of the 16 rules are violated. Not quite a full house but a damn good try. Correct me if I misunderstand you but I cannot see anyway an occupation can be legal if 75 per cent of the regulations governing it have been breached, mostly on a permanent or daily basis.
ii) In particular the second rule mentioned on the ICRC website “Occupation is only a temporary situation” cannot in any way apply to an event that is 44 years old with no end in sight. You say this does not mean “[Israel] then has a legal obligation to withdraw and leave chaos behind” but the point is that this is a permanent situation that Israel has no intention of correcting at the present time. I understand you to be saying that is legal. To that I say you are deliberately misinterpreting the rules, and not doing a convincing job either. I say you are wrong.
iii) I do not accept your premise that chaos would ensue if Israel withdrew. There might be corruption (which happens in Israel too). There could be attacks on Israel if the withdrawal was as badly planned as that from Gaza, but that need not be so if there was goodwill, proper consultation and sincere attempts apply justice and universal human rights. I think the Palestinians are more civilized than you give them credit for here, but, EVEN IF chaos was a realistic possibility that is no excuse for a continuing occupation. In such a scenario the correct authority is the UN and not the state of Israel. The last point should not need stating.
iv) I see nothing irrelevant in my laundry list. I think you can provide nothing better than this derogatory remark to justify your blatantly erroneous claim, but your ego will not let you admit that fact on this site.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
——————————————–
Not only do most Palestinian militants not fit this description, and hence are not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, this provision says nothing about a ‘right’ to do anything. That nonsense is entirely your invention
——————————————–
That Israel has violated the law of occupation in different ways does not make the fact of its occupation illegal. Just because an occupying army violates a rule doesn’t mean it then has a legal occupation to withdraw and leave chaos behind. So your laundry list is not directly relevant to the question.

Members of “organized resistance movements” connected with one of the parties to the conflict cannot be prosecuted merely for having participated in hostilities.[from Art. 4(A)(2) of Geneva Convention III]
This appears to give Palestinian militias the same rights (or not) as the the IDF to kill recognised combatants.

You are on even less solid ground with regard to the illegality of the occupation. Here is the list from the ICRC. Israel does not comply with most of it so how can the occupation be in any way described as legal?

THE MAIN RULES OF THE LAW APPLICABLE IN CASE OF OCCUPATION STATE THAT:
The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.

Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.

The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.

The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.

To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.

The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier’s armed forces.

Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.

Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

Collective punishment is prohibited.

The taking of hostages is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.

The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.

The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.

Cultural property must be respected.

People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charg ed with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).

Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

If you would check your facts before ranting at another contributor it would save me the hassle of having to do the donkey work to put your shoddy work in order. But then facts don’t often count for much with apologists of the occupation, do they?

As if the 1000:1 ratio were the problem. The problem is that ya’ll are a bunch of settlers or actively supporting settlers who are stealing land every day and rapidly removing any possibility of a two-state solution.