I could have wasted my time and started by quoting article 42, of the 1907 Hague conversion (comments mine):
"Territory [Who's territory?] is considered occupied [from?] when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army [hostile to whom?]", pointing out that:
1. Israel has a peace agreement with Egypt which does not claim sovereignty over Gaza.
2. Israel has a peace agreement Jordan which does not claim sovereignty over the West-Bank.
3. There was never a Palestinian state in said territories. (Hence the "whom" part)
4. Hence, by all account Israel is legally free to continue holding these lands (at least until Egypt or Jordan change their position).
I could also point out that most of the Palestinian population is already living under Palestinian rule (be that the PA in the West bank or the Hamas militia group in Gaza) and has been doing so since the 1992-1995 Oslo peace agreement(s), which more or less negate the "oppression" argument (If anything, by all accounts the Hamas militia is currently violently oppressing the Palestinian populous under its rule - but somehow I don't see you demonstrating against them [Come to think about it, go to Gaza and demonstrate against Hamas' disregard for basic human rights, I'll bring pop-corn, it should be fun to watch).
I could further point out that each time we tried to redraw completely from so called Palestinian territories, we were met by a suicide bombers and rocket attacks against restaurants, buses, hospital and urban centres. (E.g. In December alone [!!!] more than 40 rockets and mortar shells were fired from the Hamas held Gaza strip on Israeli civilian towns and villages surrounding the Gaza strip)
I could end by pointing out that the only thing keeping the PA alive, preventing the Hamas from taking over the west-bank by force (much like they did in t