Scholars disagree on what the law says. I don't normally like to block quote but since you requested:

"The ILC (International Law Commission) repeatedly recognized that not all territorial changes in war are illegitimate. Not all annexations were bad... All agreed that post-war frontier adjustments were justified to help protect the victim of aggression. There was broad consensus territorial change was only impermissible in a war of “aggression.” Thus the final document provided that
states have a duty “to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another State acting in violation” of the U.N. Charter or other international law rules. But Israel’s use of force in 1967 was defensive... and thus explicitly lawful under the Charter. Thus there is no obligation to refrain from recognizing" it.https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20180717/108563/HHRG-115-GO06-Wstate-KontorovichE-20180717.pdf

>No but it has every intention to do so

Israel has no serious intention of annexing the WB because if it did it would make Jews a minority in Israel.

>Is that what you're saying? Just any country could go to the West Bank and claim territory.

No. There's a difference between acquisition of land as the aggressor and defensively. Jordan acquired the land as the aggressor. Israel acquired it defensively. Typically occupied land that is not needed defensively is to be returned to the host country. In the WB, there is no host country. That's why some prefer to use the term "disputed land" rather than "occupied land." It's not being occupied from any other country. And which is also why the normal laws of occupation don't necessarily apply.

Scholars disagree on when annexation is permissible. I would imagine you would side with the scholars against it and I would side with the scholars who support it. But it’s vague enough that you (and I) should avoid using absolute language

FYI, Israel has not annexed the WB other than East Jerusalem. It’s not even clear that it’s occupied since it’s not being occupied from any other nation. But certainly nations are permitted to occupy (if not annex) land held after a defensive war. I believe Israel should have annexed a buffer zone it deemed necessary for its defense in 1967 after the Arabs refused to negotiate and withdrawn from the rest. But hindsight is 20/20

The land swaps are a very small fraction. Israel offered 94% of the WB in 2008. The land swaps are not to trick the Palestinians into taking worse land. It’s symbolic to show Israel wants to offer 100% of the land that comprises the WB.

The settlers don’t have to move because the Arabs started a war and lost. That’s a consequence of war. Countries are permitted to occupy and lannex land taken in defensive wars and necessary for self defense. And since the WB was illegally occupied by Jordan pre-1967 Israel’s case is all the stronger. The civilian victims have the aggressor to blame, not the responder.

The permanent blockade started in 2007 after Hamas was elected. Israel didn’t unilaterally withdraw from Gaza because it wanted to create a state it had to police. That’s totally illogical because withdrawing from the land made Israel far more vulnerable to attacks. The plan was to wind down control of the border; Israel initially opened its land border with Gaza to encouraged trade. It was making the way for an independent Palestinian state with which to cooperate. And it was doing the same in the West Bank. It was only after terrorist attacks at the land border that it was closed.

Israel will never uproot the major West Bank settlements. The deal would be 100% of the land area of the West Bank with land swaps to make up for the settlements. They’re too engrained. But I agree it’s terrible policy to create new settlements.

Israel uprooted 100% of its Gaza settlements in 2005 (and at the same time uprooted several WB settlements) and was rewarded with Hamas. If Gaza had become a democracy, it’s logical to presume settlements would have continued to be uprooted in the WB. But Gaza became a terror state and since the WB is much closer to Tel Aviv than Gaza, here we are.

Israel did not establish Esh Kodesh. It was founded by a small group of pariahs acting in violation of Israeli law. But granted they are protected by the Israeli army and you could say Israel implicitly approves it by not dismantling it. Which is a fair argument.

The Oslo Accords do not flatly ban new settlements. They envisioned the transfer of Area C to the Palestinians over time. Which started in 2005 when several West Bank settlements were uprooted and a couple of years later when Olmert offered the Palestinians 100% of the West Bank with land swaps. Circumstances in Gaza caused Israel to reverse course on unilateral uprooting of settlements without a peace deal.

This is not germane to the discussion though. I was correcting a fact, not stating an opinion on whether I agree with the settlements.

Not true. While some settlements are on demolished Palestinian structures that were built illegally, the vast majority of settlement homes are new constructions on previously unoccupied land

My comment was responding to a specific insinuation that Israel randomly seizes Palestinian homes whenever it wants to build settlements. It should not be read in any broader context than that.

Israel doesn’t randomly seize or bulldoze Palestinian homes to build new settlements. It razes homes that are built illegally (ie, without a permit) in “Area C,” the mutually agreed to Israeli controlled section of the West Bank, and homes of terrorists. Israel only establishes new settlements in Area C, the borders of which were already agreed to in Oslo 30 years ago. But I agree Israel should have just clearly defined its borders in 1967 after the Palestinians refused to negotiate by annexing what it needed for its security and withdrawing from the remainder.