Generally speaking, in theory, the occupying power is supposed to be a care taker - they aren't supposed to take any action that integrates the occupied territory into the main territory. Allowing occupied territories to vote in the occupying power's elections is considered a form of integration. Doing so is considered acquiring territory via annexation, which is illegal under the UN charter.
(See for example Israel when the international community yelled at them for allowing people in Golan Heights to vote).
This isn't a secret. Israeli officials have long been explicit that their policies are guided by the goal of maintaining demographic control. As Netanyahu declared, "Israel is not a state of all its citizens... but rather the nation-state of the Jewish people and only them." This driving intent is what gives rise to the entire apparatus of control. It is legally enshrined in constitutional law through the 2018 Nation-State Law, which reserves the right of self-determination for Jews alone. This legal supremacy is then enforced through a two-tiered justice system in the West Bank, where Israeli settlers are governed by rights-respecting civil law while their Palestinian neighbors are subjected to draconian military orders. This judicial separation, in turn, enables the physical re-engineering of the land: a state policy of systematic land dispossession confiscates Palestinian property for settlements, while a discriminatory planning regime makes it nearly impossible for Palestinians to build, leading to routine home demolitions. The ultimate result is the deliberate fragmentation of Palestinian life into disconnected enclaves, which B'Tselem calls 'territorial islands' carved up by walls, checkpoints, and permit regimes designed to sever social and political ties.
Your narrow focus on the procedural illegality of a vote under occupation law is a calculated deflection from this reality. The disenfranchisement of Palestinians is not an incidental legal problem, it is a fundamental and necessary pillar for maintaining this regime of apartheid. You are meticulously explaining the legality of the lock on the cage, while deliberately ignoring that the crime is the cage itself.
[1] https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/isra...
[2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-...
You're making a different argument then the person I am responding to.
The person I am responding to only said: "Hardly a democracy when it occupies Palestine, and Palestinians can't vote in Israeli elections." [Presumably they meant citizens of Palestine here, since Israeli citizens living in Israel who are ethically palestinian can vote]
Simply put, that is an unreasonable criticism as Israel is simply following international law. Other countries do the same. If they did not do this they likely would recieve criticism. People who don't like it should encourage the international community to change international law.
That doesn't mean that every possible criticism of Israel is unreasonable (in fact there are many reasonable criticisms you could make), only that the one i was replying to is unreasonable.
The rest of your post is irrelavent because its talking about arguments that neither I nor the person I was responding to made. That said, i think the way you are quoting is misleading, but that is neither here nor there.
Your apologia that Israel is "simply following international law" is perverse. Everybody knows that Israel has never in its entire history, since its inception, ever given a fuck about international law, which makes your apologia extra comical. Furthermore, you are elevating a single procedural rule above one of the gravest prohibitions in the entire legal order, the crime against humanity of apartheid. The rule you cite is not a shield against this crime, it's a tool used to facilitate it. By forbidding political integration, the system enforces the very demographic separation required to maintain an apartheid state. Your claim that "other countries do the same" is a baseless false equivalence that ignores the unique permanence and stated demographic goals of the Israeli apartheid system. And your deflection that we should "change international law" is an unserious diversion. The international community doesn't need to change the laws, it needs to hold these genocidal zionists accountable for violating the most fundamental ones that already exist. Your entire response is a performance of pedantry to avoid acknowledging a criminal reality which, for almost a century, has been inflicting hell upon the natives whose land zionists have been brutally colonizing with absolute impunity - culminating in the predictable conclusion of Genocide[1][2][3][4][5].
You are defending the apartheid system by pointing to a single, well-oiled gear, while deliberately ignoring that the entire machine is designed to make a mockery of international law.
[0] https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-734439
[1] https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/prof-amos-go...
[2] https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
[3] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/un-special-c...
[4] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-inter...
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/01/israel-committ...