As far as I know, Bennett is basing this conclusion on the previous experience we had in Gaza for example and on the Palestinians’ own statements and actions. Hamas is not interested in peace with Israel that leaves room for an independent Israel with Jewish self-determination. The probability of Hamas taking over the West Bank AFTER a peace-deal with Fatah is agreed upon for large territorial concessions is HUGE. He can factually defend his notions. Hopefully you can too by presenting facts and logical arguments rather than inaccurately simplifying Bennett’s entire ideological platform – which is not hidden and mostly available online — into a slide from a cartoon which you chose to highlight.

As if you really believe that Naftali Bennett actually thinks that "settler civilians will physically protect us from invading Iranian tanks – or “ … he believes to be the likely scenario of Iran’s tanks reaching Iran’s border, then invading Iraq, then invading Jordan, we are going to throw Israeli women and children living in annexed parts of West Bank at those tanks in order to defend ourselves” – as you put it. Give me a break!

What Bennet claims – since the symbolism of the Iranian tank in the cartoon evaded you — is that by turning the entire West Bank into an independent Palestine we will further deteriorate Israel's security position because that
1. will enable the Palestinians to amass a regular army against us,
2. to facilitate Iran's destructive influence in the West Bank just like in Gaza,
3. and the danger of 4-5 millions descendants of 1948 refugees flood the West Bank and the spill-over effects of this into Israel which will likely lead to Israel’s demise.
4. Hamas may take over and the war to “liberate” the rest of Israel will go into the next stage. Hamas is not differentiating between the West Bank and the rest of Israel. Don’t take my word for it, listen to their own words and texts and look at their actions.

Don't you think that these four factors are plausible and a threat to the self-determination of the Jewish people in Israel, especially if we opt for Meretz’s policies which you now apparently support?

a) Certainly it hasn't escaped your attention that Iran uses proxies against Israel, such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Pretending that Iran needs its army to depart from Iran, cross through Iraq, etc. seems a deliberate attempt to make fun of a very real threat which is terrorist proxies. At the very least, you should have mentioned the problem of terrorist groups operating near a future Israeli border in the West Bank, and how annexation helps (or does not help) the IDF in border control.

b) Annexing Area C doesn't only mean that there are houses with women and children inside. It also means the IDF is there to stay, as opposed to other scenarios, perhaps by candidate Livni, when land is given over to a predictably hostile Palestinian state. Land that goes to the Palestinians is obviously not controlled by the IDF, whereas land annexed by Israel is. Again, this is not a complicated conclusion, I have a hard time believing you missed it. It seems you're setting up a straw man and defeat it instead of seriously considering Bennet's points.

c) Speculating that Bennet only wants to do this because he's religious is an ad hominem argument. Mr. Javedanfar, you're not a psychic, you don't read minds. Or if you do, you can make a fortune out of it rather than writing articles about half-digested moves of military strategy. It's better to stick with what a person is saying and try to come up with valid claims against the ideas themselves. The advantages and disadvantages of annexation can be discussed without trying to discredit the source by speculating about his supposed intentions. (Plus, suggesting that religious claims to the land are so stupid that they shouldn't even be considered and don't express the will of Israelis at all, is a statement that needs to be supported by seriously good arguments, not just thrown out there casually.)

d) In the question of Oslo, you compare the peace accords with the option of doing nothing to influence the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. But obviously the government would have done *something* instead of nothing if Oslo hadn't happened. You're not taking this into account, you just say that Oslo was better than doing nothing. This is not a correct way to justify any political step, let alone the giving up of land and signing of a peace treaty that has by now pretty much proven to be a dead end.