Israel can totally defeat Palestine's version of a military, are you saying that Israel is unlikely to take more of Palestine's land?
Given that Israel is literally doing that right now, and has been for decades, your question makes no sense.
Russia is not doing that to Georgia and didn't do that to Georgia. South Ossetia and Abkhazia were rebellious regions that were recognized internationally as part of Georgia before the Russo-Georgian war and became recognized as independent states by Russia and some other countries around the time of that war. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are places that have never willingly been a part of Georgia since the dissolution of the Soviet Union
. Maybe why that is could be a question worth interrogating.
Israel is a different situation for a variety of reasons, not least that Israel never poses referenda to the Palestinian occupants of the areas they plan to steal asking if they want to be a part of Israel. For one, that would defeat the purpose as they expropriate Palestinian territory not just at the level of asserting the authority of their laws and government but at the level of taking their private property, destroying what they've built, and transferring the land to Jewish settlers. This has been an ongoing process for a number of decades. Were you not aware?
To my knowledge there is no ever expanding expropriation of Georgia by South Ossetia and Abkhazia (or indeed by Russia); there has been ethnic cleansing (killings and displacements) in South Ossetia and Abkhazia since before the Russo-Georgian war (mostly in the early 1990s). It sucks. But it also doesn't mean Georgia should get to rule over a population that doesn't want them, nor does it mean that the Russian troop presence (which is apparently approved of by most of the residents, especially the non-Georgian ethnic groups according to that archived WaPo link above as of March 2014) constitutes an 'annexation'.
Russia "recognised their independence" as a transparent fig-leaf, and directly controls all important areas of their policy, directs their military, and commands their economy.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia have, between them, a population that is around 300,000, or less than half that of Seattle. How would you even tell whether they were "being controlled by Russia" or simply making agreements with Russia that make a lot of sense because Russia is the guarantor of their security against reconquering by Georgia? They have elections. They have small legislative bodies. What is there to put a fig leaf over? Russian citizenship in both of those regions was already very high before the Russo-Georgian war-- looking at the evidence, it's weird that they haven't been annexed if we assume that is what Moscow wants.
Or do you believe that most of the people in Abkhazia and South Ossetia secretly tremble under Russian domination yearning for liberation by the heroic armed forces of Georgia? As far as I can tell that is not the reality.
By the by, if you consider military cooperation/command/incorporation to be "annexation", you might be interested to learn that a part of the agreement which Yanukovych rejected in 2013 (that rejection leading to the Maidan protests) included 7 pages concerning 'military security issues'; by signing the agreement, Ukraine would agree to abide by the military security policies of the European Union.
Essentially, Ukraine would become subordinate to NATO or be in violation of the agreement. I guess that means its 'independence' would have been a merely transparent fig leaf according to you. Rejecting this deal of course meant that Yanukovych had to be overthrown. Only a Russian puppet could reject Greek style austerity paired with subordination to NATO.