Calls for Israel to “end the occupation” have become a staple of international debate. Yet the question rarely asked is whether the land captured by Israel in 1967 — Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”), Gaza, and East Jerusalem — can truly be called “occupied” under international law. The answer is no. These are disputed territories, not “occupied Palestinian territories.”
The Green Line Was Never a Border
What is often referred to as the “1967 borders” are in fact the 1949 Armistice lines. These were provisional ceasefire demarcations following the War of Independence. The armistice agreements themselves explicitly stated that the lines were not political or territorial boundaries. The Arab states that signed them refused to recognise Israel’s right to exist within any borders. To speak of these as “borders” is historically and legally false.
Uti Possidetis Juris: The Mandate Borders Carry Forward
Under international law, when colonial or mandate territories gain independence, the doctrine of uti possidetis juris applies: new states inherit the administrative borders of the preceding authority. In this case, the British Mandate for Palestine (1922), which was internationally recognised by the League of Nations, defined the borders of the territory to which the Jewish people were entitled to national self-determination.
When the Mandate expired in 1948, no Palestinian state existed, nor had sovereignty ever been vested in Jordan or Egypt. Judea and Samaria was annexed illegally by Jordan (an annexation recognised by only two states) while Gaza was placed under Egyptian military administration. Neither occupation transferred sovereignty.
Ethnic Cleansing Under Jordan and Egypt
Not only were Jordan and Egypt’s occupations illegitimate, they were marked by ethnic cleansing:
- In East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, Jordan expelled the entire ancient Jewish population. Jews who had lived for centuries in the Old City, Hebron, Gush Etzion, and other communities were driven out. Fifty-eight synagogues in the Jewish Quarter were destroyed or desecrated, and the Mount of Olives cemetery — the oldest Jewish cemetery in the world — was systematically vandalised. Jews were barred from visiting the Western Wall or any holy sites under Jordanian rule.
- In Gaza, Egypt prevented any Jewish return to the land, while keeping the local Arab population in squalid refugee camps under military rule. Unlike Israel later, Egypt never contemplated granting autonomy or citizenship rights, preferring to use the population as a political weapon against Israel.
In short, from 1948 to 1967, these territories were Judenrein — emptied of Jews by force.
Israel Did Not Seize Territory from a Sovereign State
When Israel took control of these territories in 1967 during the Six-Day War, it did not seize them from a legitimate sovereign. Under the classical definition of “occupation” in the Hague Regulations (1907) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), occupation requires that territory be taken from another sovereign power. This condition does not exist here.
This is why UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the war, deliberately avoided the term “occupied Palestinian territory.” Instead, it called for negotiations to establish “secure and recognised boundaries” — recognising that the armistice lines were neither secure nor final.
Disputed, Not Occupied
The persistent use of the term “occupied Palestinian territory” in UN resolutions and media coverage is political, not legal. It reflects the preferences of voting blocs, not binding law. The reality is that the status of Judea and Samaria and Gaza is unresolved pending a negotiated settlement. Israel has a legitimate claim rooted in international law and in the principle of uti possidetis juris, while the Palestinians also assert national claims.
This makes the land disputed territory — not “occupied.”
Why Accuracy Matters
Words matter in diplomacy and international law. To mischaracterise disputed land as “occupied” distorts the history and prejudges the outcome of negotiations. It frames Israel as an illegal aggressor, rather than a state with legitimate historical and legal rights to its ancestral homeland.
And it conveniently erases the ethnic cleansing carried out by Jordan and Egypt during their unlawful occupations. If the international community is serious about peace, it must first be serious about truth: the territories captured in 1967 are not “occupied” in law. They are disputed — and must be resolved through negotiation, not slogans.
