Why Do Some International Bodies and Media Outlets Still Use Politically Charged Terms Like “Occupied” Instead of “Disputed” When Referring to Judea and Samaria?

For decades, the terminology surrounding the regions of Judea and Samaria—often referred to internationally as the “West Bank”—has been at the center of fierce political, legal, and moral debate.

Words like “occupied territories” and “illegal settlements” dominate news reports and international resolutions, shaping global perception of Israel’s presence in these areas. Yet these terms are not neutral; they carry profound implications that affect diplomatic policy, public opinion, and even the moral legitimacy of Jewish historical and national claims.

The question, then, is not merely semantic. Why do some international bodies and media outlets persist in using the term “occupied” rather than “disputed”, despite complex legal, historical, and moral realities?

The answer lies in a combination of political motivations, ideological biases, historical misinterpretations, and the enduring struggle over narrative control in the Middle East.

1. The Historical and Legal Background of the Terms

To understand why “occupied” is used, one must first trace how it entered international discourse. After Israel’s victory in the 1967 Six-Day War, it gained control of territories previously held by Jordan (Judea and Samaria), Egypt (Gaza and Sinai), and Syria (the Golan Heights). Prior to 1967, no internationally recognized sovereign state existed in Judea and Samaria; Jordan had annexed the region in 1950 after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, an act recognized only by two countries—Britain and Pakistan.

When Israel took control of these areas in 1967, it did so after being attacked by multiple neighboring states. Under international law, notably the UN Charter (Article 51), a country has the right to defend itself from aggression. Thus, Israel’s acquisition of the territories was not an act of conquest but of self-defense.

Legally speaking, the territories are disputed, not occupied, because there was no recognized sovereign power in Judea and Samaria prior to 1967. The term “occupation” in international law (as defined in the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49) applies when one sovereign nation occupies the land of another. This simply does not fit the case of Israel in Judea and Samaria.

Therefore, the use of “occupied” reflects not a legal consensus but a political interpretation—one that emerged during the Cold War and was later institutionalized through UN resolutions, Arab bloc diplomacy, and global media adoption.

2. The Political Origins of “Occupied Territory”

The term “occupied Palestinian territories” became entrenched primarily through United Nations resolutions beginning in the 1970s. At that time, the Arab and Soviet blocs held significant influence in the General Assembly, often passing anti-Israel resolutions by overwhelming majorities.

One of the most consequential was UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), which called for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Notably, it does not say “all the territories,” a deliberate omission made by the resolution’s British authors. The resolution also emphasized the need for “secure and recognized boundaries,” meaning Israel was not expected to return to the indefensible pre-1967 lines.

However, many later UN bodies, particularly the General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), distorted this framework by referring to the entirety of Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem as “occupied Palestinian territory.” This shift was political, not legal. It served to delegitimize Israeli claims and reinforce the narrative of Israel as an occupying power rather than an indigenous nation returning to its homeland.

The term “occupied” became part of a diplomatic vocabulary that aligned with Arab and later Palestinian political goals—to define Israel’s presence as illegitimate and temporary, and to erase Jewish historical ties to the land.

3. The Role of Media in Reinforcing the Narrative

International media outlets such as the BBC, Reuters, The New York Times, and Al Jazeera frequently adopt the terminology used by international bodies and NGOs without critical examination. For journalists, “occupied” has become the default description in editorial guidelines—often justified as “reflecting the position of the international community.”

However, media style guides are not legal documents; they are ideological reflections of consensus narratives. By uncritically adopting the term “occupied,” the media reinforces a one-sided political framing that suggests Israel’s presence is inherently unlawful, while ignoring the region’s historical and legal complexity.

For instance:

• The BBC regularly refers to “occupied East Jerusalem,” ignoring the fact that Jerusalem was illegally divided by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, and that Jews were barred from their own holy sites during that period.

• Many outlets avoid the term “Judea and Samaria” altogether, as it emphasizes the Jewish historical identity of the region—an identity that predates both Islam and modern Arab nationalism by thousands of years.

The language of occupation thus becomes a subtle but powerful weapon of delegitimization, shaping how global audiences perceive Israel’s actions and rights.

4. The Legal Reality: “Disputed,” Not “Occupied”

From a strictly legal perspective, Judea and Samaria are disputed territories, meaning their status must be determined through negotiations between the parties involved.

Several prominent international jurists and scholars support this interpretation:

• Professor Eugene Rostow, one of the drafters of UN Resolution 242, stated that Israel’s presence in the territories is lawful and that Jews have the right to settle there under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (1922).

• Stephen Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, wrote that Israel’s claims to the territory are superior to those of Jordan, given that Israel captured the land in a defensive war.

• The San Remo Conference (1920) and the Mandate for Palestine explicitly recognized the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and called for the establishment of a national home for the Jews throughout that territory—including Judea and Samaria.

When the United Nations Charter succeeded the League of Nations, it preserved all existing international obligations, including the Palestine Mandate, under Article 80—often referred to as the “Jewish People’s Article.” This means that the Jewish right to settle in these lands remains legally valid to this day.

Hence, describing the land as “occupied” contradicts both historical precedent and international law.

5. The Ideological and Diplomatic Motives Behind the Terminology

The persistence of the word “occupied” is also tied to ideological and geopolitical interests. Many nations, particularly those in the Arab and Islamic blocs, have long used the term as a diplomatic weapon against Israel to delegitimize its existence and justify political pressure.

In the broader international arena, labeling Israel as an “occupier” allows countries to:

• Deflect attention from their own human rights abuses;

• Appeal to populist or anti-Western sentiments;

• Maintain leverage in global energy and trade negotiations with Arab states.

For left-leaning political movements and certain international NGOs, “occupation” also fits into a postcolonial narrative that recasts Israel—a small Middle Eastern democracy—as a Western colonial power oppressing an indigenous people. This inversion of historical truth—ignoring that the Jews are the original indigenous people of Judea and Samaria—serves a powerful ideological purpose.

In this way, the term “occupied” has become not a factual descriptor, but a propaganda tool employed to shape global morality and isolate Israel diplomatically.

6. The Consequences of Biased Terminology

Words shape reality. By framing Israel’s presence as “occupation,” international bodies and media outlets influence policies, education, and global attitudes in ways that harm prospects for peace.

The term delegitimizes Jewish historical claims, vilifies Israeli self-defense, and emboldens extremist movements that reject Israel’s right to exist. It reinforces the false notion that if Israel merely “withdraws,” peace will follow—an assumption disproven by the 2005 Gaza withdrawal, which led to the rise of Hamas and ongoing rocket attacks.

Furthermore, this terminology undermines the principle of mutual negotiation, central to all peace agreements since 1993. It pre-judges the outcome by assuming that all territory beyond the 1949 armistice lines is Palestinian, leaving no room for historical or legal nuance.

7. The Path Toward Balanced and Truthful Discourse

Recognizing the territories as disputed rather than occupied does not negate Palestinian aspirations; it simply restores fairness and accuracy to the discussion. It acknowledges that both Jews and Arabs have historical, emotional, and political ties to the land, and that only dialogue—not unilateral declarations or propaganda—can determine its future.

A truly balanced narrative should reflect:

• The continuous Jewish presence in the land for over 3,000 years;

• The absence of any recognized sovereign prior to 1967;

• Israel’s legitimate security concerns;

• The repeated rejection of peace offers by Arab leaders;

• And the legal validity of Jewish settlement under international law.

By adopting fair and historically grounded terminology, the international community can foster understanding instead of animosity, and justice instead of distortion.

8. Language as the Battleground for Truth

The debate over whether Judea and Samaria are “occupied” or “disputed” is ultimately a battle over truth, history, and legitimacy. When international bodies and media outlets use politically charged language, they are not merely reporting—they are shaping moral judgment and public consciousness.

Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria is not an act of colonial occupation but the continuation of an ancient people’s return to their homeland. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors; they are the descendants of those who walked, prayed, and built on that land thousands of years ago.

To achieve genuine peace, the world must first commit to honesty in language. Recognizing that these territories are disputed, not occupied, opens the door to dialogue rooted in truth rather than ideology. Peace built on distortion is fragile; peace grounded in truth endures.