Skip to content

Is it "the West Bank," "Judea and Samaria," or "occupied territory"?

Short answer: all three name the same land — the hill country between the 1949 Green Line and the Jordan River — and each name is itself a claim. The word you choose pre-answers the argument. "West Bank" is the Jordanian-era administrative term and the international/Palestinian default; "Judea and Samaria" is the biblical name and Israel's official usage; "Occupied Palestinian Territory" is the UN's term, which builds the legal verdict into the name. On the legal status underneath the names: that the territory is occupied is the majority position — of the ICJ, the UN, the ICRC, most international-law scholarship, and Israel's own Supreme Court; that it is disputed rather than occupied is a serious minority position, held by a real body of jurists and adopted as the Israeli state's legal argument. No binding court judgment has ever settled the question — the ICJ's pronouncements are advisory. This page states the majority view as the majority view and the minority view as a genuine argument, so you can see that a choice of frame is being made — which is the one thing most writing on this subject hides.

Same land, three names — and the name is the argument

Nobody disputes where it is: the ~5,600 km² of hill country between the Green Line (the 1949 armistice line) and the Jordan River. They dispute what to call it, because each name smuggles in a conclusion:

  • "The West Bank" [DOCUMENTED] — the west bank of the Jordan River. The term entered use with Jordan's control and 1950 annexation of the area, to distinguish it from the "East Bank" (Transjordan proper). Jordanian/administrative in origin; now the neutral-international and Palestinian default. It signals a status-neutral or Jordanian-derived frame and quietly detaches the land from any specifically Israeli claim.
  • "Judea and Samaria" (Hebrew Yehuda ve-Shomron) [DOCUMENTED] — the biblical/historical names for the southern hills (Judea: Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron) and the northern hills (Samaria: Nablus/Shechem, Jenin). This is the official Israeli administrative term. It signals the deep Jewish historical and religious connection and, by implication, a claim that the land is not foreign territory.
  • "Occupied Palestinian Territory" (OPT) [DOCUMENTED] — UN terminology, encoding both belligerent occupation and Palestinian national title. It is the majority legal frame worn on the sleeve.

So the choice of label is a claim before a single argument is made. This site's default is "West Bank" (the most widely understood term) — and, per one standard, it names that as a choice rather than pretending it is neutral geography.

The backstory (how it became contested)

Era Who held it What happened
Ottoman → British Mandate (–1948) Britain (Mandate) Part of Mandatory Palestine; the 1947 UN Partition Plan assigned this hill country to the proposed Arab state — Jews accepted, Arabs rejected.
1948–1967 Jordan Jordan captured it in the 1948 war and annexed it in 1950 — recognized by essentially only Britain (and, by some accounts, Pakistan) and rejected by the Arab League. No Palestinian state was created.
1967–present Israel Israel captured it from Jordan in the Six-Day War; under Israeli military control since.
1988 — Jordan renounced its claim to the West Bank in favor of the PLO.

That history is why the legal fight has no easy answer: the last uncontested sovereign was the Ottoman Empire, and every holder since has taken the land by war.

  • The ICJ has said so twice. In its 2004 Advisory Opinion on the separation barrier (core finding 14–1) and its 19 July 2024 Advisory Opinion, the Court held the territory is under Israeli belligerent occupation, that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies, that the settlements breach international law (Art. 49(6) barring transfer of the occupier's population), and — in 2024 — that Israel's continued presence is unlawful and must end. [VERIFIED]
  • Why the Geneva Convention applies. The majority, the ICRC, and the ICJ read Geneva Art. 2(2) as expanding the Convention's reach, not restricting it: belligerent occupation is a factual test — effective control of territory by a hostile army (Hague Regulations Art. 42) — and the Convention's purpose is to protect the civilian population, a protection that cannot be switched off by contesting who held title before. [DOCUMENTED]
  • The UN's consistent line: Resolutions 242, 446, 465, 478, and 2334 (2016, adopted 14–0) all treat the territory as occupied and the settlements as lacking legal validity. [VERIFIED]
  • The strongest internal corroboration: Israel's own Supreme Court, for decades, has treated the West Bank as subject to belligerent occupation and decided cases on that basis (Beit Sourik 2004, Mara'abe 2005), applying the Hague Regulations and Geneva's humanitarian rules. That an occupier's own highest court applies the law of occupation is a powerful point for the majority view. [DOCUMENTED]
  • The honest caveat the majority side concedes: both ICJ opinions are Advisory Opinions — authoritative statements of the law by the UN's principal judicial organ, but not binding contentious judgments. No binding court judgment has finally settled the classification. [VERIFIED]

Israel's official position, and a serious minority of jurists, hold the territory is disputed, not occupied. Stated as the legal argument it is:

  • The "missing reversioner." Developed by Yehuda Blum (who coined the term, 1968), Stephen Schwebel (later a Judge and President of the ICJ, 1970), Elihu Lauterpacht (1968), and Julius Stone (1981): Geneva Art. 2(2) applies to occupation of "the territory of a High Contracting Party." Jordan's 1948–67 hold rested on an armed seizure and a 1950 annexation almost no one recognized, and Egypt never claimed sovereignty in Gaza — so there was no legitimate ousted sovereign to whom the land would revert. On this reading the situation is sui generis territory of disputed final status, to be settled by negotiation, not classic occupation of another state's land. [DOCUMENTED — a real scholarly argument, not established law]
  • Surviving settlement rights. The San Remo Resolution (1920) and the Mandate for Palestine's Article 6 ("close settlement by Jews on the land"), preserved past the Mandate's expiry by UN Charter Article 80, are argued to have kept Jewish settlement west of the Jordan legally permitted. [DISPUTED — the majority answers that the Mandate framework was superseded by partition and self-determination, that Art. 80 preserved all peoples' rights, and that Mandate-era settlement facilitation does not authorize a state transferring its population under Art. 49(6).]
  • The Levy Report (2012). A committee under retired Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy concluded Israel's presence "does not meet the criteria of 'military occupation'" and that settlements are lawful. Two facts keep this honest: the report was never formally adopted by the Israeli government, and it sits in tension with Israel's own Supreme Court's occupation jurisprudence. [DOCUMENTED]
  • What Israel actually does in practice. Israel disputes the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention while applying its humanitarian provisions de facto, and accepts the 1907 Hague Regulations. Not "no law applies" — "the humanitarian rules apply; the classification is reserved because final status is disputed." [DOCUMENTED]
  • Resolution 242's wording. 242 calls for "withdrawal … from territories occupied" — not "all the territories" or "the territories." Its drafters (Lord Caradon, Rostow, Goldberg) said the omission was deliberate, leaving final borders to negotiation. [DOCUMENTED — the counter-reading notes the French text's "des territoires," the preamble's "inadmissibility of acquisition by war," and that most states read 242 as full withdrawal; 242 fixes no border and resolves no classification.]

The honest scorecard

  • Advisory, not binding: the ICJ's 2004 and 2024 opinions are authoritative but not binding judgments; no binding court ruling has settled the question. [VERIFIED]
  • "Occupied" is the majority position — ICJ, ICRC, UN, most scholarship, and Israel's own Supreme Court. [VERIFIED as characterization]
  • "Disputed" is a minority position — a serious one (its authors include a President of the ICJ) held as the Israeli state's legal argument, but not the majority view, and undercut internally by Israel's own Supreme Court and by the Levy Report's non-adoption. [VERIFIED as characterization]
  • Each side's strongest concession: the minority concedes the humanitarian law of occupation applies in practice; the majority concedes no binding judgment exists and that the no-prior-sovereign question is genuinely unusual.

This is not false balance. "Occupied" is where the weight of legal authority sits, and this page says so plainly. What it refuses to do is present that verdict as if no choice were made and no serious counter-argument existed — the same discipline this site applies to every contested question.

East Jerusalem — a distinct case

East Jerusalem is not quite like the rest. Israel extended its "law, jurisdiction and administration" there after 1967 and, in the 1980 Basic Law: Jerusalem, declared united Jerusalem its capital — treated internationally as annexation. The UN Security Council responded with Resolution 478 (1980, 14–0, US abstaining), declaring the law "null and void." International recognition of Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem remains withheld, its status reserved for negotiation. [VERIFIED]

Why it matters

The vocabulary fight is really a fight over outcomes:

  1. It decides the settlements' legality — occupied → the settlements breach Geneva Art. 49(6); disputed → Israel argues they are lawful.
  2. It's the land of any future Palestinian state — the physical core of the two-state framework.
  3. It sets which body of law applies — the full law of belligerent occupation, or a sui generis status to be negotiated.
  4. The name is a loyalty test — which is why the argument over a word is so heated: the word chooses the ending. Watching which term a speaker reaches for is one of the fastest reads on their frame — a point developed in Propaganda Detection.

Go deeper: International Law & Its Selective Application · Israeli State Establishment · The Right of Return · Key Regional Actors — Israel