Does "occupation" still describe Israel?

The direct answer

Yes — “occupation” still describes Israel, and not merely as opinion: it is the settled verdict of international law. On 19 July 2024 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) — the UN’s top court — ruled that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank is illegal and must end as rapidly as possible. UN experts hailed the ruling as “historic.”

The definition of “occupation” under international law

Under Article 42 of the Fourth Hague Convention, the legal definition is met when territory is “placed under the authority” of a hostile army — three elements: foreign forces present, effective control exercised, and the local population subject to that control. Occupation carries binding duties: public order, food and medical care, and no settling one’s own civilians in the territory (J Street¹). Israel meets this definition in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where Palestinians live under Israeli military rule while settlers enjoy Israeli civilian law — a two-tier system the ICJ found amounts to de facto annexation, in what is now the longest occupation in modern history (Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine²).

The ICJ legal opinion and ruling of 19 July 2024

In its advisory legal opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies, the ICJ found Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territory unlawful, called for an end to that presence, and held that all states must not recognize or assist the situation created by it. Israel rejected the ruling; the obligations it creates do not disappear on rejection.

The “disputed, not occupied” framing — and why it fails

Proponents call the West Bank and Gaza merely “disputed.” But Israel’s own Supreme Court has long held the West Bank under “belligerent occupation,” and Security Council resolutions 242, 446, 465 and 2334 affirm Israel as the “occupying Power” — endorsed by U.S. administrations of both parties (Israeli-occupied territories³).

Did the 2005 Gaza disengagement change the occupation status?

No. In 2005 Israel disengaged — withdrawing its soldiers and dismantling the 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip — but by the legal test, the occupation continues. The ICJ’s 2024 legal opinion held: “the decisive criterion is not whether the occupying Power retains its physical military presence in the territory at all times but rather whether its authority has been established and can be exercised.” Israel retained control of Gaza’s land, sea and air borders, the movement of people and goods, the population registry and utilities (IMEU⁴) — effective control without permanent troops is still occupation.

If words mean anything, “occupation” still describes Israel in 2024 — as Israeli courts, U.S. presidents of both parties, and the world’s highest court have all said.