What territories are commonly referred to as the Occupied Palestinian Territory and why?
Executive summary
The term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" (OPT) most commonly refers to the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip—lands captured by Israel in the 1967 Six‑Day War and treated by the UN, ICRC and major human rights and humanitarian organizations as under Israeli occupation [1] [2] [3]. Some international and legal actors also include the Syrian Golan Heights (and disputed areas such as the Shebaa Farms) when using the broader phrase "occupied territories," but "Occupied Palestinian Territory" as used in UN and humanitarian practice usually focuses on West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza [4] [2] [5].
1. What geographic areas are meant: West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza
Most authoritative international actors define the OPT as the West Bank (with East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip—territory that was under Jordanian and Egyptian control before 1967 and was captured by Israel in the June 1967 war [6] [1] [7]. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the International Committee of the Red Cross use this formulation when managing humanitarian response and applying occupation law, and UN reporting and humanitarian appeals frame operations in the "Occupied Palestinian Territory" around those two geographic units [3] [2].
2. Why these lands are described as "occupied": the 1967 conflict and effective control
The legal and political basis for calling these areas "occupied" rests on the outcome of the 1967 war and the doctrine of effective control in international humanitarian law: Israel captured those territories in an international armed conflict and thereafter exercised authority over them, triggering rules of occupation under instruments like the Fourth Geneva Convention and customary IHL, a position reflected by bodies such as the ICRC and the UN [2] [6]. International organizations and many states treat occupation as a legal status distinct from sovereignty—meaning the occupying power exercises control but does not acquire sovereign rights over the land—so the OPT label signals legal obligations and restrictions on the occupant [4] [2].
3. Contested labels and legal disputes: Israel’s counter‑arguments
Israeli officials and some domestic jurists contest the automatic application of the term "occupied" in full legal senses, arguing historical and legal nuances—examples include views that pre‑1967 sovereignty was unclear or that Gaza's 2005 Israeli disengagement altered the legal posture—positions summarized in academic and Israeli sources and noted in reporting [5]. Israeli diplomatic messaging sometimes prefers "administered" or stresses historical claims, and some Israeli jurists have argued limits to the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to these territories; those differences underlie ongoing political and legal disputes [5].
4. Why inclusion of the Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms is variable
The Golan Heights (captured from Syria in 1967) and adjacent disputed areas such as the Shebaa Farms are frequently classed among "occupied territories" in broader usage, but they are not always included when agencies speak specifically of the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” because the latter term is tied to Palestinian self‑determination and the 1967 West Bank/Gaza context; some legal sources and NGOs include the Golan in lists of Israeli‑occupied lands while UN humanitarians often separate it from the OPT designation [5] [4] [2].
5. Practical implications of the designation
Labeling the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza as OPT matters for law and policy: it invokes occupation law obligations, frames humanitarian assistance and human‑rights monitoring, and feeds debates over settlements, movement restrictions, border controls and sovereignty claims—matters documented by the UN, Amnesty, OCHA and other organizations that link the occupation to settlement expansion, movement controls, blockade measures and humanitarian impact [8] [9] [3]. International fora likewise use the term when debating Security Council resolutions, ICJ advisory requests and Palestinian rights at the UN [10] [7].
6. Bottom line: common usage versus legal nuance
In common international practice "Occupied Palestinian Territory" means the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip because of their capture in 1967 and the continuing exercise of Israeli control that triggers occupation law; other occupied lands taken in 1967—most notably the Golan Heights—are sometimes grouped with "occupied territories" but are not always counted within the OPT label used for Palestinian self‑determination and humanitarian purposes [1] [2] [4]. Where legal nuance exists, it is precisely over the extent and interpretation of occupation law and competing Israeli narratives that favor terms like "administered"—a dispute that shapes diplomacy, law and everyday life on the ground [5] [10].