As a state or nation called Palestine has never existed as a separate entity, why is Jewish mandated territory west of the Jordan River called "Occupied Palestinian Territory "?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Countries, international organizations and legal bodies commonly call the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” because they are parts of the former British Mandate of Palestine that were not incorporated into the State of Israel in 1948 and have been subject to Israeli military control since 1967 (UN and UN agencies use the term) [1] [2]. The Palestinian Liberation Organization proclaimed a State of Palestine in 1988 and many states recognize it, but debate about full sovereign statehood and the legal status of those lands persists among states, Israel, and some scholars [3] [4] [5].
1. Why the label derives from the Mandate-era map
The phrase “Palestinian Territory” rests on the political geography left by the League of Nations and the UN: the territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River was administered as British Mandate Palestine after World War I, and UN partition plans and subsequent wars left parts of that mandate unconstituted as a separate Arab state—territory that international institutions treat as the patrimony for a prospective Palestinian state [1] [6]. UN and UN-related bodies therefore frame Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as the lands of the former Mandate that are subject to a distinct status [1] [2].
2. “Occupied” refers to the 1967 military seizure recognized by many international bodies
Legal and humanitarian organizations commonly describe these areas as “occupied” because Israel seized and assumed control over the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem during the Six‑Day War in June 1967; international agencies and human-rights groups continue to treat those territories as under occupation and to apply the law of occupation in their reporting and appeals [7] [2] [8]. UN humanitarian offices and the UK parliamentary research service explicitly use “Occupied Palestinian Territory” (OPT) as a working term in policy and relief work [2] [9].
3. Palestine as a state: recognition versus on‑the‑ground control
The Palestine Liberation Organization declared a State of Palestine in 1988 and many countries now recognize that state; international views on its legal status vary and the UN records a range of positions among states and scholars [3] [4]. UN and UN-affiliated agencies still point out that a fully independent Palestinian state was not established in 1948, and the territories internationally described as OPT remain central to negotiations over final borders and sovereignty [5] [4].
4. Competing terminology and political agendas
The language used—“occupied,” “disputed,” or “administered”—reflects competing political positions. Israel often calls the West Bank “disputed” and treats sovereignty questions as a matter for negotiation; many UN bodies, human-rights NGOs and most foreign ministries describe occupation and apply international humanitarian law implications, a framing that underpins criticism of settlements and other Israeli policies [9] [7] [8]. Sources sympathetic to the view that there was never a separate Palestinian state emphasize the historical shifts in governance and argue the name “Palestine” was mainly geographic prior to modern nationalism [10] [11].
5. What the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” label does in practice
Labeling grounds legal, humanitarian and diplomatic practice: UN agencies use OPT to coordinate aid, to apply international law standards, and to call for ceasefires and protection—an operational choice backed by decades of UN and NGO reporting [2] [12]. Human-rights organizations and relief bodies use the designation to document demolitions, displacement and casualties and to press for compliance with humanitarian law [8] [13].
6. Limits of the sources and outstanding disputes
Available sources show broad international institutional usage of “Occupied Palestinian Territory” and record the 1988 Palestinian declaration and varied recognition, but they do not settle contested legal arguments about sovereignty or answer every historical claim about whether a distinct Palestinian state ever existed at earlier historical moments—scholars disagree and some commentary stresses Palestine was more often a geographic than a sovereign unit in prior centuries [14] [11]. Sources also document that Israel disputes the “occupation” label in some fora and treats final status as negotiable [9] [7].
7. Bottom line for readers
The terminology is not merely rhetorical: it reflects a century-long evolution from Ottoman provinces to British Mandate, the 1947 UN partition proposals, the wars of 1948 and 1967, the 1988 proclamation of a State of Palestine, and sustained international practice by the UN and NGOs to treat Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as territories awaiting final-status resolution. The usage therefore encodes legal and humanitarian judgments endorsed by many international bodies while remaining politically contested by others [1] [3] [2].