In their coverage of Palestine-Israel, the media will sometimes say that the West Bank is “disputed,” rather than clarifying that the territory is universally recognized as being under belligerent Israeli military occupation.
For example, on July 20, 2023, CityNews broadcasted a radio segment in several Canadian cities stating, “For the first time, Palestinian-Americans can travel in or out of the disputed West Bank and the Gaza Strip via Israel's Ben Gurion International Airport” (italics added).
This distinction is not only semantic, but significant in meaning. To make this clear, this essay will first discuss the reasons why the West Bank is so universally understood to be under Israeli military occupation. Following that, we will describe why replacing the word “occupied” with “disputed” in this context unnecessarily obfuscates the realities and misleads Canadian audiences.
Why the West Bank is “Occupied”
In our separate essay, “Why the West Bank is ‘Occupied’ and not ‘Captured,’”[1] we detail all the reasons why the West Bank is considered “occupied,” both under international law and diplomatically. These reasons are briefly summarized below:
- Under international law, the West Bank could only be understood as “occupied” territory. The UN Charter prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,”[2] and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has affirmed this interpretation in the context of the West Bank.[3] As such, the territorial seizure of the West Bank is considered temporary under international humanitarian law (e.g. the Fourth Geneva Convention), and such territory would be governed as “occupied” territory.
- All key international legal bodies describe Israel as an occupier of the West Bank. In addition to the ICJ[4] and other legal bodies, even the High Contracting Parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention[5] have unanimously agreed that the West Bank is considered belligerently “occupied” by Israel.
- Canadian foreign policy recognizes Israel’s presence in the West Bank as an “occupation.” Global Affairs Canada explicitly states, “Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the occupied territories and establishes Israel's obligations as an occupying power.”[6]
- Canada’s position on the Israeli “occupation” of the West Bank is echoed by virtually all other members of the international community. Even the United States, despite its recent recognition of Israel’s annexation of the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, continues to describe East Jerusalem and the West Bank as “Israeli-occupied territories.”[7] The EU and other international bodies, likewise, take the same position.[8]
Consult the full essay, “Why the West Bank is ‘Occupied’ and not ‘Captured,’”[9] for a more exhaustive discussion, with citations, of some of these points.
Reasons why describing the West Bank as “disputed” is misleading and disingenuous
There are several reasons why the media should never describe the West Bank only as “disputed.” It is true that Israel and some of its supporters may prefer to consider the West Bank as “disputed.” But Israel is virtually alone in this view, and obviously has a geo-political agenda in describing the West Bank as “disputed.” As such, by adopting Israel’s language on this point, the media inappropriately favour a view which contradicts the facts, the legal consensus, and the diplomatic consensus.
Below are several reasons why the media should not describe the West Bank as “disputed.”
- In international law, there is no legal category of territory described as “disputed.” From a legal perspective, “disputed” is a meaningless term. As described in the section above, there is overwhelming international consensus that since 1967, the West Bank has been under Israeli military occupation. A territory under military occupation is bound by the precepts of the Fourth Geneva Convention. There is no instrument of international law which applies to “disputed” territory since there is no legal meaning to the term.
- “Disputed” suggests that there is disagreement among experts, whereas there is virtually no disagreement on this point. As described above, the legal status of the West Bank as occupied has been confirmed by dozens of UN resolutions,[10] the ICJ,[11] the High Contracting Parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention,[12] human rights organizations,[13] and legal experts the world over. There is virtually unanimous consensus on this point, and it is inappropriate for the media to suggest that there is any uncertainty.
- “Disputed” downplays the official legal and diplomatic designation of the territory, suggesting that it’s simply a matter of opinion. As described above, there is virtually total consensus among legal experts as to the status of the West Bank as “occupied.” Likewise, diplomatically, as described in the section above, there is near total consensus around the same point. As Global Affairs Canada states, “Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over [the West Bank…].” It is not the role of the media to downplay the legal and diplomatic consensus around this point. It is not a matter of opinion, but rather settled international consensus.
- “Disputed” suggests that the two vying parties have equal claim to the territory, when this is not the case. Describing the territory as “disputed” suggests that both Israel and the Palestinians have equivalent claims to the territory – a situation which is not upheld by the facts. In regards to the West Bank, the UN’s 1947 Partition Plan for historic Palestine explicitly designated this territory to become part of the future Palestinian state. The 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria similarly reaffirmed this vision for West Bank territory. Subsequent brokered negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians – e.g. the 1993 Oslo Accords – continued to consistently view the West Bank as territory that would be governed by the Palestinians.
- “Disputed” undermines the Palestinians’ legitimate indigenous claim to the territory. As an indigenous people of Palestine, the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to live in all of historic Palestine.[14] As described in the point above, given the Palestinians’ historic presence in the West Bank specifically, the international community has long aimed to make the West Bank sovereign Palestinian territory. Sadly for the Palestinians, this vision has been stymied by the geo-political interests of others. Nevertheless, it is not the role of the media to downplay the Palestinians’ legitimate indigenous claim to the territory.
- “Disputed” legitimizes Israel’s “might makes right” approach to the territory. As described above, there is overwhelming consensus that the West Bank is Palestinian territory, under temporary Israeli military occupation. To continue to suggest otherwise implicitly normalizes Israel’s belligerence. To this point, in its document, “Use With Care: Glossary of Loaded Language in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,”[15] the International Press Institute states, “There is technically a dispute, in that Israel does not accept these terms, but Palestinians and pro-Palestinians feel that reference to disputed areas legitimises the Israeli government’s control of them.”
Conclusion
Simply put, when the media describes the West Bank as “disputed,” they project a false sense of uncertainty onto a situation where an overwhelming consensus exists. It is true that Israel – with soldiers, checkpoints and military garrisons throughout the West Bank since 1967 – disputes the terminology that the rest of the world uses to describe the West Bank. But adopting Israel’s perspective in this context would be like adopting the perspective of a convict who prefers to be described as an “alleged bank robber” rather than as a “convicted bank robber.” Using terminology which favours a view which is 1) held by a negligible minority, 2) less precise, 3) has no legal relevance, 4) ignores indigenous claims and 5) has no diplomatic support, is simply unprofessional journalism.
Last Updated: 2023-07-24
[1] “Why the West Bank is ‘Occupied’ and not ‘Captured,” Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, accessed July 22, 2023 at https://www.cjpmemap.ca/why_the_west_bank_is_occupied_and_not_captured
[2] “UN Charter” The United Nations. 26 Jun. 1945. Web. 27 Jul. 2016. http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/index.html.
[3] “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” International Court of Justice. 9 Jul. 2004. Web. 27 Jul. 2016. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf.
[4] “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” International Court of Justice. 9 Jul. 2004. Web. 27 Jul. 2016. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf
[5] “Implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territories: history of a multilateral process (1997-2001)” International Committee of the Red Cross. 5 Dec. 2001. Web. 27 Jul. 2016. https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/article/other/5fldpj.htm
[6] “Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”, Government of Canada. Last modified 29 Jan. 2023. https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relations_internationales/mena-moan/israeli-palestinian_policy-politique_israelo-palestinien.aspx?lang=eng.
[7] “Israel” CIA World Factbook. Last updated 26 May 2023. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/israel/
[8] “EU Positions on the Middle East Peace Process.” European External Action Service. Web. 04 Aug. 2016. http://eeas.europa.eu/mepp/about/eu-positions/eu_positions_en.htm.
[9] Ibid., “Why the West Bank is ‘Occupied’ and not ‘Captured.”
[10] “UN Dashboard,” Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, accessed July 22, 2023 at https://www.cjpme.org/un_dashboard
[11] “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” International Court of Justice. 9 Jul. 2004. Web. 27 Jul. 2016. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf
[12] “Implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Palestinian territories: history of a multilateral process (1997-2001)” International Committee of the Red Cross. 5 Dec. 2001. Web. 27 Jul. 2016. https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/article/other/5fldpj.htm
[13] “Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories 2022,” Amnesty International, accessed July 22, 2023 at https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories
[14] Amara, Ahmad and Hawari, Yara, “Using Indigeneity in the Struggle for Palestinian Liberation,” Al-Shabaka, August 8, 2019, accessed July 22, 2023 at https://al-shabaka.org/commentaries/using-indigeneity-in-the-struggle-for-palestinian-liberation/
[15] “Use with Care: A Reporter’s Glossary of Loaded Language in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” International Press Institute, Oct. 23, 2013, p. 13, accessed July 22, 2023 at https://ipi.media/use-with-care-reporters-glossary-of-loaded-language-in-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/