Following Palestinian Arab rejection of the UN Partition Plan, the territory remains formally unallocated as per international law and is thus, literally, no man's land. It is de jure "disputed" rather than "occupied".
noted a number of times, the term "West Bank" was coined by Transjordan following its invasion and conquest of the territory in the 1948 war with Israel. This, in an effort to erase a Jewish connection to the land going back three millenia. Reuters glibly adopts the Arab alias for the territory, ignoring Israel's own appellation, "Judea and Samaria". This is a clear violation of the Reuters Handbook of Journalism which states:
And to underscore Reuters pathological bias, note how correspondents Ori Lewis and Tom Perry hypocritically handle history:We must be on alert for language that could imply support for one side of a conflict, sympathy for a point of view, or an ethnocentric vantage point. We should, for example, provide the dual names of disputed territories.
Catch that? Following the war in 1948, the land was "held" by Jordan. Following the war in 1967, the land mystically commuted to "occupied" under Israel.After 1948, the Green Line separated the new state of Israel from the Jordanian-held West Bank and East Jerusalem. Both were captured and occupied by Israel in the Six Day War of 1967, along with the Gaza Strip.
No ethnocentric vantage point there, we're sure.