When Jews control disputed land, it's "occupation". When Muslims control someone else's land, they have a "presence" there

In over two-thousand Reuters stories published in just the last couple of years, the news agency refers to Israel's control of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as an "occupation".  This, despite the fact that the territory is officially unallocated to any sovereign and disputed between Jews and Arabs.

By contrast, when Reuters discusses the (internationally recognized as illegal) three-decade occupation of Lebanon by Syria or the (internationally recognized as illegal) nearly four-decade occupation of Cyprus by Turkey, the occupation is referred to merely as a "military presence":

Cyprus has been split since the 1974 invasion in the aftermath of a brief Greek-inspired coup in Nicosia, and Turkey maintains a military presence in the Turkish Cypriot state.

Why the double standard?